The GLBT Debate [Archive] - Unofficial World of Warcraft Forums

Rushster

28-01-2006, 10:37 PM

EDIT - Wednesday 1 February - Poll Added

Now that this thread contains many thought provoking posts looking at the situation from different viewpoints we felt it would be interesting to add a poll to see what the overall consensus is.

The poll is anonymous so feel free to vote as you really feel.

"Are Blizzard right to restrict all recruitment activities of guilds friendly to legal lifestyle choices?"

The GLBT Debate

We've been watching the development of the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender) debate over the past 48 hours on Blizzard's boards, which have predictably turned into a cesspit of abuse towards many 'minority' groups. If you haven't been watching this yourself, the whole situation has arisen after Blizzard issued a warning to a player (Sara Andrews) after they advertised guild recruiting in the game chat for a GLBT friendly guild (Oz). The player was then issued with a warning by Blizzard under their "Harassment - Sexual Orientation" policy. The player was dismayed by the response from Blizzard and probed deeper to clarify the violation.* The story has since been picked up by* <a href="http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=Ga&article_code=1172&PHPSESSID=7bb82d1b0a34fcb872bd3d75a55d2caf">In Newsweekly</a>.Blizzard has posted an interim response to the issues in their forums...<blockquote>Apologies for the length of time it took to get this information out to you. We encourage community building among our players with others of similar interests, and we understand that guilds are one of the primary ways to forge these communities. However, topics related to sensitive real-world subjects -- such as religious, sexual, or political preference, for example -- have had a tendency to result in communication between players that often breaks down into harassment. To promote a positive game environment for everyone and help prevent such harassment from taking place as best we can, we prohibit mention of topics related to sensitive real-world subjects in open chat within the game, and we do our best to take action whenever we see such topics being broadcast. This includes openly advertising a guild friendly to players based on a particular political, sexual, or religious preference, to list a few examples. For guilds that wish to use such topics as part of their recruiting efforts, our Guild Recruitment forum, located at our community Web site, serves as one open avenue for doing so. We will be clarifying some of the language in our game policies in order to help avoid such confusion in the future.</blockquote>Sara has made all correspondence with Blizzard public and you can locate the emails between her and Blizzard <a href="http://www.worldofwar.net/articles/glbt.php">here</a>.This is certainly an interesting predicament if you can see it from both sides. Oz guild are violating no rules by having a guild that welcomes GLBT but they are prohibited from advertising it in-game because "it may incite certain responses in other players that will allow for discussion that we feel has no place in our game.". Much of the harassment and abuse will be in public chat and before you know it you have an atmosphere as appealing as some of Blizzard's forums for everyone within earshot. They don't want that. This term of condition goes some way to protecting those intolerant of "minorities" and in doing so smothers the sense of one-world community by alienating portions of it thorough no fault of their own. It's a terribly sad state of affairs that certain portions of the community have to be gagged (apparently legally) to keep the peace but that's the cold hard fact of our time.If you have views on this issue you can <a href="http://forums.worldofwar.net/showthread.php?threadid=361780">join in the conversation</a> in our forums and please, whatever your opinion keep it mature and civil. Thanks.

Killra

29-01-2006, 12:00 AM

meh i dont see why its such a big deal, maybe she shouldnt have advertised it and i do agree with blizzard to a point, my guild has no problem with my orientation and its openly spoken about so yeah, i think blizzard might have the right idea about to simply cause its bunching minority groups together

Prasius

29-01-2006, 12:10 AM

I think blizzard are right. If someone gets abused of their sexuality its obviously out of order. But to purposefully advertise a GBLT "friendly" (what - is every other guild unfriendly, or is it just they can't be bothered to make it, or don't think it is, an issue??). It could be felt, that because of the nature of the advertising that it would be hetrosexually unfriendly.

I mean, I would expect the same response if I advertised a "Hetrosexual Friendly" Guild - and totally understandably so as well.

I've never been asked by a guildmate if I like Girls or Boys yet.. and I'd be fairly confused if they ever did!! :shocked:

Valas Azuviir

29-01-2006, 12:31 AM

:annoyed:

Oh for the love of Mystra, Blizzard really needs to lay off the cut and paste e-mails and actually read what she is saying. I see enough of this crud at work with the companies that we have to oversee to ensure that they're treating the consumer's properly, when the latter are complaining (9 out of 10 with legitimate reasons btw) about something.

She did not violate the restriction they are quoting (referring to that minority in an insulting fashion), and covering their backsides for their own over-reaction by lowering her suspension to a warning in no way makes up for that. She didn't do the crime, so she shouldn't have to do the time.

In addition, we already hashed through all of this during the time when WoW was still in Alpha, folks were already recruiting for a GLBT-friendly guild, precisely because they feared for the type of abuse that is so common in WoW.

Heck, CoH, has a GLBT-friendly guild, and they do not promote the type of activities that Blizzard is claiming would be the result. Course, WoW is a lot bigger than CoH, but that also means that Blizzard's GMs need to be more on the ball with actual infractions.

The very fact that these folks feel that they need such a guild says enough imo. Blizzard is not enforcing their own rules enough with regards to sexual preference/identity discimination, and for them to turn around and then try to claim that such a guild would create problems.. :banghead:

The problems are already there, to try and put the squeeze on that guild is like trying to close the barn doors, when the horses have already escaped. Too little, too late, and just insulting to boot.

:thumbsdown:

ZaxGreia

29-01-2006, 12:31 AM

I think it's fairly obvious why this hasn't hit as big here as it did on the official forums. We don't care about what your gender, race, religion, or sexual preference is. It's part of learning your place in a larger world.

My personal feelings on your personal situation should have no bearing on how I play the game. Bringing it up only begs for unwanted attention from less mature players - it's a given. Suggesting that other players stifle their opinions so you can express yours is as juvenile as harassing someone because of their life choices in-game.

Now, if it were a group of people making a guild for male gnomes only, or The League of Studly Druids, it might have a place in WoW. The fact that people are attempting to pull our world into theirs and make our social problems social problems in WoW irritates me. I don't want to see this stuff anywhere, let alone in a game I play to get away from life ;)

neckbite

29-01-2006, 12:39 AM

Sara grow up its a game play it have fun jezz

Prasius

29-01-2006, 12:43 AM

Zax.. - exactly.

I haven't seen anything sexually offensive, on my server anyhow. Unless people are really bothered about the "huhu your gay" comments when you mess up (not knowing if your gay or not..).. and if your really hurt by that I've no idea how you cope in the big bad world!

And if people are so worried about being made a target and being abused because of their sexuality - why display it through a "Look at US!" guild; when your sexuality is no-ones business apart from your own.

Anitar

29-01-2006, 12:46 AM

This is a really tuff debate when it comes to 'online' games, on the one side blizzard are correct in not wanted people to create Harassment for other people, but then again i see why people can't use "GLBT friendly" if it isn't any form of harassment towards others.

that fact that sara was promoting to let people know that the OZ guild is "glbt friendly" is a good thing, as although it is only 'just a game' people can still be afraid of being who they are, just because they are worried of what people may think.

I mean, it may be a game, but it doesn't mean people are not ignorant, and from time to time we do need reassurance, that not everyone is a jack-ass.

"Bunny - Aggramar"

SweVoyager

29-01-2006, 01:44 AM

Valas Azuviir

29-01-2006, 02:35 AM

Why drag their sexual preference into it to begin with? I dont even tell people if I'm a girl or a boy, much less which gender I want to sleep with. And I cant help wondering if GLBT friendly means hetereosexual unfriendly... I dont want to be in any kind of guild who wont accept any sort of people, and I'm pretty sure the same goes for most Oz-members (at least I hope so). So why bring it up, if not to provoke someone and then blaming _them_ for narrowmindness? It's utterly insane in my opinion.

If, they're anything like those chaps in CoH, then GLBT friendly means just that, they don't care what your sexual preference is, what your sexual identity is etc. They just want to play and have fun, and that also includes not hassling fellow guildies over these types of things and also watching the language a bit in guild chat.

So not going on about how hot actress X in movie YZ is and what you'd like to do with her, and by that same token talking about how hot actor A in movie BC is and what you'd like to do with them isn't allowed either. Why?? Because you're needlessly making someone else uncomfortable, save that talk for whispers between yourself and whoever you're talking to. (I for one don't want to hear another chap talking about fancying Heith Ledger or Jake Gyllenhaal, and I can fully understand such a chap not wanting to hear me rave about say Kate Beckinsale or Catherine Zeta-Jones. Thus, it's fully acceptable to me anyway, that such conversations are left out of guild chat.)

Person doesn't show up for a raid and gets asked why, and they answer that they had to take the BF to the hospital, due to an accident, and folks know that the player is male. Said person doesn't get hassled over having a BF. By that same token, a chap who drives his GF to the hospital or a gal who drives her BF to the hospital won't get hassled over that.

It's about mutual respect and getting the job done as a guild. I don't see anything wrong with that. The very fact that folks apparently need such a guild says plenty about how well enforced Blizzard's rules are with regards to refering to certain groups in an insulting and negative fashion and/or harrassment.

. Unless people are really bothered about the "huhu your gay" comments when you mess up (not knowing if your gay or not..).. and if your really hurt by that I've no idea how you cope in the big bad world!
.

Well, the definition of gay = bad or inept isn't exactly complimentary to say the least. And, I can fully understand folks getting annoyed with. Regardless of how much worse it is in the big bad world, that type of talk really isn't that much better than the type of behaviour displayed by a bunch of Forsaken players, which lead to said race having their ability to talk common removed in the beta. Or for that matter to referring to other players after defeating them in PvP, either male or female, with a term normally used to describe female dogs, in the age old: I pwn y0u *******. Or however you spell that in script kiddie talk.

It just gets annoying after a while. I find the whole: that's gay bla bla bla, stuff you see in chat annoying, and I'm not even a homosexual or bisexual. So, I can only imagine how annoying it is to them.

Seraphon

29-01-2006, 03:21 AM

Why drag their sexual preference into it to begin with? I dont even tell people if I'm a girl or a boy, much less which gender I want to sleep with.

The answer is that they didn't. It was already there from the start of the game with other people using "gay" and "f*g" as terms of abuse. A day in the Barrens is enough to give anyone an idea of the sort of language that gets used in the game. Black players must feel a similar way, and so must Jewish and Muslim players, even though racial prejudice is a lot less frequent than the anti-gay stuff. At times the General Chat in some zones is a slew of derogatory remarks about homosexuals.

If you read the threads on the official forum (and this is one of the most depressing reads I have seen in my time as a player), you will realize that a significant portion of the playerbase is actively prejudiced against homosexuals. That's not surprising, since a significant portion of the population is as well. The difference in WoW is that it's fairly anonymous, so people are freer to indulge their prejudices than in the real world.

It's depressing, but that is the reality of the situation. In theory, Blizzard is supposed to punish people who make prejudiced comments, but we all know that they simply don't have the staff to deal with the problem. Thus it's up to the players themselves to solve it: and creating and advertising guilds where this sort of behaviour is not tolerated is the easiest and least offensive way of doing it.

And I cant help wondering if GLBT friendly means hetereosexual unfriendly... I dont want to be in any kind of guild who wont accept any sort of people, and I'm pretty sure the same goes for most Oz-members (at least I hope so). So why bring it up, if not to provoke someone and then blaming _them_ for narrowmindness? It's utterly insane in my opinion.

They've made it clear that it absolutely does not mean that. It simply means a guild where active prejudice against homosexuals will result in removal from the guild. It's a guild for gay players who are not prepared to put up with it, and like minded straights (like yours truly) who object to that sort of behaviour.

No reasonable person can say that there is not a need for such guilds given the behaviour of some of the WoW community.

Blizzard's "solution" to this problem is ridiculous and itself prejudiced. According to Caydiem you simply are not allowed to mention "'sensitive subjects" in general chat... at all. That means that gay people are no longer allowed to freely express themselves in general chat in the same way straight players are.

For example: I can sit around in Ironforge and complain about my wife hating WoW and make people laugh. Not everyone in the game talks about their personal life, but a lot of people do and it is a social game and such things are unavoidable. If you read around in the general chat, people mention their families and girlfriends/boyfriends all the time... and no one really cares. However, a gay person does not have the same freedom. If a gay person does exactly the same thing, then they have violated Blizzard's policy, and should expect to be punished.

The end result is basically a Don't Ask Don't Tell policy that discriminates against gays.

Given that we live in a majority heterosexual society, people just assume that everyone else is heterosexual and discussions frequently occur within a heterosexual context in general chat. It's silly to complain that homosexuals are advertising their sexuality by referring to it in general chat, because loads of heterosexuals do exactly the same thing all the time. Either we censor all speech that indicates one's orientation (which is unworkable), or we allow gay people to at least tell each other that they are gay in general chat.

Either its good for gays too, or its good for no-one.

It's no argument against this to say that we would then have to allow all talk of sado masochism and all sorts of other sexual preferences. Those things are sexual practices, not sexual orientations. Heterosexuals are not allowed to talk about their sexual practices either, but they are allowed to talk about their orientation. Gays are allowed neither when they should be allowed the latter. It's also no argument to talk about paedophiles and animal lovers, since those are preferences that can only be satisified by means of illegal activities (and thus fall into the same broad class of banned topics as drug use and other criminal activities).

If you want to know how bad Blizzard's policy is: take the same policy and replace the word "gay" with "black". If the result sounds horribly racist, then the original policy is prejudiced against gays.

So what if Blizzard said: "Many players in World of Warcraft find the issue of race to be sensitive (this is true: there are many racists in WoW). As a result, we are banning all mention of race in general chat channels. We realize that many black players will not be able to openly talk about their race for whatever reason in general chat, but we feel that such actions would cause racist players to harass them, so it is better if black players do not mention that they are black or otherwise cause people to think they are black in public chat channels."

This is called "blaming the victim". It's the same sort of argument as that deployed by people who think women should not go out at night or wear revealing clothes because they might be assaulted. It's treating the victims of harassment the same way as their harassers, when there is an obvious moral difference between them (the victims have done nothing wrong).

The policy should be this:

Players are not allowed to discuss or argue about controversial political or religious issues in general chat. This is not a political game. However, players may identify themselves as members of a race or creed or whatever in other contexts (like if someone asks them out of curiosity). Guilds may not be formed on the basis of political affiliation, religion or sexual orientation, but guild masters are permitted to advertise that their guild will not accept discrimination against certain groups of people (for example: "our guild does not permit blasphemy").

Blizzard's current policy treats the bigots the same as their victims. It's unacceptable, and that is why Blizzard won't be seeing any of my money for a long time.

gueretma

29-01-2006, 03:31 AM

Pig

29-01-2006, 04:30 AM

I must say, I'm surprised and concerned about Blizzard's response to this. I'm concerned for two specific reasons.

First, she is clearly not in violation of the stated policy; having a guild that is GLBT friendly is a positive, safe place for members, some of whom may or may not be GLBT, to socialize comfortably. Advertising in this manner allows any prospective members to consider whether membership in such a guild is to their liking before even joining. What could be more open and up-front than that?

Second, Sara used the term "GLBT friendly." Who in the world would be offended by THAT? It's a fairly obscure reference, certainly unknown to children. (Prospective applicants, if they didn't know what it meant, could ask and find out.) Personally, I find the manner in which Sara advertised for her guild both tasteful and appropriate.

Leave her alone, Blizz. Please.

Elly

29-01-2006, 04:34 AM

Second, Sara used the term "GLBT friendly." Who in the world would be offended by THAT? It's a fairly obscure reference, certainly unknown to children. (Prospective applicants, if they didn't know what it meant, could ask and find out.) Personally, I find the manner in which Sara advertised for her guild both tasteful and appropriate.

I'll confess I wasn't familiar with the abbreviation. I had to ask someone. If I'd seen that in chat I would have thought it was some reference to a build.

Fancy Pants

29-01-2006, 04:51 AM

Seraphon - If that post isnt already on the official forum then i suggest you put it there. Well thought out and argued.

Now im going to read the offcial forum thread just to see how bad it actually gets on there.

Edit: can anyone get a link to the said thread? I cant find it.

Hrungnir

29-01-2006, 05:07 AM

I can see where it would be tough enough to enforce what sort of things are "good" and "bad" relative to any sort of PC issues that it would be better to ban them entirely.

I mean, imagine a "Black Friendly Guild" or a "Guild for White Men." You're just ASKING to start an argument with either of them. Can white men apply, too? Well yeah, sure, we didn't exclude them. Then if you don't care about someone's race why mention it in the first place?

Setting up these support groups for minorities or majorities or whatever only exacerbates the issue. For all that I'm a firm supporter of gay rights (just because they fall under a subset of "human rights") I would never want to join a group advertising on those principles because I DON'T THINK I SHOULD NEED TO CARE.

Make it a non-issue, just don't talk about it. And if someone does (either calling every guy who kills them "gay" or going into waaay too much detail about what they did with their boy/girlfriend last night) I'll tell them to drop it because it's just crass and rude.

The only way to treat someone as an equal is to not make issue of their differences.

PrismaticEcho

29-01-2006, 05:52 AM

- SNIP

WOW! You're good!

To add onto your statement. . . Blizzard has said that they want no mention of controversial subjects such as sexuality in their game. It has been brought to my attention that these things BLATENTLY exist already. . . and it was put there by THEM! For instance, /silly with a male Tauren and he may say, "Homogenized? No way, I like the ladies." Or, type /flirt and you may hear, "Free rides for the ladies!" These are only a couple of the MANY examples of sexuality expressed BY BLIZZARD in their game World of Warcraft. It's ok to mention homosexuality in this jest, but not to advertise that a guild is glbt friendly? Hmmm. . .:ponder:

ArmageddalCake

29-01-2006, 07:21 AM

Well, I got ONE QUESTION:

Can I advertise my new GUILD in IF chat channel? MY advertisement would be the following: "GIRLS OF IRONFORGE, Join my new GUILD, "******" , are you a hot single female? well if so, this guild is for you"

I have to say, I was a bit shocked by this post, as this is really quite different then what was happening with sara. No one was saying "Hey all you homosexual players, let's make an absolutely Fabulous guild!" (I realize I use stereotypes, but it's to prove a point). She was simply saying that Oz is a guild, like Valas Azuviir, is friendly and tolerant to GLBT people, that people won't make a huge deal about having homosexuals in the guild, and visa versa for the heterosexuals in this guild. It wasn't a "Gay only" guild, it was a "GLBT and GLBT friendly guild" I see nothing wrong with that, they're just saying that the atmosphere is polite and un bigoted. In my mind that is no worse then saying "We're a casual guild interested in running higher level instances and having a good time." Just explaining the guild atmosphere. Now, I can understand to a point how Blizz could think that this could cause undue harrasment from players that would not have existed if not for the guild advertising, but it is for this exact reason, that there are bigots like this playing my beloved game, that tolerant guilds like this are needed. Wanting to join a guild where gay and F** aren't used as insults seems perfectly reasonable to me. But maybe I'm just crazy, it's a distinct possibility.
In sum, boo blizzard, go sara, but blizzard, I still love you baby.

Jericho Fade

29-01-2006, 09:25 AM

I would like to take the time to expressly thank Valas Azuviir, Seraphon, Pig, and ArmageddalCake not only for their logical approaches to this problem, but for their knowledgeable and, well, correct treatment of this issue.

If you'll allow me to stereotype for a moment, young white males don't always understand what it's like to be a minority. In my admittedly limited experience (I'm ninteen) this group tends to use highly aggressive racist, homophobic, and ultimately trashy language in anonymous settings. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 for a comical example)

Hopefully one day this sort of stuff won't be a problem. If you excuse me, I'll be over here not holding my breath.

Killra

29-01-2006, 10:20 AM

i dont understand why some of u ARE getting worked up, blizzard is just trying to not make it happen, and if u do get annoyed at general chat turn it off. now b4 u start flaming me i AM GAY and it doesnt bother me infact i have been known to say it, i do avoid saying things in general chat however, as i see it a persons sexual preferance should not matter and creating a guild makes them an easy target. i dont oppose the guild and in fact if there was one i wouldnt join but i would try to get to now the ppl, my guild knows cause we were talking about jobs (i work in a gay nightclub) and as such i didnt hide it from them, if ur guild is flaming u for it leave :sunny:

i dont think this post has come out quite the way i planned but yeah i hope i didnt offend any one and if anyone would like to speak to me, i'm killra on uldman :wave: so feel free to drop us a line

Prasius

29-01-2006, 11:49 AM

Okay then - to approach gueretmas point slightly differently (I believe)

"Hi, we're a hetrosexual friendly guild............"

Which I would imagine many here would rush off to report as homophobic - when, to use your argument, it obviously isn't its just explaining the atmosphere of the Guild...

If someone would be offended by that, then why shouldn't I feel marginalised and offended by "GBLT friendly guild". I'm not, but thats besides the point for blizzard.

What happens from there? Someone thinks, oooh, I want a Black friendly guild, or I want an Asian friendly guild... which leads to I want I white friendly guild (well, this could come first.. I mean why not??) - which would almost instantly get reported for being racist (even though its just explaining the atmosphere of the guild! they can talk about Morris Dancing or something... :wink: ) [oooh.. racist stereotype... burn me!!].

Its a slippery slope, and Blizzard is right not getting on it.

If someone says something you don't like, Ignore them. if your guild is full of people who are insensitive to your feelings, Leave.

Bottom line is, if one group is allowed to advertise on the basis of a trait (can't think of a better word at the moment!) of their OOC members, then ALL groups are allowed to advertise on that basis. Including those who use words such as "straight" and "white". Of course, on Euro servers you could argue that already happens but I would suggest its a language thing, and I'd give them the benifit of the doubt.

5zigen

29-01-2006, 11:57 AM

Suicidal Zebra

29-01-2006, 12:16 PM

I wouldn't have so much of a problem with this if Blizzard enforced their policy in an even-handed manner. Unfortunately however rarely have I seen them do anything about the sort of abuse you hear in Barrens Chat (or now City chat on my server) that can include racial and sexual slurs. Sure, its their game, if they really want to go around suspending people for mentioning sexual orientation or sex in general then fine. However the selective enforcement of the ToU exhibited in this case is pretty sickening.

I must admit though, I am saddened that sexual orientation is a factor in this game. I play it for pure escapism, not to continue the debates that I see and have every week in the 'real world'.

MasterDinadan

29-01-2006, 02:11 PM

I oppose Blizzard's policy on this incedent, but I don't agree with Sara either.
It is their server and they are allowed to moderate the chat on that server however they see fit. Seeing as how the offender was not suspended and only warned, no harm was done to her and she is now aware that what she did is not condoned by Blizzard.
Blizzard is telling her she can't do something... What's the big deal? Blizzard tells everyone they can't do a lot of things ever time they pop up that big EULA and nobody really cares.

If any action her taken against the offender, then it would be a problem because she received no warning, but now she has been warned and there is nothing wrong with Blizzard warning people.

Now like I said, I don't agree with the policy. I'm gay so of course I have nothing against GLBT. However, I don't think it's our place to tell Blizzard what WE should be allowed to do on THEIR servers. By playing on the server we are agreeing to follow their policy and recognizging that the policy can change at any time. The policy did not say that advertising a guild by using GLBT was not allowed, but now they are changing that policy, and there's nothing wrong with them changing it.

Hager

29-01-2006, 04:35 PM

I just want to direct you all to another forum thread:

http://www.forumplanet.com/gamespy/topic.asp?fid=1422&tid=1832156&p=19

Sara Andrews is PrismaticEcho here...

Just read it.

I'm in agreement with most of the people here. It was unfair of Blizzard to not allow this kind of guild advertisement. But, at the same time, after reading this thread, i've came to the conclusion that Sara Andrews is doing nothing more than making a mountain out of a molehill. She got a warning for advertising. Most people would think "fair enough" and move on. But she didn't. Instead shes seen it as a "great injustice" to the gay community, and decided to be a complete media and attention seeker.

The sad fact is, it's Blizzard game. Blizzards servers are not public space. It's their world and their rules. At the same time, no-one else is allowed to advertise for guilds based around ANY form of sexuality, no matter whether it's friendly towards a certain aspect of sexuality or whatever. The point I think Blizzard were trying to make is that if someone of a discriminatory nature does latch onto it, it would open up more harassment, than simply advertising for a guild that requires a mature frendly mindest from it's members.

The point i'm trying to make is that just because Sara Andrews is gay/whatever, doesn't mean that she should have more rights than a straight person. Which is, unfortunately, what this is a case of. Straight people are not allowed to advertise for a "Pussy eating" friendly guild. It's an extreme example I know, but exactly the same thing. The terminology is not the issue here, it's the manner of sexual advertisement for a guild. Even if it is friendly.

And the sad fact is that in the above link, shes demonstrated no more than that shes on some sort of crusade for gay rights. She compares herself to Rosa Parks at one point. She also talks about this whole issue as a "battle" and "war". It's pretty obvious that this whole thing is either a huge media advertisement for the extreme gay rights community, or that she is completely and utterly deluded, and as I said making a mountain out of a molehill.

Valas Azuviir

29-01-2006, 04:38 PM

is just trying to not make it happen,

It's already happening, closing the barndoor after the horses have escaped and all that jazz. :wink:

and if u do get annoyed at general chat turn it off.

Normally, I would, but then some newbies do post questions there. And more often than not, I'm the only one around providing them with the information they need, as opposed to misinformation or just plain abuse. Talking from a Horde pov, questing in the Barrens.

So, I have to sift through the dreck to try and get to the diamonds in the rough. I could of course leave, but what's going to happen to those newbies then.. :sad:

if ur guild is flaming u for it leave :sunny;

They do.. Just makes them gunshy about joining a new guild and possibly getting the same type of treatment.. First one of the boys, then once word gets out, a diseased pariah.

If any action her taken against the offender, then it would be a problem because she received no warning, but now she has been warned and there is nothing wrong with Blizzard warning people.

She initially got a suspension, I think the three hour type, she started delving into the matter, considering it a case of mistaken understanding, and she ended up getting it reduced to a warning, after someone finally realized that Blizzard was in the wrong, course getting them to admit it is another hurdle.

And there is nothing wrong with them changing the rules on their servers, but that's done ahead of time on the forums, like for instance the banning of rooftop sniping in neutral cities. Or the grieving Lord Kazzak rulings. That was definitely not the case here, there was an internal shift in the reading of the policy and only after someone raised a stink did it become known.

That to me anyway is unfair and unjust.

Okay then - to approach gueretmas point slightly differently (I believe)

"Hi, we're a hetrosexual friendly guild............"

Which I would imagine many here would rush off to report as homophobic - when, to use your argument, it obviously isn't its just explaining the atmosphere of the Guild...

If someone would be offended by that, then why shouldn't I feel marginalised and offended by "GBLT friendly guild". I'm not, but thats besides the point for blizzard.

The difference being, the vast majority of the guilds are already heterosexual friendly, because they were founded by and are crewed by heterosexuals.

Heck, there are already guilds who are female friendly with members playing female toons, regardless if they're male or female (the males in the guild are usually hubby or bf to one of the ladies in question). Why?? Because they get tired of the disparaging remarks constantly being made against female gamers. It's the very reason, why a lot of female MMORPG players only play male toons, so that they enjoy the game in some relative peace.

And I can fully understand the pov by the GLBT folks that they'd prefer to have a guild for their own. Heck, joining a new regular raiding guild, getting to know everyone, working well with them, getting compliments for your playing style, only to mention (and it only coming up, because you're letting them know you can't be on an upcoming raid) you have a same-sex partner and suddenly getting treated as if you're a leper. That hurts. A GLBT guild lets you avoid that type of hurting, straight from the bat.

The whole racial comparison angle doesn't fully fly, because race gets mentioned far less in game and it doesn't tend to lead to the same type of abuse, or at least in far less cases. You don't see Barrens chat filled with references to the N. word or with not so pleasant swear words referring to Asians. You do see that towards the GLBT crowd. Thus apples and oranges.

At the end of the day, it's Blizzard's responsibility to patrol their own servers, if they'd acted in time and with enough force, than guilds like Oz, would not even be necessary. To now turn around and try and paint a guild like Oz as the cause of the problem.. :censored: :grrrr:

cyradis2003

29-01-2006, 04:54 PM

So we can expect a general crackdown on Barrens chat right?

Blizzard only seems to make an issue of sexual orientation when it is brought up in a non bashing way. I can't even count how many times I see people called "gay, queer, faggot" in general chat across the zones. I used to report them but as nothing was ever done I just started slapping those people on ignore instead.

There have been other cases of Bliz suspending people for non bashing comments as well. On Eonar there was a well known gay player alliance side that was temp banned for a while over a comment in IF. Someone in chat made a stupid comment and another player said "What are you gay??" (which I think is a fairly negative comment) the well known player was not involved in the exchange but as a joke typed "*Raises hand*" Who in this scenario should have rec'd a warning and who ACTUALLY rec'd a warning?

I think Blizzard themselves are the ones promoting intollerance. Evidenced by the fact that they do nothing to police the negative comments but will slap down anyone that tries to make a comfortable atmosphere for gay people or that makes a witty non hate-filled response about homosexuality.

PrismaticEcho

29-01-2006, 05:11 PM

I'm in agreement with most of the people here. It was unfair of Blizzard to not allow this kind of guild advertisement. But, at the same time, after reading this thread, i've came to the conclusion that Sara Andrews is doing nothing more than making a mountain out of a molehill. She got a warning for advertising. Most people would think "fair enough" and move on. But she didn't. Instead shes seen it as a "great injustice" to the gay community, and decided to be a complete media and attention seeker.

--SNIP--

I most certainly did not think "fair enough" and move on. . . because it wasn't fair. It was level 1 of their punishment volcano thingy, when NO rule was broken. That said. . .

If you think, for one second, that I'm ashamed of that thread, then you're sadly mistaken. I stand by everything I said there. I never ONCE equated myself to Rosa Parks. I DID, however, compare the reasons for people telling me to "just sit down and shut up" to the reasons that the people on the bus told HER to "just sit down and shut up". BIG difference! Furthermore, I even made a post, after people COMPLETELY misconstrued what I said, to explain myself further.

And of course I ran to the media with this issue! After a NUMBER of failed attempts at getting contact info for the the GMs' superiors, the only thing left was to get the story out to as many people as possible in hopes that someone at a higher level at Blizzard would see what kinds of things their GMs are trying to pull. . . and it worked. Be angry about it all you want, but the fact remains that what they did was HIGHLY controversial. . . the media sees it, lawyers see it. . . this isn't as trivial as you would like to believe. It's a VERY important matter to a large percent of the population. The simple fact that you're going to such great lengths to speak against me tells how important this issue is to YOU alone, yet you attempt to trivialize it. . . hmmm. . .:ponder:

Hunter Noventa

29-01-2006, 05:47 PM

I have to say that Blizzard does have a point in that the advertisment is likely to draw out harassment from the more immature members of the game. This does not however make them right.

You see, if the GMs actually did their jobs and got rid of some of the people who would do that sort of thing, by you know, actually acting on the reports sent in by other players, this wouldn't even be an issue in the first place.

But, I have to say, if I were to make a guild, I certainly would not advertise that aspect in chat, I would make it one of the rules on the site or wherever you want to keep that sort of thing, simply because if someone isn't going to take the time to go read a site, you wouldn't want them in your guild in the first place for reasons beyond intolerance.

marniuscalgar

29-01-2006, 05:55 PM

There are a lot of well thought out posts on these forums, not compared to the drivel on the official forums. I agree with most of what was said here, but I can't help but wonder why Blizzard deemed it necessary to give someone a suspension(then backpedal by downgrading it to a warning) for using "GLBT" in general chat, while channels are consistently being flooded with anti-Asian remarks. The term "Chinese Farmer" offends me way more than "GBLT" does, and I'm not even of Asian descent! I've been playing the game since November now and I find the majority of the WoW community to be very vulgar, rude, ignorant, and generally unfriendly. As I've said before I am surprised at the well though out feedback on this issue posted here. I will start viewing these forums a lot more.

Herald of Doom

29-01-2006, 06:03 PM

And of course I ran to the media with this issue! After a NUMBER of failed attempts at getting contact info for the the GMs' superiors, the only thing left was to get the story out to as many people as possible in hopes that someone at a higher level at Blizzard would see what kinds of things their GMs are trying to pull. . . and it worked. Be angry about it all you want, but the fact remains that what they did was HIGHLY controversial. . . the media sees it, lawyers see it. . . this isn't as trivial as you would like to believe. It's a VERY important matter to a large percent of the population. The simple fact that you're going to such great lengths to speak against me tells how important this issue is to YOU alone, yet you attempt to trivialize it. . . hmmm. . .:ponder:
I can't wait until you're going to sue over it :rolleyes:

"Heck, there are already guilds who are female friendly with members playing female toons, regardless if they're male or female (the males in the guild are usually hubby or bf to one of the ladies in question). Why?? Because they get tired of the disparaging remarks constantly being made against female gamers. It's the very reason, why a lot of female MMORPG players only play male toons, so that they enjoy the game in some relative peace."
Haha? INGAME female characters and not IRL people are a criterium. Wether you're gay or not out in the real world should not be used to distinguis guilds. race or gender or wealth or ANYTHING you are/have irl got nothing to do with WoW and thus should not be used in recruitmen messages.

HoD

Hager

29-01-2006, 06:59 PM

PrismaticEcho, i'm of the mind that it is an important issue, and that something does need to be done about harassment and discrimination in game.

A few terms i've heard which are unacceptable is "Chinese farmer", referring to anything as gay in a negative context, and any sort of biased and sexual remarks. I simply think that all of these things have no place in game.

Blizzard really do start to need cracking down on all forms of harassment and bigotry in game. I just think you went about it the wrong way. Please dont turn this into a "gay rights" in game topic. Instead use it as an example of blizzards two faced attitude. I run my own guild, and we're friendly to anyone. I'll kick out (and also report them) anyone who uses any form of bigotry or harassment. And unfortunately i've had to do it a few times.

I honestly think that this is a massive symptom of online gaming in particular. But, where you get any form of 13-16 year old males gathering in large numbers, you are going to get it, at least until societys attitude changes.

Even using Rosa Parks as an analogy for an online game was simply not acceptable, and I did notice that you made an apology for that.

At the end of the day, if you want to do something about it, you need to have a less inflammatory attitude, and consider opposing viewpoints. Just browsing through that topic shows that you are all too eager to dismiss opposing arguments in favour of your own, and then belittle people who make opposing viewpoints. Maybe you are taking this all a bit too far, and by doing that you are risking alienating non gay people from your cause. All a lot of straight players will do is look at this and think "LOl. Some fag is kicking up a fuss over a fag guild". I don't think that way, far from it. But its just the way you've presented yourself as a gay rights crusader which is doing this.

Regardless of whether or not you agree, sexuality shouldn't be the issue here. Nor should the fact that Blizzard have stopped you from advertising for a GLBT friendly guild. It should be the fact that blizzard are being two faced. They need moderators in general chat. They need to moderate the game a lot more throughly. Or at least create seperate chat channels. Maybe a moderated one, which everyone is automatically "subscribed" to in game (much general chat now) and an unmoderated one which you can join if you so wish, but is clearly stated as an unmoderated channel.

But we all seem to be forgetting the major point. It is only a game at the end of the day, and it is Blizzards world, legally. They do make the point that anything in the EULA is at Blizzards discretion, and that they can do whatever they like, more or less. Unfortunately, thats true.

Just one more thing, I dont think that many people actually do care about this issue. You can see on the way various forum topics are going against you. The one on forumplanet has 280 replies, and out of that, theres about 1 maybe 2 people who initially agreed with you, and even now, you turned them away. The official forums have turned into what topics up there usually then into, ceaseless flaming, and mostly people who really dont give a ****. It is nowhere near as important to the rest of the population as it is to you.

As someone on that forumplanet post pointed out, if you do this, you're going to be known as the guild that got rights no-one else has. You are going to get harassed over that in game. And if you don't continue playing, then you simply stand no chance of winning. Mainly because people will just ask "why are you complaining if you dont want to play?"

edders

29-01-2006, 07:03 PM

As with many of the people in this forum, I can understand why Blizzard did what they did, as quite rightly the mention of anything GLBT friendly generally incites someone stupid to start saying something. However, I also believe that no rule was violated here, and from what Blizzard are saying we should all start reporting half the posts in SW/UC/barrens etc.

The most interesting question in my opinion is, whilst we know what sara posted, and blizzard saying they wish to avoid inciting aggressive behaviour with regards to such things, do we know if anyone actually did post anything about it in main chat? Aside from whoever reported her for the post, did anyone start swearing and such about gay people after sara's post? If no-one did, then it would appear Blizzard have caused the problem in this case by making the issue in the first place.

Protection from discrimination shouldn't be achieved by censorship, yes it might mean more work for Blizzard's GMs but if something like this could be stopped in the gaming world, maybe it would translate in the real world. To all those who say sara has no place bringing sexuality into the game, the game is purely a reflection of society. The game still has its idiots, its con artists, its good samaritans, and hence it still has people yelling 'you're gay' round the halls of IF. Blizzard should focus on them rather than people who are trying to make the world (game or real) a bit more comfortable.

Steerpike

29-01-2006, 07:18 PM

This is incredibly discriminatory towards the entirere LBGT community. It's a classic example of punishing the persecuted by taking away their rights... It's the same idea as a city with a high incedence of rape prohibiting girls from going out at night... why punish the victims?

the facade of protection is ridiculous...

This is exactly the point, racist, sexist and homophobic abuse are specifically banned by the EULA, forming a GBLT friendly guild is not. If Blizzard enforced their own rules, there might not be a need for GBLT friendly guilds.

M@D_3D

29-01-2006, 07:28 PM

I don’t think that people are able to see the hypocrisy in advertising a guild as GLBT friendly. The basic premise of the ideology of “tolerance” is the concept of equality, which naturally suggests an even distribution of all the various political, religious, and sexual groups throughout the one collective body of people. This even distribution is necessary for the concept of one unified nation that “tolerates” the individual differences of its now diluted aforementioned groups; in other words, multiculturalism.

Granted, by advertising your guild as GLBT friendly does not in any way suggest that you are unfriendly, let alone hostile, to any other sexual group. Yet, the existence of such an advertisement will naturally attract members of the said group, as well as others with a high degree of “tolerance” – you cannot deny that you saw this as a necessary outcome when you advertised your guild in this way. The result of such activity is, inevitably, segregation. By separating a group of people from the general population you are going against the ideology that you are trying to uphold. I will go as far as suggesting that your desire to be part of a unified society through separating yourself and other people, who share your perspective, from the whole, is in fact natural. Nevertheless, this desire and action is hypocritical to the ideology of global tolerance and equality that you still attempt to cling to, if only verbally and emotionally.

Having said this, I must also say that I am myself a member of a guild that is friendly to members of different political, sexual, and religious beliefs (or lack of beliefs, in the case of the latter). However, we do not recruit through singling out the members of aforementioned groups and provoking their segregation. Our guild is never advertised as a shelter for the minorities, but instead follows the policy of tolerance that leads to a relatively unified guild population, despite being comprised of different groups of people. This is the most reasonable way to achieve multicultural goals.

To clarify, I’m a white heterosexual male of 18 and a Catholic; I am myself a member of an “invisible” minority based on country of origin; member of the former Worldofwar.net guild, (current name awaiting selection). My personal beliefs and convictions do not represent the official stance of my guild except in a few statements above that relate directly to it.

Valas Azuviir

29-01-2006, 07:44 PM

"Heck, there are already guilds who are female friendly with members playing female toons, regardless if they're male or female (the males in the guild are usually hubby or bf to one of the ladies in question). Why?? Because they get tired of the disparaging remarks constantly being made against female gamers. It's the very reason, why a lot of female MMORPG players only play male toons, so that they enjoy the game in some relative peace."

Haha? INGAME female characters and not IRL people are a criterium. Wether you're gay or not out in the real world should not be used to distinguis guilds. race or gender or wealth or ANYTHING you are/have irl got nothing to do with WoW and thus should not be used in recruitmen messages.

HoD

I was apparently not clear enough in what I originally said. Said guilds are female friendly, meaning no harrassment of the female members allowed (and that doesn't mean it's ok to bug the male members either, just that the guild was founded as a place for female MMORPG players where they can game without being hassled), and in order to further strengthen the underlying bonds and to further prove their point, they agreed that all the members of said guild would play a female toon to boot. I dare say that the vast majority of the males in such guilds are either the husbands or the boyfriends of female members of the guild, and that they too grow weary of having to slap someone down for messing with their Significant Others.

So the criteria is real life people, especially those who are tired of being asked for lapdances, or asked if they wanna cyber etc etc etc.

One of my lady friends is one of those female MMORPG players who sticks to male toons, precisely because she's tired of being hit upon, asked for cyber etc. Needless to say, that I'm not exactly all that thrilled with the concept of her not being able to play whatever she wants because a bunch of hormone crazed simpletons cannot control themselves. :grrrr:

Just one more thing, I dont think that many people actually do care about this issue. You can see on the way various forum topics are going against you. The one on forumplanet has 280 replies, and out of that, theres about 1 maybe 2 people who initially agreed with you, and even now, you turned them away. The official forums have turned into what topics up there usually then into, ceaseless flaming, and mostly people who really dont give a ****. It is nowhere near as important to the rest of the population as it is to you.

Side note, I'd rank most of the posters on the gamespy forums as just one or two steps above those of the official forums, and that's a couple of light years removed from the crowd we have here, or over on warcry or warcraftstrategy. So, I'm not sure how important their views should be valued, considering a number of them are part of the problem in the first place.

Steerpike

29-01-2006, 07:48 PM

To clarify, I’m a white heterosexual male of 18 and a Catholic;

Well, Catholics have their own churches, social clubs, youth organisations and schools. Does that constitute segregation too? The fact remains that people will congregate where they feel comfortable, particularly to enjoy social things, that's why we have this forum, someone who doesn't want to play WoW probably wouldn't come here. Segregation is not people choosing who they mix with, it's someone else imposing restictions on who they can mix with.

Seraphon

29-01-2006, 07:58 PM

Okay then - to approach gueretmas point slightly differently (I believe)

"Hi, we're a hetrosexual friendly guild............"

There's an important difference here: the context.

Is there massive prejudice against heterosexuals in World of Warcraft? Of course not. Is there massive prejudice against white people in World of Warcraft? Absolutely not.

People would naturally think that a "heterosexual friendly" guild was there for some sort of bigoted reason, and it's hard to see why they would be wrong, since the whole game is "heterosexual friendly".

Because some groups are actively discriminated against in the game, it is appropriate to advertise a "Jewish friendly" or "Gay Friendly" guild. If your group X is not actively discriminated against, then there doesn't seem to be a reason for having an X friendly guild that is not aimed at making fun of minorities or some sort of "X Power" motivation.

Metatron

29-01-2006, 07:59 PM

I was in Undercity yesterday getting ready to log off. Suddenly I get a whisper asking if I'm up for Uldaman. Explain that unfortunately I have to log off soon and won't be able to make it. Come on!!!! Is the reply. Explain that I'm going to a party and expect to get so inebriated that I will be unable to remember my own name. Other person then replies I'm a Christian so I have never known the joys of alcohol.

I stared at that whisper for a while in disbelief. Why the hell do I care if he's sober christian or not? As long as he can pull weight in a group and get the job the done properly I really do not care about that persons life story. I play wow because it's a game that it is fun. Not to go on some mass debate / crusade promoting my political / sexual orententaion / life issues. I just wanna have fun. Excuse my French but there is already enough PC bs in the newspapers as it is and I do my best to avoid that nonsense. Start bringing your own baggage into the game and you will be asking for trouble.

Keep it civil. Keep it fun.

PrismaticEcho

29-01-2006, 08:05 PM

* Hagar, the reason this is being turned into something of a sexuality issue is because that's what started the issue to begin with. Had it been a racist thing, then this would have blown up into a racist issue. This is how the media works. I was once in a party where these people were saying some of the most racist comments. . . and even said something negative about Canadians. One of my guildies was also in the group and he whispered to me, "Now I know how you feel every time someone uses gay negatively. . . I'm Canadian." However, that's simply not the case. The issue started with a GM issuing a punishment for something I CLEARLY did not do. Why? I can only assume that the particular GM has something against glbt friendly guilds, and twisted the policy which he used against me to fit his needs. The issue started because of an injustice against a glbt friendly organization, and therefore has been made a glbt issue. Simply put. It is what it is. It's NOT downplaying other issues at all, so I really don't understand what your problem is. . . ?

* I never apologized for my Rosa Parks statement because I don't believe that it was unacceptable. I did, however, go into more detail about my statement since people were taking it COMPLETELY out of context.

* As for my inflammatory attitude. . . that's one thing that I probably could've handled better on that forum, however that went both ways. I was being attacked left and right, and popped into defense mode. That was mostly between me and one or two other people anyway (neither of which, by the way, had anything intelligent to say in reply to my arguments so they just began bashing me).

* Finally, as I said before (the "battle"/"war" statement that you were referring to in order to try and discredit me actually). . . this goes WAY beyond just the game. We're now dealing with a REAL WORLD issue, brought on by a REAL person who works FOR the game. If you can't see that, I really don't know how to explain it any better than the metaphor I used on the other forum. This is a small battle in hopes of winning a bigger war. . . the war against discrimination. How was that blown out of proportion? Some guy took the words "war" and "battle" literally and tried to make me look crazy. :rolleyes:

Seraphon

29-01-2006, 08:07 PM

Steerpike

29-01-2006, 08:09 PM

Other person then replies I'm a Christian so I have never known the joys of alcohol.

You should have told him that Jesus turned the water into wine, not the other way round :smiley: .

One thing that people appear to be missing though is that Blizzard allow Christian guilds to recruit and advertise. In the EU version they allow language based groups, so the precedent that some people can bring their out of game lives into the game has already been set, it appears that the exception is being made here for political reasons.

M@D_3D

29-01-2006, 08:44 PM

Well, Catholics have their own churches, social clubs, youth organisations and schools. Does that constitute segregation too? The fact remains that people will congregate where they feel comfortable, particularly to enjoy social things, that's why we have this forum, someone who doesn't want to play WoW probably wouldn't come here. Segregation is not people choosing who they mix with, it's someone else imposing restictions on who they can mix with.
Leisure is not the only field of activity where people may choose to congregate (congregation based on political, ethnic, etc. beliefs). It is such a broad trend that it could easily be called natural. Such an assumption, in turn, discredits the whole multicultural ideology, rendering it as utopian and unnatural. Congregation is, however, a form of nationalism, or rather, "culturalism", since nationality is not the only issue that separates the population. I do not condemn Sara's and others' choice to congregate as wrong, but only hypoctritical, since they believe they fight for equality, while in reality they support "culturalism" with their words and actions.

I admit, however, I was a little too loose in my use of the word "segregation", thank you for correcting me.

Seraphon

29-01-2006, 09:12 PM

WOW! You're good!

To add onto your statement. . . Blizzard has said that they want no mention of controversial subjects such as sexuality in their game. It has been brought to my attention that these things BLATENTLY exist already. . . and it was put there by THEM! For instance, /silly with a male Tauren and he may say, "Homogenized? No way, I like the ladies." Or, type /flirt and you may hear, "Free rides for the ladies!" These are only a couple of the MANY examples of sexuality expressed BY BLIZZARD in their game World of Warcraft. It's ok to mention homosexuality in this jest, but not to advertise that a guild is glbt friendly? Hmmm. . .:ponder:

Thanks... it's my job to teach people about this sort of stuff (among other things).

Again, I'd like to point out how fundamentally flawed Blizzard's current policy is, and not just with respect to homosexual players, but with respect to all players who are members of minorities that are subject to harassment.

No one is suggesting that WoW become a forum for political or relgious debate. Yet, like in any community people have different political and religious views, and have different sexual orientations. Some of these are things that a substantial proportion of the rest of the population is actively prejudiced against.

Silencing only these people from doing what everyone else does is unjust. I can express my admiration for Angelina Jolie in general chat and that is bringing my sexual orientation into the game. I can complain about my wife's hatred of WoW and that is also bringing my sexual orientation into the game. Heterosexual players bring their orientation into the game all the time in this way. It's unavoidable, unless you banned absolutely all references to sexuality in the game (which would require retooling NPCs as well), and in any case it would be unenforcable.

But as it stands, gay players are not allowed to reveal their orientation in general chat because it might cause harassment. So what? The harassers are at fault and not the gays in that situation. Again, it's like blaming black people for the abuse that racists hurl at them.

In every case where there is a significant amount of prejudice against a group of people, there is a need for people to be able to form guilds that prohibit such prejudice. It's not that such people want to segregate themselves from the community at large, because if there were no prejudice against them, they would have no reason to form such guilds.

This is what is wrong headed about the idea of "white friendly" guilds. There just isn't a mass of prejudice against white people in the WoW community, because a majority of the players are white. Similarly, most of the community is heterosexual, so there is simply no need for a "hetero-friendly" guild. The game, like the world, is hetero friendly by default.

Banning religious-friendly guilds is also similarly wrong headed. Although it isn't as bad as what the homosexuals have to put up with, there is a great deal in the game that staunchly religious people don't want to put up with. In the same way that it is impossible for homosexuals to separate themselves from their orientation, it is impossible for many religious people to separate themselves from their religious beliefs. Whatever we might think of that, it is simply a fact.

Let's say for the sake of argument that I am a deeply committed Christian. When I play WoW, there are all sorts of people who will mock me for my beliefs and swear, and make blasphemous comments and dirty jokes and do other things that I find deeply offensive. Like any person, my enjoyment of the game will be enhanced by finding a guild that has similar standards of behaviour. But now I am not even allowed to mention this in general chat: I have to go to a web forum that most players have never even looked at and which most players are not even aware of the existence of.

That's ridiculous. My own and everyone else's who disagrees with me's game experience would be enhanced if we could each be in guilds where certain things were not done. I would want to advertise this way: "X is a new guild looking to raid [..] we are a guild composed of mainly Christian players and do not tolerate blasphemy or swearing."

Now I wouldn't want to join that guild, but I can imagine a fair few Christian players who are sick of people dissing their religion all the time and who would like to group with like minded folks, who would jump at the chance of joining such a guild, and more power to them. What on earth are guilds for if not to provide an association of like minded players with whom you can enjoy the game?

M@D_3D

29-01-2006, 09:35 PM

Now I wouldn't want to join that guild, but I can imagine a fair few Christian players who are sick of people dissing their religion all the time and who would like to group with like minded folks, who would jump at the chance of joining such a guild, and more power to them. What on earth are guilds for if not to provide an association of like minded players with whom you can enjoy the game?
It is also important to understand that forming or becoming a part of such a guild will not stop the strife between the players of opposing views. If anything, a person will be drawing a huge bull's eye on him/herself and become open to a more direct abuse. This is a sacrifice, however, that people are willing to make for belonging to a group of like-minded individuals. Such an act of congregation, therefore, does not eliminate the problem but stands up against it. As noble as this seems, this act also elevates the issue from the state of a personal offence to a matter of cultural significance. It is not too long before the argument reaches epic proportions. That is what Bizzard is trying to prevent - the game immitating the real world through its epic cultural struggles that are not part of the game lore, but our lore.

And although their attempts do prove futile now and then due to the fallacy of the desire to quench the cultural struggle through silencing the opponents, I commend their attempt to keep the game pure enough for the leisure purposes of simple people who seek to escape the issues of the real world.

SweVoyager

29-01-2006, 10:18 PM

I just want to direct you all to another forum thread:

http://www.forumplanet.com/gamespy/topic.asp?fid=1422&tid=1832156&p=19

Sara Andrews is PrismaticEcho here...

And the sad fact is that in the above link, shes demonstrated no more than that shes on some sort of crusade for gay rights. She compares herself to Rosa Parks at one point. She also talks about this whole issue as a "battle" and "war". It's pretty obvious that this whole thing is either a huge media advertisement for the extreme gay rights community, or that she is completely and utterly deluded, and as I said making a mountain out of a molehill.

I think she's on a power trip, and wants to be famous. Well, lets give her her 15 seconds and move on, it's a nonissue. The _only_ thing thats not allowed is advertising a guild thats based on politics, sexual or national(*) values in General Chat. It's open for her, and all other guilds that have these kinds (all three) of values to advertise on the guild rectruitment forums. Not just ingame in General Chat (or yell).

Whats the big deal? It's not allowed to use "gay" or "fag" in General (at least not on EU english servers) in a derogatory way either. I know of at least 5 people on Shadowsong who has been temporarily banned for that, as a warning.

(*) That said, it rarely goes a day without me seeing a danish or swedish guild looking for members in GC.

Valas Azuviir

29-01-2006, 10:57 PM

Whats the big deal? It's not allowed to use "gay" or "fag" in General (at least not on EU english servers) in a derogatory way either. I know of at least 5 people on Shadowsong who has been temporarily banned for that, as a warning.
.

It's not allowed on the US servers either, unfortunately, said rules are not being enforced, at least not to the degree that they should be. Hence, the infamous reputation of Barrens chat, across all the servers.

And hence, unfortunately, the need for such a guild. I suspect that she too would prefer that it wouldn't be necessary, unfortunately, it is, due to Blizzard not doing enough about those causing the actual problems.

Her guild is just a symptom. Sure, you can fight the symptoms, but that doesn't make the disease go away, and the disease = bigotry.

Oh and M@D_3D, I understand where you are coming from. Unfortunately, considering Blizzard isn't doing enough to ensure that a GLBT guild isn't even needed.. Well.. I'm not sure how much you can blame these folks. You get hassled enough times, and you'll be looking for a refuge from it.

Plus, if your guild is big enough.. And folks keep being a pain.. Well.. It's like on the PvP servers. There's safety in numbers and having several level 60s in tier 2 gear looking out for you, tends to pursuede the less nice folks that it would be more prudent to go elsewhere.

uhdead

29-01-2006, 11:02 PM

sigh, to be a WOW player is to put up with a lot of drama.

SweVoyager

29-01-2006, 11:16 PM

It's not allowed on the US servers either, unfortunately, said rules are not being enforced, at least not to the degree that they should be. Hence, the infamous reputation of Barrens chat, across all the servers.

And hence, unfortunately, the need for such a guild. I suspect that she too would prefer that it wouldn't be necessary, unfortunately, it is, due to Blizzard not doing enough about those causing the actual problems.

Her guild is just a symptom. Sure, you can fight the symptoms, but that doesn't make the disease go away, and the disease = bigotry.

Oh and M@D_3D, I understand where you are coming from. Unfortunately, considering Blizzard isn't doing enough to ensure that a GLBT guild isn't even needed.. Well.. I'm not sure how much you can blame these folks. You get hassled enough times, and you'll be looking for a refuge from it.

Plus, if your guild is big enough.. And folks keep being a pain.. Well.. It's like on the PvP servers. There's safety in numbers and having several level 60s in tier 2 gear looking out for you, tends to pursuede the less nice folks that it would be more prudent to go elsewhere.

If they're hassled so much, which I can maybe understand that they are sometimes, they have every opportunity to actively search for a GBLT friendly guild on the guild recruitment forums. There shouldn't be any need for other people, such Sara, to try and fix problems that aren't there for the majority of the GBLT community. I'm sure that most of them would happily live their ingame life in any good guild, but if there is an advertisment of a GBLT friendly guild in General Chat most GBLT oriented people will default to that guild (which in itself isn't such a bad idea) and thus making all other guilds utterly GBLT free (which definatly isn't such a good idea in the long run).

Better to not allow advertisment in GC, and let the people who are offended find the guild they're looking for via the forums. It isn't like they are such a big secret, especially not now, but in general people are too lazy to use their opportunities as long as they are content with what they have. If that makes any sense? :)

I think more people should be aware of this, and report the little kids and bigots that use "gay" and "fag" (for instance) in a derogatory way (but still allow both gay and fag (unless advertising smoking is also not allowed :wink: ) to be used in their more harmless and fun way) in GC. And Blizzard should be quicker in dealing with them.

But to start this storm-in-a-tea-cup over something as silly as a ingame mild joke and a warning for using the term GBLT in GC is ... *eh* ... silly. I'm just surprised that so many media outlets are jumping on the band wagon, but I guess that is more of a statement over the state of things in the USA.

PrismaticEcho

29-01-2006, 11:53 PM

If they're hassled so much, which I can maybe understand that they are sometimes, they have every opportunity to actively search for a GBLT friendly guild on the guild recruitment forums. There shouldn't be any need for other people, such Sara, to try and fix problems that aren't there for the majority of the GBLT community. I'm sure that most of them would happily live their ingame life in any good guild, but if there is an advertisment of a GBLT friendly guild in General Chat most GBLT oriented people will default to that guild (which in itself isn't such a bad idea) and thus making all other guilds utterly GBLT free (which definatly isn't such a good idea in the long run).

Better to not allow advertisment in GC, and let the people who are offended find the guild they're looking for via the forums. It isn't like they are such a big secret, especially not now, but in general people are too lazy to use their opportunities as long as they are content with what they have. If that makes any sense? :)

I think more people should be aware of this, and report the little kids and bigots that use "gay" and "fag" (for instance) in a derogatory way (but still allow both gay and fag (unless advertising smoking is also not allowed :wink: ) to be used in their more harmless and fun way) in GC. And Blizzard should be quicker in dealing with them.

But to start this storm-in-a-tea-cup over something as silly as a ingame mild joke and a warning for using the term GBLT in GC is ... *eh* ... silly. I'm just surprised that so many media outlets are jumping on the band wagon, but I guess that is more of a statement over the state of things in the USA.

Do you realize how FEW people bother with the world of warcraft website, forums, or even guild forums? Start a guild of your own and create a forum for it. Then try to get members of your guild to go check it out. It's not easy. Hardly anyone bothers with guild websites or even the WoW forums. General chat is there for a reason. . . advertising for your guild (and by advertising, I mean "telling a lil bit about the guild" i.e. "we're glbt friendly"). being one of them. When I stopped playing, I had nearly 150 members in my guild. Go check out the site and see how many are registered to it. That should give you an idea of how rediculous it is to suggest that websites and forums are a decent way of recruiting.

And as for reporting people EVERY time you hear gay or fag used as a prejorative, just try that sometime. Stop what you're doing and report it EVERY SINGLE TIME you see it. My point is, no one wants to spend their entire play time reporting other people. That's just no fun.

Try both of these things and see for yourself. . .

SweVoyager

30-01-2006, 12:11 AM

Do you realize how FEW people bother with the world of warcraft website, forums, or even guild forums? Start a guild of your own and create a forum for it. Then try to get members of your guild to go check it out. It's not easy. Hardly anyone bothers with guild websites or even the WoW forums. General chat is there for a reason. . . advertising for your guild (and by advertising, I mean "telling a lil bit about the guild" i.e. "we're glbt friendly"). being one of them. When I stopped playing, I had nearly 150 members in my guild. Go check out the site and see how many are registered to it. That should give you an idea of how rediculous it is to suggest that websites and forums are a decent way of recruiting.

And as for reporting people EVERY time you hear gay or fag used as a prejorative, just try that sometime. Stop what you're doing and report it EVERY SINGLE TIME you see it. My point is, no one wants to spend their entire play time reporting other people. That's just no fun.

Try both of these things and see for yourself. . .
I've been a member of Shadowsong United thank you very much, and their web forums works and are used. I think they are bigger than your guild by now, and, guess what, the web forums _still_ works.

I have also personally done exactly what you mentioned, and reported every single player who used the term gay or fag in a derogatory way in the GC I saw. But maybe the european clientele is a little more adult than the US one in general (tip: I dont think so)? And I believe that if you have 150 people backing you, it shouldn't be such a struggle. Especially after a week or so. How do you exactly imagine that Blizzard can do anything if you dont report the offenders?

And you can still advertise your guild in GC, and give a web adress and tell people to read it before applying. If you then put GLBT FRIENDLY in big bold caps on the first page there shouldn't be any doubt about the orientation of your guild. And also, if people are having trouble and are being offended in their guilds, dont you think they would actively search for an alternative? regardless of it being advertised in GC or not?

Well, this is rather pointless. Good luck in your crusade, I'm signing off. :heart:

edders

30-01-2006, 11:43 AM

I wasn't even aware there were guild recruitment forums until this all started up, and I spend the most time looking through forums and WoW sites out of all the people I know playing. Also the guild I belong to started a website not too long ago, sure we have about half the guild signed up to it, but only 10 of a 100+ member guild ever post in there. We have votes that end 5-4 and affect the entire guild in ways they then end up complaining about, just because they don't do anything when we spam whisper them saying check out the website, sign up, post in the forums etc., and these are people who already belong to the guild. Unless you're one of the largest (i.e.) top 5 guilds on your server, you have to accept that very few people are going to go to your website or look you up in forums, and so you are left only with GC to recruit, and I'd imagine for those guilds other than the very large ones, this is the only way they do acquire members.

NeoNick

30-01-2006, 12:25 PM

Herald of Doom

30-01-2006, 01:33 PM

I think Blizzard ought to be ashame!
You should NOT bend your back to those limitied and dense people (or their money) who are offended by a guild recruiting GBL friendly people!!
That guild is NOT discriminating, as I read it all open-minded heteros can join.
Get a grip Blizzard! I've always defended you as a company - but this really makes me angry!!
See, you are missing the point.

"Hello fellow inhabitants of Kalimdor. I am recruiting for the guild Richpeople. We are a guild who's especially friendly for all those people who have loads of cash IRL and who love to make fun of poorer people"

"Hello fellow inhabitants of Kalimdor. I am recruiting for the guild ChristianCrusaders. We are a guild who's especially friendly for all those people who believe deeply in our lord Jezus Christ"

"Hello fellow inhabitants of Kalimdor. I am recruiting for the guild ChristiansSuck. We are a guild who's especially friendly for all those people who despise Christians in every way possible".

Etc etc. Allow a gay-friendly guild and you should allow all those guilds too. They are after all only friendly towards certain people. The ONLY thing I can understand on the EU-English servers is guilds based on language (eg, dutch guilds, swedish guilds). My nephew is 14 and plays WoW and only speaks dutch for example. But even those are borderline imho.

Personally I haven't had any encounters with anti-gay people. I've seen dutch people get insulted, I've seen muslims get insulted, I've seen D&D players get flamed to hell (that one hurt me personally :'(). The only thing I did see was people saying stuff like "goddamn, that boss is such a fag killing us twice in a row". That sentence is blasphemous and anti-gay, but I know that person irl and I know he's not anti anything, it's just that fag seems to be a commonly used swearword :ponder:

HoD

rutty

30-01-2006, 01:51 PM

See, you are missing the point.

"Hello fellow inhabitants of Kalimdor. I am recruiting for the guild Richpeople. We are a guild who's especially friendly for all those people who have loads of cash IRL and who love to make fun of poorer people"

"Hello fellow inhabitants of Kalimdor. I am recruiting for the guild ChristianCrusaders. We are a guild who's especially friendly for all those people who believe deeply in our lord Jezus Christ"

"Hello fellow inhabitants of Kalimdor. I am recruiting for the guild ChristiansSuck. We are a guild who's especially friendly for all those people who despise Christians in every way possible".

Etc etc. Allow a gay-friendly guild and you should allow all those guilds too. They are after all only friendly towards certain people.

Not quite true. This GLBT guild are welcoming to ALL open-minded people regardless of sexuality. I do, however, think that any religious/political/sexuality-related chatter should be expunged from the chat-channels. This is a fantasy world and those subjects can only inflame some players' belief systems and cause heated /1 arguments/flames.

Some care needs to be taken when advertising Guilds of this sort I think, though Blizzard have dealt with it poorly. GMs should be more even with their ban stick without heading into positive-discrimination. We should all be treated equally - as citizens of Azeroth - rather than Christians, Gays or Poles or whatever. IMHO.

Good luck to this Guild btw. Hope it takes off. Hope the tabard is rainbow coloured ;)

ti83plus

30-01-2006, 02:12 PM

No disrespect to anyone. But it amazes me what people will do for Attention these days.

Herald of Doom

30-01-2006, 02:14 PM

Not quite true. This GLBT guild are welcoming to ALL open-minded people regardless of sexuality. I do, however, think that any religious/political/sexuality-related chatter should be expunged from the chat-channels. This is a fantasy world and those subjects can only inflame some players' belief systems and cause heated /1 arguments/flames.

Yes, the last example wasn't a good one, because they are indeed anti-something. Poop >.> But the first two make a valid point I think ;)

Oh, i'd like to share a story too. One of my friends once roleplayed a gay Dwarf Hunter on Argent Dawn. Most people could laugh with it, the only one that objected was someone who was gay and felt offended because my friend was making of gay people... Actually he wasn't, he was just looking for a new angle in his neverending quest for the most original RP character ;)

HoD

Udotiln

30-01-2006, 03:09 PM

It's probably just me, but I do find this whole thing mildly ridiculous.

Grendo

30-01-2006, 04:52 PM

I find it utterly ridiculous too. Ive never seen a guild who ISN'T careful of its membership, no matter their backround/ethnicity/sexual orientation. Most guilds I know have some sort of guild rules preventing overly harsh comments/overtones/words. Those that dont are blatantly obvious.

Therefore, most guilds are technically GBLT and any other 'friendly' acronym you want to throw out. To label yourself as such is a cry for attention.

I would be labeled all sorts of foul things if I stood in a busy shopping mall yelling that I wasn't racist/prejudice in an attempt to sell ice cream. 'My ice cream stand is friendly to all, especially the random_ethnicity/religion/orientation_here!'

Had they called themselves a 'mature' guild like everyone else does, this wouldnt have seen the light of day. Which is all GBLT means...mature.

Kellas

30-01-2006, 04:57 PM

If the policy is genrall applied, I'm looking forward to reporting the next 'evengalist' I run into who harasses me about "Have I found Jesus".

Why? Did you lose him? Where did you leave it last?

I'm a hopeless majority, white heterosexual male. But I do know how this particular minority feels. I'm tall, thin, long hair, with a very 'grasile' bone structure. All in all, I look 'effeminate'.
I'll also flirt with anyone that finds me attractive. I'm odd that way. I enjoy flirting, and am not all that choosey about who it's with.

In grade school, I was literally beaten to within an inch of my life with a teacher watching out for the ground monitor. Becuae I was obsiouly a 'fag'. My girlfriend had to run to get the police. No, they didn't see the irony of that.

That said. I can see Blizzard's side on this, they want to avoid the problem.
By doing so, they made it worse, but Prismatic Echo's unbending methods are perhaps not as well suited to this situation.
I can understand being angry, and going after the source of it. But letting that drive a rights movement means it will be inherently flawed, when it becomes about winning and not about solving the problem.
All it does is polarize people against you.
Working at a game company, I can tell you Blizard is more than likely going to treat it as an internal issue if they believe that a GM was out of line.
Publically, they're not going to undermine the GM's authority in game, as that can cause more problems.

People stating that the 'slippery slope' for blizzard doesn't exist are missing a bit of a point, it's not what they beleive.
It's what the person making THAT guild believes.

The argument "They let her do that, why can't I?" is a door they don't want to open. It doesn't matter if that argument doesn't make sense.
People WILL use it. Why? I tend towards the 'People suck' theory myself.

No, really.

I need to divorce my species.

M@D_3D

30-01-2006, 06:00 PM

Which is all GBLT means...mature.
Not necessarily. One could be opposed to GLBT and still treat the issue maturely. Personally, I am against GLBT, but this does not mean I don't treat them as human beings. There is a certain level of tolerance that everyone ought to have, even the opposition.

orkokatanablade

30-01-2006, 06:05 PM

Metatron

30-01-2006, 06:38 PM

Does anyone else notice the glaring contradiction in this post?

You brought your own preferences in first by saying you were going to get smashed.

Hell yeah. My views are the only thing that matter and cannot be swayed by some comment made by an attention seaking social reject. I am also prejudice as well arrogant, among many other talents I possess. I have 2 simple rules I follow that serve me well and have got me this far with minimal hassle.

1. Don't go against your human nature.
2. Do unto others as you have done unto you.

Ain't more difficult that. Anything else is just fancy dressing for these 2 simple rules. You could prove me wrong, you could prove me right. Works for me and I'm a happy chappie.

PrismaticEcho

30-01-2006, 07:53 PM

Atredies

30-01-2006, 08:04 PM

Hmmm what to say here... Haven't we as a society changed so much that people are afraid of being in a majority group because so many minority group these days have taken advantage of the US legal process or even worse utilising the media to hype up the supposed injustice of a majority group against a minority to express themselves, sad sad world in my eyes.

In respect to the above I believe that this incident highlights all those problems to the nth degree, from what I understand the person could have been banned, didn't and has now threatened Blizzard with...well what else but legal action and a statement to the media how predictable.

All I can say is stop band standing there is no injustice being conducted here, nice one Blizzard for sticking to your guns.

If you don't like their policy don't buy their games.

Cheers,
Atredies

Steerpike

30-01-2006, 09:25 PM

If you don't like their policy don't buy their games.

Nothing wrong with their policy. It's no harassment on grounds of race, gender or sexuality. It's the fact that their practice in this case appears to be contrary to their policy that's annoying people.

Kellas

30-01-2006, 09:50 PM

Oddly, I found both guilds I've joined through grouping and playing the game, and am of the stance that spamming guild recruiting in the general channel somewhat rude. Spamming general is somewhat rude in.. well.. general.

Pardon me, it's been a long day.

It doesn't sound like they're harassing, it sounds like they're attempting to follow a very unforgiving policy, which would be difficult to say the least.
The policy is set in a fashion that makes no one group happy, hence putting them all on equal ground. I don't see anything wrong with that, as long as they follow it. I don't think they actively police General. Someone would have had to report PrismaticEcho.
I've reported people for spamming the general channel before, but it would depend on the context. <shrug> Maybe a guild recruiting channel is needed, one that mirrors the policies of the board.
That does mean people would have to put up with other groups recruiting on it. You can't give a right to one group without opening it up to others to do the same.
Precedent, unfortunately, is powerful.

Aerath

30-01-2006, 11:17 PM

i am just very disapointed with blizzard on how they delt with this subject. i myself think GLBT are freaks of nature, but i respect their twisted choices, well except for lesbians i mean thats ok i like that, lesbians are gg:thumbsup:

I'll thank you to keep that stuff away from here. I don't like trolling and don't like flame wars, and this is exactly the sort of stuff that qualifies for either.

orkokatanablade

30-01-2006, 11:30 PM

I'll thank you to keep that stuff away from here. I don't like trolling and don't like flame wars, and these is exactly the sort of stuff that qualifies for either.

lawl calm down brother, everyones entitled to their own opinion, so if everyone expresing their thought on this subject i dont see how my thoughts on it can be considered as "trolling" and "flamming" but wtvr rocks ur boat man ur admin lawl:thumbsup:

Trendkill

31-01-2006, 12:47 AM

PrismaticEcho

31-01-2006, 01:07 AM

at the end of the day, if they want to be treated equally they shouldnt go out and make themselves a minority group and exclude themselves.

its a game. why would it matter if your straight, gay or bi in a game. what next, the ability to choose a transgender tauren?

LOL For your information, my toons are ALWAYS transsexual (because that's what I am: http://hometown.aol.com/prismaticecho). This entire thing brings up so many more questions for Blizzard. It's beyond just advertising for a glbt friendly guild. Since they've stated that they don't want anything sexual mentioned in game (which is complete BS, since they already have sexual comments in their own game: i.e. type /silly as a male tauren and he'll say, "Homogenized? No way, I like the ladies!"), does this mean that one is not allowed to roleplay a character as being GLB or T without risking suspension? Blizz has a LOT to answer to now, it would seem.

Trendkill

31-01-2006, 01:21 AM

LOL For your information, my toons are ALWAYS transsexual (because that's what I am: http://hometown.aol.com/prismaticecho). This entire thing brings up so many more questions for Blizzard. It's beyond just advertising for a glbt friendly guild. Since they've stated that they don't want anything sexual mentioned in game (which is complete BS, since they already have sexual comments in their own game: i.e. type /silly as a male tauren and he'll say, "Homogenized? No way, I like the ladies!"), does this mean that one is not allowed to roleplay a character as being GLB or T without risking suspension? Blizz has a LOT to answer to now, it would seem.

this whole thing is out of hand. why should a gaming company have to answer to anybody whatsoever in regards to who plays their game. so one GM banned a player for advertising something sexually explicit. fire the GM, and make sure that GM'S are more sensitive towards people, RATHER than just cutting and pasting responses all the time.

PrismaticEcho

31-01-2006, 01:29 AM

this whole thing is out of hand. why should a gaming company have to answer to anybody whatsoever in regards to who plays their game. so one GM banned a player for advertising something sexually explicit. fire the GM, and make sure that GM'S are more sensitive towards people, RATHER than just cutting and pasting responses all the time.

Oh, believe me, I agree! But since they didn't handle the situation properly, they are having to answer a lot of questions brought up by this incident.

Something else I think is rediculous is the fact that their GMs flat out ignored my requests for an email or phone number to their superiors. So the GM screws up and there's no way for the customer to speak to someone of higher authority about the situation? Fine. . . take it to the media and see if we reach someone of higher authority THEN. This is what has happened. If they support this type of behavior from their employees, I want to know so that I can decide whether or not I want to give them my money each month.

Trendkill

31-01-2006, 01:56 AM

Oh, believe me, I agree! But since they didn't handle the situation properly, they are having to answer a lot of questions brought up by this incident.

Something else I think is rediculous is the fact that their GMs flat out ignored my requests for an email or phone number to their superiors. So the GM screws up and there's no way for the customer to speak to someone of higher authority about the situation? Fine. . . take it to the media and see if we reach someone of higher authority THEN. This is what has happened. If they support this type of behavior from their employees, I want to know so that I can decide whether or not I want to give them my money each month.

see i agree. there should be some kind of survey form or sometnhing you fill out that is sent to a GM Team leader when you talk with a gm. always. itd keep them in check.

Hager

31-01-2006, 01:59 AM

Oh, believe me, I agree! But since they didn't handle the situation properly, they are having to answer a lot of questions brought up by this incident.

Something else I think is rediculous is the fact that their GMs flat out ignored my requests for an email or phone number to their superiors. So the GM screws up and there's no way for the customer to speak to someone of higher authority about the situation? Fine. . . take it to the media and see if we reach someone of higher authority THEN. This is what has happened. If they support this type of behavior from their employees, I want to know so that I can decide whether or not I want to give them my money each month.

Just thought i'd point out that you are actually in the wrong, and did break the Ingame TOS. The GM in question stated from the forum TOS, which is clearly a case of human error, and therefore more of an employee thing. Be consoled in the fact that that particular GM has probably been fired for that mistake.

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofuse.html

Check Section 3B.

PrismaticEcho

31-01-2006, 02:39 AM

Just thought i'd point out that you are actually in the wrong, and did break the Ingame TOS. The GM in question stated from the forum TOS, which is clearly a case of human error, and therefore more of an employee thing. Be consoled in the fact that that particular GM has probably been fired for that mistake.

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofuse.html

Check Section 3B.

As I replied to the person on the Gamespy forums (where you got this info from). . .

ASSUMING THEY'RE CORRECT:

They still issued the warning using the policy which you say is a forum policy. That makes the issue even worse!!! Some GM used a FORUM policy to cite me a warning IN GAME?!?!? WOW! Furthermore, if this is true, how come Blizzard didn't correct that mistake during ALLLLLLL of those email correspondences? Fishy. . . Finally, I was told by a law student that even the part of the TOS which they quoted in the end could easily be argued that what I said was inoffensive, rather than offensive. >shrug< I'll know more about the legal side of it later this week when I talk to the lawyer who has contacted me wanting to help.

That aside, the issue at hand still stands. If mentioning "glbt" IS considered offensive, what's next? People can no longer roleplay GLB or T characters in a roleplaying realm without fear of having their account suspended?

If what this person on the Gamespy forum says is true (which I'm CERTAINLY not going to take her word over the GM's from the email. . . and the many GMs that followed his email and never corrected the first's mistake), this story is made even worse because I was ACTUALLY issued a warning for a policy that is made for the forums. . . which was twisted to fit the GMs needs!!! Craziness. . .

Still, until we have actual word from Blizzard (and not some little girl on gamespy's forum) that the GM made a mistake, this is all just heresay.

Kellas

31-01-2006, 06:14 AM

No, I think he was saying he quoted from the forums terms of use, but the violation was actually for the games terms of use.
The gm's mistake was that he cited the forum's eula, not the game one, when the violation in question was the game one.

At least, that's how I've read the links in question.

And I don't think they're going to start banning gay players or disallowing people to play gay characters. Mentioning it wasn't the problem, as far I as I can tell, it was the mention of it on the general channel.

Elly

31-01-2006, 07:48 AM

lawl calm down brother, everyones entitled to their own opinion, so if everyone expresing their thought on this subject i dont see how my thoughts on it can be considered as "trolling" and "flamming" but wtvr rocks ur boat man ur admin lawl:thumbsup:

Just to clarify, the problem lay in the name calling. Opinions, whichever side of the fence are fine, just not name calling (which we class as trolling = inflammatory).

Hager

31-01-2006, 11:16 AM

As I replied to the person on the Gamespy forums (where you got this info from). . .

ASSUMING THEY'RE CORRECT:

They still issued the warning using the policy which you say is a forum policy. That makes the issue even worse!!! Some GM used a FORUM policy to cite me a warning IN GAME?!?!? WOW! Furthermore, if this is true, how come Blizzard didn't correct that mistake during ALLLLLLL of those email correspondences? Fishy. . . Finally, I was told by a law student that even the part of the TOS which they quoted in the end could easily be argued that what I said was inoffensive, rather than offensive. >shrug< I'll know more about the legal side of it later this week when I talk to the lawyer who has contacted me wanting to help.

That aside, the issue at hand still stands. If mentioning "glbt" IS considered offensive, what's next? People can no longer roleplay GLB or T characters in a roleplaying realm without fear of having their account suspended?

If what this person on the Gamespy forum says is true (which I'm CERTAINLY not going to take her word over the GM's from the email. . . and the many GMs that followed his email and never corrected the first's mistake), this story is made even worse because I was ACTUALLY issued a warning for a policy that is made for the forums. . . which was twisted to fit the GMs needs!!! Craziness. . .

Still, until we have actual word from Blizzard (and not some little girl on gamespy's forum) that the GM made a mistake, this is all just heresay.

Did you even read the terms of service which I linked to?

Please go and read them. It clearly states in section 3B that you are not allowed to post anything of a sexual nature.

These are the terms of service you agree to every time you install the game, and everytime you install a patch.

rutty

31-01-2006, 11:24 AM

Did you even read the terms of service which I linked to?

Please go and read them. It clearly states in section 3B that you are not allowed to post anything of a sexual nature.

These are the terms of service you agree to every time you install the game, and everytime you install a patch.

Perhaps you're misunderstanding the term GLBT - it's not about "sexual nature" but about who you are. Perhaps the hetero-centric seem to think that being gay means sex sex sex - not the case (well, not always!).

Dutchgrass

31-01-2006, 11:28 AM

lawl calm down brother, everyones entitled to their own opinion, so if everyone expresing their thought on this subject i dont see how my thoughts on it can be considered as "trolling" and "flamming" but wtvr rocks ur boat man ur admin lawl:thumbsup:

Aside from the fact that you're being quite insulting towards certain minorities, I'm mostly curious as to what 'lawl' is supposed to mean.
I mean, English isn't my primary language, but that doesn't make much sense to me.

Seraphon

31-01-2006, 11:34 AM

Just thought i'd point out that you are actually in the wrong, and did break the Ingame TOS. The GM in question stated from the forum TOS, which is clearly a case of human error, and therefore more of an employee thing. Be consoled in the fact that that particular GM has probably been fired for that mistake.

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofuse.html

Check Section 3B.

The problem with 3B is that it is so vague as to offer no real information to those who want to play by the rules. How I am supposed to know what is offensive in "the sole discretion of Blizzard Entertainment".

But that's not the problem. What is, is that only gay people are prohibited from merely mentioning their sexual orientation in general chat. I don't think anyone is asking for permission to debate these topics in general chat, but it's an unfair burden on gay people not to be allowed to engage in the same sort of innocuous discussions that go on in general chat now (e.g. "WHO IS HOTTER? ANGELINA JOLIE OR BRITNEY SPEARS?").

The claim that this policy is to protect gay people from harassment is ludicrous. Blizzard could protect them from harassment by punishing those who harass them, not by gagging gay people.

What's really happening here is that Blizzard just doesn't want homosexuality in the game at all because it would annoy parents who "don't want their children exposed to deviants!" This is risible: if you want to protect your children from people talking about" sexually deviant acts", letting them play World of Warcraft is a very bad idea given what people say in game. In fact it's probably their children saying it.

But there isn't much one can say. Blizzard can institute this policy and the results will either be a lawsuit of some sort that shames the company, or a media circus with the same result, or many gay people may simply leave the game, or nothing much might happen.

I'd expect the gay rights people not to lie down for this one. Blizzard may well end up looking like a pack of inbred crackers in the end.

Herald of Doom

31-01-2006, 12:34 PM

The problem with 3B is that it is so vague as to offer no real information to those who want to play by the rules. How I am supposed to know what is offensive in "the sole discretion of Blizzard Entertainment".
In case you haven't noticed,almost every ToS is vague like that. You can't specifically name every thing people can't do in a game, so mostly it's "you can't do anything rude and WE will decide what is rude".

But that's not the problem. What is, is that only gay people are prohibited from merely mentioning their sexual orientation in general chat. I don't think anyone is asking for permission to debate these topics in general chat, but it's an unfair burden on gay people not to be allowed to engage in the same sort of innocuous discussions that go on in general chat now (e.g. "WHO IS HOTTER? ANGELINA JOLIE OR BRITNEY SPEARS?").
Seriously, what realm do you play on? I've been on 7 different realms and not once did I see a conversation like that.. To name a few:Argent Dawn, Aszune,Sylvanas, etc. I did see some morons discuss how hot NE are and reported them because what they were saying was certainly not kidsfriendly but other than that, nope.

But there isn't much one can say. Blizzard can institute this policy and the results will either be a lawsuit of some sort that shames the company, or a media circus with the same result, or many gay people may simply leave the game, or nothing much might happen.

Well, did you see many people quit because of this? I've asked a gay classmate about this who plays games (just not WoW) and he thought the thoughts behind blizzards behaviour was good but only that the GM did not handle it properly, which seems to be the most popular point of view.

HoD

Atredies

31-01-2006, 12:51 PM

The problem with 3B is that it is so vague as to offer no real information to those who want to play by the rules. How I am supposed to know what is offensive in "the sole discretion of Blizzard Entertainment".

But that's not the problem. What is, is that only gay people are prohibited from merely mentioning their sexual orientation in general chat. I don't think anyone is asking for permission to debate these topics in general chat, but it's an unfair burden on gay people not to be allowed to engage in the same sort of innocuous discussions that go on in general chat now (e.g. "WHO IS HOTTER? ANGELINA JOLIE OR BRITNEY SPEARS?").

The claim that this policy is to protect gay people from harassment is ludicrous. Blizzard could protect them from harassment by punishing those who harass them, not by gagging gay people.

What's really happening here is that Blizzard just doesn't want homosexuality in the game at all because it would annoy parents who "don't want their children exposed to deviants!" This is risible: if you want to protect your children from people talking about" sexually deviant acts", letting them play World of Warcraft is a very bad idea given what people say in game. In fact it's probably their children saying it.

But there isn't much one can say. Blizzard can institute this policy and the results will either be a lawsuit of some sort that shames the company, or a media circus with the same result, or many gay people may simply leave the game, or nothing much might happen.

I'd expect the gay rights people not to lie down for this one. Blizzard may well end up looking like a pack of inbred crackers in the end.

Again this is a perfect example of what I outlined in my earlier post, Blizzard have created a game and they as the creators are entitled to run it any way they like using their own interpretations of the rules that they have created.

To provide a similar example there are thousands of MUDS out there that stipulate explicit rules that the creators of the MUDS can bend or not as they see fit because they created it. As such my original statement I believe still stands "If you don't like the way Blizzard runs their game leave" don't go down the cowardly road of litigation and resorting to trial by media it just ruins the enjoyment of what i feel is a great source of entertainment.

Cheers,
Atredies

Piemaster

31-01-2006, 02:22 PM

I have to say I agree with the way Blizzard handled it. In many ways it would have been easier for them to allow the advertising of 'GBLT friendly' guilds but they had the sense to look beyond the surface and see what would follow. As a couple of players have already pointed out 'GBLT friendly' guilds lead to 'Hetero Friendly' guilds and then 'White Friendly' guilds, and before we know it we have 'Homophobic Friendly' guilds and 'Anti-Muslim Friendly' guilds. After all, they're just saying they're friendly to a particular group, no harm there right?

Now the problem for Blizzard is that 'equal rights' laws are not exactly equal. It is a huge faux pas to be prejudiced against gays, blacks or women, but not so much to be prejudiced against heteros, whites or men. Even sticking to minorities, it is fine to be prejudiced against fat people, smokers or left-handed people in the eyes of society and the media.

Rather than trying to navigate this social minefield of who you should and shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against, they have nipped the problem in the bud. Advertising a GBLT friendly guild is entirely innocent, but the precident it sets is not. Blizzard are right to be cautious.

PM

Piemaster

31-01-2006, 02:25 PM

Incidently, after reading this thread, the official forum thread and the emails, I agree that this has moved beyond being allowed to advertise a GBLT friendly guild and has become a power trip for Sara.

Kellas

31-01-2006, 02:47 PM

Piemaster has the right of it: This is no more than blizzard attempting to end a problem before it begins.
Setting a precedent is dangerous, and it can end in all sorts of stupidity and garbage.
considering that a lot of people find recruit spamming in general rude anyways, just state guild recruiting is no longer permissable on the general channel.
I wouldn't saya powertrip. Some people are used to their rights being trampled on, and by necessity only have one mode to deal with it, outright confrontation. Not always the best way to deal with things, but when it's been the only way you have that has ever worked, you tend to skip the preliminaries.

jibbrish

31-01-2006, 06:13 PM

I want to thank Seraphon for taking the time to post. It's not an easy subject to discuss without becoming angry and having that cloud the discussion. I've tried several times to put my opinion, which thankfully is pretty much the same one expressed by Seraphon and can't do it politely.

Blizzard have created what could (and should) become a PR nightmare for them and have no-one to blame but themselves. This is discrimination, no 2 ways about it.

Trepidation

31-01-2006, 07:43 PM

I'd expect the gay rights people not to lie down for this one. Blizzard may well end up looking like a pack of inbred crackers in the end.

But isn't comments like this exactly the same thing you are trying to fight against? o_0 Aside from anythign to deal wtih age/race/religeon/sexual preference/beer preference.......

WoW is about one thing...making $$$....PERIOD. How they go about it is completely their choice. The game itself and and how it operates is not a "right". The fact that you pay $15 only entitles you the abilty to log into their servers. They do not promise a quality of play or anything. They chose to make rules as such to keep their profits high and still being within the legal limits of the law, then so be it. Limiting advertising which may jeopardize their profit margins is very much a good idea.

As for Blizzard's comments, they were a bit off (not worded correctly). They really should have had their legal team scrub anything that has to deal with something political as to prevent people from twisting the words to their advantage.

-tReP

Trepidation

31-01-2006, 07:56 PM

This is discrimination, no 2 ways about it.

discrimination, n 1: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

prejudice, n 1: An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts; A preconceived preference or idea.

Blizzard flat out doesn't want any form of advertising for any particular group/sex/etc other than things in general like "raiding guild", "casual guild" etc. The fact that some guilds may have slipped by this rule in the past should be treated as a non-intentional exception.

Blizzard wells know that if they allow politics to become an acceptable form of operation on a server they will lose subscribers. Therefore trying to keep it to a minimum (through rules) is what they are doing in order to keep their subscriber base high.

This isn't discrimination or prejudice...this is just keeping the peace to keep profits up. The fact that people are making an issue of this only serves to hurt BOTH groups. You think the people that are somewhat phobic about GLBT are feeling more supportive now? Nobody is gonna win this and come out smelling like roses. GG

-tReP

Prasius

31-01-2006, 08:00 PM

Perhaps the hetero-centric seem to think that being gay means sex sex sex - not the case (well, not always!).

Prehaps that comment would qualify as being hetrophobic???

So, for the sake of having the same right to be offended as everyone else; I'm offended that you label hetrosexuals as all thinking the same way. You should be terribly ashamed of yourself, you horrible narrowminded person; narrow minded biggots like you disgust me!!

(see.. how did that feel? :azn: )

Flip that around and imagine the torrent of complaint that would get if you reversed the context.

I can understand the fight against people who are truely biggoted and narrowminded, and I truely support it - but it now it would appear almost all minority groups have ran out of those pretty much across the board and are starting to turn on the people, like me, who just couldn't care less what you are/are not.

As long as they not a *ahem*, and if they are a *ahem* I'll treat them like one regardless what they are/are not without any mincing around the subject (I consider myself the true embodyment of equal rights with an attitude like that - everyone has the same right to abuse and ridicule if they so derserve it regardless of their race/religion/sex/sexual preference!).

Sorry - I'm not going to join in any Gay Pride marches or Black Culture weeks because, well, basically I don't see where either is any more or less important than pride in my sexual perference or my culture; and I know what response I would get if I attempted to organise a hetrosexual pride march or a White Culture week; I'm sure it wouldn't be pretty.

Am I missing a point? I don't think so, I think *YOUR* missing the point.

I believe in Equality for all - and in this case, I think some here consider themselves to deserve a little more equality than I do..

Prehaps the answer is to advertise a guild which "embraces all from Azeroth regardless of your path in life! Unless your a *insert your favourite insult here.. but obviously not one that may offend any number of groups, regardless how obscure, such as a religious sect in bhutan*" :thumbsup:

Grendo

31-01-2006, 08:42 PM

catfive

31-01-2006, 09:05 PM

Stating you are 'pro glbt' is as bad as stating you are 'pro hetro'.

You want equality in any field remember it works both ways.

You want the right to say "xxx" then every single other person in the world gets the right to say "yyy" thats how it works.

Advertising as being 'glbt friendly' means if you get your way you can expect to see 'hetro friendly' spammed also.

Strikes me as just another kiddy shouting to get attention.

PrismaticEcho

31-01-2006, 09:45 PM

Grendo

31-01-2006, 09:58 PM

A Quick Update:

I got an email today from someone (they asked that it not be published or I would paste it here) who did a lil legal research on this matter. I have an actual lawyer working on this case too, so I sent the email to him. But she basically mentioned California's Unruh Act, if that means anything to any of you. She looked up Blizzard and saw that they had a mailing address for Irvine, California (meaning they do some business from California). Then she questioned whether their stance violates this Unruh Act.

I have NO idea what that means, but she sounded like she knew what she was talking about. So I forwarded the info to the lawyer who is assisting me. If what she says is true. . . tsk tsk, Blizzard. . .

The Unruh act wouldnt apply as I understand it. The text reads:

All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

Therefore, you would have to live in Califorinia to be within the states jurisdiction (in this matter). In addition, no one was withheld any privileges for which this act was created. In fact, no privileges were withheld in this matter at all.

The only course of action taken was a warning saying that it was not a topic for general chat within the game.

Nevermind the fact the act you specify is related to fair housing, making it completely irrelevant.

This 'actual Lawyer' of yours is a joke for even mentioning it.

Edit:
Here's a link. http://ag.ca.gov/publications/civilrights/01CRhandbook/chapter3.htm

Kellas

31-01-2006, 10:01 PM

Summary
This law provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California, including housing and public accommodations, because of: Age; Ancestry; Color; Disability; National Origin; Race; Religion; Sex; and Sexual Orientation*.

*The protection afforded under the law is extended by case law to include sexual orientation.
Sexual Orientation includes persons who are homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual.

Now... If I'm reading it right, and I'm not a lawyer, as long as the rules cited apply to all sexual orientations, races, credes, then they're in compliance.

The act is specifically noted as for the workplace, so it may not apply either way.

PrismaticEcho

31-01-2006, 10:04 PM

The Unruh act wouldnt apply as I understand it. The text reads:

All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

Therefore, you would have to live in Califorinia to be within the states jurisdiction (in this matter). In addition, no one was withheld any privileges for which this act was created. In fact, no privileges were withheld in this matter at all.

The only course of action taken was a warning saying that it was not a topic for general chat within the game.

Nevermind the fact the act you specify is related to fair housing, making it completely irrelevant.

This 'actual Lawyer' of yours is a joke for even mentioning it.

Actually, it applies to all businesses in California (Blizzard is based in California). Here are a couple of links which explain what the Act is in "English".

http://*******.com/bmsbj

&

http://*******.com/cogpe

As you can see, it states that:

"The law requires 'Full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services in all business establishments' covered by the Unruh Act, which include shopping centers, mobile home parks, bars and restaurants, schools, medical and dental offices, hotels, theaters, hospitals, salons, public agencies, retail stores, and certain organizations like condominium homeowners' associations."

Basically, the way it was explained to me was. . . if they allow advertising in general chat of guilds at all, they must allow advertising of glbt friendly guilds as well (according to this act). Otherwise they're witholding priveledges from us that everyone else gets.

Oh yeah, and the lawyer that is apparently a "joke", as you so eloquently put it. . . he's from the same law firm which helped the couple in that first link up there. . . Lambda Legal. ;)

Kellas

31-01-2006, 10:11 PM

Valas Azuviir

31-01-2006, 10:13 PM

What is being overlooked though is that heterosexuals aren't being discriminated against in certain guilds for their sexual attraction/identity, whereas the GLBT crowd is.

Imagine this, you're a level 60 whatever, you're in a raiding guild, you've built up a nice nestegg of DKP that you wish to spend on the next new shiney gear drop. You haven't broken any of the guild's rules, but you let slip you wife is pregnant. You then get kicked from the guild, because they don't want any dad's to be in the guild.

How would you react??

Report the guild?? You may very well cause a number of innocents to get into trouble as well.. And what to do if the GMs do nothing about it.. What then??

And how many times have any of you reported farmers, cheaters, gold sellers, folks with inappropriate names, or who use a lot of.. shall we say.. non-polite language.. and seen nothing happen to those individuals.

That's what a number of GLBT players have had to experience.

What are they supposed to do, try a new generic guild, running the risk of getting the same slap in the face again, if they happen to say the wrong thing?? They'd end up more focussed on saying as little as they can about themselves, then they'd be playing. This game is supposed to be relaxation, not stress. Yet, because of the actions of a few bigots.. stress is exactly what those folks end up with.. Only option left, is just quit the game.

Bad guys win for they have managed to drive away the deviants. :rolleyes:

Do any of you deem this an acceptable outcome??

All a GLBT-friendly tag says is. We won't accept any hasslement of our membership for the reason of their sexual preference/identity.

Just as a female-friendly tag means, you won't be asked to cyber or lapdance for us in our guild.

Doesn't mean, you still cannot be kicked for being a brainless ooze.. But the aforementioned will not occur, and if it does, then the perp is the one who will get kicked.

And as for the argument that any guilds who've "slipped through the rule" should be seen as abberations and non-intentional..

Lot of non-intention then, especially when one considers the various EU guilds, dedicated to certain nationalities and where only one language is spoken in guild chat, and it seldomly is the language set of the server, so not French, not German nor English. And then there are the various female and GLBT-friendly guilds on both EU and US Servers.

Once is an accident, twice is a coincedence. Thrice or more?? Looks and smells more like a rulechange to me, and a rather unpleasant one considering all the assurances given to the relevant minority in question during WoW's Alpha stage.

Oh and I almost forgot.. Remember the forum rules folks. If you want to address someone else, then use the quote command. No back to back posting within the hour, barring browser hickups.

PrismaticEcho

31-01-2006, 10:20 PM

Are they? I don't think it was ever said you couldn't advertise for your guild, just to avoid using terms that some, as small minded as they may be, might find offensive.

A friend reading over my shoulder stated it as "Some prick, insecure in his sexuality from cybering with some nightelf he was 'fairly sure' was actually a woman, saw it, reported it to see what kind of crap they could cause"

I dunno. . . I'm just going by what I'm being told by Lambda Legal. I don't quite understand the law or the act in full. But they've dealt with a case in the past concerning this Act, so I trust that they know what they're talking about.

And yes, I agree with your friend. LOL Another guildie of mine was reported the same day for the same thing. . . so I have a feeling it was someone who had it out for us for whatever reason. Perhaps someone who got reported for using gay as a prejorative?

Piemaster

31-01-2006, 10:42 PM

Prismatic - You're on a blind alley to nowhere. I'm a semi-professional poker player and conservative senators have for years been trying to get internet poker rooms banned where gambling is illegal in that state, and they can't even do that! Where the game actually 'happens' is very much defined by where the servers are apparently (which incidently in the case of internet poker is normally somewhere like Costa Rica) and this makes them unable to prosecute. You think they're going to set a precident on an extremely borderline video game case? Save your money and stop trying to imflate the issue to more than it is.

Valas - Somewhere along the line you've missed the point of this thread. Nobody is saying it's okay to dump someone from a guild because they are gay. Nobody is even saying that it's okay to call someone a 'gay' or a 'fag'. All we're saying is what Blizzard are doing isn't discrimination, and what Sara is doing is exactly the same as advertising for a hetero friendly guild. Now if I were running the game, then you would be able to do either (and indeed drop someone from a guild for being gay or indeed straight but thats another story) but Blizzard have gone for a complete ban on recruiting on 'sexual orientation ralated issues' and thats a valid path too. It seems to me that you are trying to turn this issue into something it's not. As Grendo said, it's 'playing the gay card' because straight people can't possibly fight back without looking like bigots.

Prasius - My feelings exactly, well said.

(Edit: For clarification on a couple of issues)

PrismaticEcho

31-01-2006, 10:49 PM

How can you possibly compare the importance of playing poker to a case of possible discrimination?

Piemaster

31-01-2006, 10:52 PM

How can you possibly compare the importance of playing poker to a case of possible discrimination?

Sorry, I have edited the original post to make that clearer. The point is that when something occurs on 'the internet' US law has been completely unable to prosecute someone for doing that thing even if it is illegal in that state. I'm not sure how this applies to child pornography, where they clearly do have some power, but they are certainly stumped on poker, and believe me a lot of politicians really want that banned.

(As for your direct question, from my point of view that doesn't even deserve an answer)

Grendo

31-01-2006, 10:54 PM

http://*******.com/bmsbj
http://*******.com/cogpe

As you can see, it states that:

"The law requires 'Full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges or services in all business establishments' covered by the Unruh Act, which include shopping centers, mobile home parks, bars and restaurants, schools, medical and dental offices, hotels, theaters, hospitals, salons, public agencies, retail stores, and certain organizations like condominium homeowners' associations."

Touche' this was added as part of the 2005 Civil Rights Act bill passed. I still dont see how it applies, as no rights or privileges were withheld.

Im curious, if I start a hetero-friendly guild, and publicize in guild chat for this obviously inflammatory remark, and I get petitioned...would this nullify the argument you are trying to stir?

At this point, and Im sure it would already have happened, Blizzard is not discriminating. Theyve treated all sides equally, no?

I think the problem was in the original wording. To state you are specifically friendly to one race/religion/sex/situation is to acknowledge a prejudice against others. You are specifically friendly to X. If Im Y, thats special treatment, and thus, I am discriminated against.

Or is it only fair if youre a minority group?

Prasius

31-01-2006, 11:07 PM

Why didn't you advertise as "a guild where choice of partner doesn't matter"??

A perfectly innocent phrase which doesn't discriminate against anyone, and wouldn't draw the attention of any GM's?

Although the cynic in me thinks he knows the answer to that........

PrismaticEcho

31-01-2006, 11:51 PM

CNET Article:

http://news.com.com/Online+game+warns+gay-lesbian+guild/2100-1043_3-6033112.html?tag=nefd.top

Valas Azuviir

31-01-2006, 11:54 PM

Valas - Somewhere along the line you've missed the point of this thread. Nobody is saying it's okay to dump someone from a guild because they are gay. Nobody is even saying that it's okay to call someone a 'gay' or a 'fag'. All we're saying is what Blizzard are doing isn't discrimination, and what Sara is doing is exactly the same as advertising for a hetero friendly guild. Now if I were running the game, then you would be able to do either (and indeed drop someone from a guild for being gay or indeed straight but thats another story) but Blizzard have gone for a complete ban on recruiting on 'sexual orientation ralated issues' and thats a valid path too. It seems to me that you are trying to turn this issue into something it's not. As Grendo said, it's 'playing the gay card' because straight people can't possibly fight back without looking like bigots.

A) I haven't missed the point, I'm just refusing to get side tracked.

The fact remains that she was at first suspended and then later had that downgraded to a warning for something that she did not do.
1) The rules violation he cited had to do with the forums and not the in-game rules.
2) The section, which may, considering Blizzard has not to my knowledge communicated this to Sara, lay at the root of her initial suspension and later on warning, states: (i) Transmit or post any content or language which, in the sole and absolute discretion of Blizzard Entertainment, is deemed to be offensive, including without limitation content or language that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, hateful, sexually explicit, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable, nor may you use a misspelling or an alternative spelling to circumvent the content and language restrictions listed above;

The term GLBT-friendly can be, at best, be deemed otherwise objectionable. It simply does not meet the definition of any of the other stated offensive transmissions.

Letting the warning stand, in this situation, is unjust, either it is revoked, or Blizzard provides her with the proper reasoning as to why she has been given a warning.

B) Most guilds out there are heterosexual population oriented, they may not advertise as such, but it doesn't change the fact that they are. Just as a lot of the EU Guilds are nationality oriented. And this still doesn't change the fact that she wasn't recruiting for a GLBT guild, she was recruiting for a GLBT-friendly guild.

Meaning, certain assurances are being given as to the code of conduct of said guild. This is no different really from the code of conduct implied with a raiding guild advertising for itself. You will be expected to show up for the raids, unless you're too low level for the instances, which are being farmed. Not showing up, will have consequences. Just as there is a certain code of conduct implied from a casual guild, or a Polish Guild etc.

Meaning that no guild what so ever should be allowed to recruit through General Chat anymore, because it's the same underlying principle. Label used to describe code of conduct. People interested? They join. If they're not, they don't.

C)
1)There is the small matter of potentially false advertising.. Blizzard made a lot of hubbub during the pre-beta state that they would respond aggressively towards any type of harrassment of their playerbase based upon any type of unfounded prejudice, such as racial, political, religious, sexual orientation/identification reasons.

And if one looks at 3B.i this does seem to be the case. Yet look at the bit preceding it. Whereas these actions are deemed reasons for suspensions and/or warnings. And while they state that chat sessions can be subject to review, they also claim they will not monitor Chat and that the content found therein, is viewed upon one's own risk.

Stating that something is "illegal" and then not enforcing the rules.. :ponder:
Seems like a good way to create the type of atmosphere where the GLBT or female-friendly become almost mandatory to ensure that these customers can enjoy the gameworld without being harrassed.

2) Add to this, that at no time have they indicated that advertising for a GLBT-friendly guild was against their rules*, whereas they state in section 10 of their ToS: Blizzard Entertainment will post notification of any such changes to World of Warcraft on the World of Warcraft website and will post any revised Terms of Use in this location, and may provide such other notice as Blizzard Entertainment may elect in its sole and absolute discretion, which may include by email, postal mail, pop-up screen, or in-game notice.

*: Granted, one could argue that there always was a ban against advertising for such guilds, but considering the pre-beta assurances given, the fact that GLBT-friendly guilds have existed since Open Beta and no action was undertaken.. Leads one back to the potential false advertising claim.

D) With regards to the validity of the law, Sara mentioned.. Blizzard has gone a very very long way towards establishing within their own ToS, section 15, that this Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without giving effect to any principles of conflicts of law. Seems to me, then that they are bound by it, though I have to admit that one could read 13J as stating that you cannot sue them for not doing their job properly, like not policing chat properly thus making guilds like hers necessary, even if it's reasonably within their powers to do something.

Oh and for the record.. I'm not playing the gay card. I'm merely stating that there is a serious problem, observing that Blizzard refuses to do anything about said problem(s). And now rather than doing something about the problem, which they themselves let fester for far too long, they are targetting someone who is at least trying to create a somewhat safe enviroment for other players to play in, and by extension every other guild that offers the same.

Blizzard is the one who set up the no harrassment rules in their own ToS, and imnsho, they should bloody well enforce them too. Otherwise, what is the point of including them. Might as well remove them, saves a couple of Kb of diskspace.. :laugh:

As, I've pointed out earlier in the thread. Got a lady friend who cannot play female toons without getting harrassed by "folks", true it's another game, but the principle stands imo, if there are places where she could/can go and play whatever she liked/likes and not be hassled?? Then, I'd be/am a very happy chap. And whether such guilds call themselves female friendly or GLBT friendly or purple tartan with yellow dots is fairly irrelevant to me..

Would much prefer that such places not even be necessary, but considering the lack of maturity displayed by certain members of our species, I very well know that this will not come to pass anytime soon and thus such places are needed. And rather than trying to prevent such safe havens from operating, the companies in question should take a looooooooong look at themselves in the mirror and then start doing something about those being the frelling problem.

Am almost willing to be that any nimrod foolish enough to pester say Caydiem with requests to cyber, would find his backside banned in a nanosecond.. Don't see why the same courtesy cannot be extended to the clientele, even if it's only in a rough version, so said nimrod gets banned at the end of the day as opposed to within a nanosecond.

I think the problem was in the original wording. To state you are specifically friendly to one race/religion/sex/situation is to acknowledge a prejudice against others. You are specifically friendly to X. If Im Y, thats special treatment, and thus, I am discriminated against.

Or is it only fair if youre a minority group?

And this argument has already been firmly beaten to death. ALL GLBT-friendly means is, you will not be discriminated against, you will not be hassled for your sexual preference/identity. Just as female-friendly guilds do not disciminate against males wanting to join.

It just means there is a specific code of conduct, you break the rules?? You get booted. No different from not showing up to a planned raid and not having a valid excuse for it, if you're in a hardcore raiding guild.

Grendo

31-01-2006, 11:59 PM

CNET Article:

http://news.com.com/Online+game+warns+gay-lesbian+guild/2100-1043_3-6033112.html?tag=nefd.top

I read the CNET article after the original post, and believe its not only somewhat biased, but full of misinformation. Although a reputable news source, they certainly didnt do their homework missing such glaringly obvious errors as to what actually happened, I dont know how anyone can take it seriously.

The In Newsweekly article is a much better read (http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=Ga&article_code=1172).

The best part, that sums up the entire debate is a quote from Ms.Andrews herself:
Sara Andrews has stated that she will not be renewing her World of Warcraft account due to Blizzards lack of support for a GLBT friendly environment, "It seems to be OK for general chat to be flooded with, 'That's so gay!' and 'I just got ganked! What a fag!' yet advertising for a GLBT friendly environment where we don't have to deal with such language is deemed inappropriate."

Keywords: IT SEEMS. Why? Because it seems is not a foundation for a legal debate. What actually happens? Ms.Andrews has no idea if those who make such discriminatory remarks are actually reprimanded at all. And how would they be reprimanded? Well, another player would have to report them for such comments. Has anyone? Again, she has no idea. Nor does she have any idea on the intent on the remarks she quoted. "Thats so gay" is not necessarily deragatory. Just like Ms.Andrews 'GLBT-friendly' is not necessarily deragatory...

But it might be.

rutty

01-02-2006, 12:23 AM

Perhaps the hetero-centric seem to think that being gay means sex sex sex - not the case (well, not always!).Prehaps that comment would qualify as being hetrophobic???

So, for the sake of having the same right to be offended as everyone else; I'm offended that you label hetrosexuals as all thinking the same way. You should be terribly ashamed of yourself, you horrible narrowminded person; narrow minded biggots like you disgust me!!

(see.. how did that feel? :azn: )

Feels fine. I'm comfortable in my sexuality (hetro) and appreciate that a LOT of hetrosexual people seem to think that just advertising a GLBT Guild is about SEX when it's about attraction and "unconventional" love or lifestyles. Hardly the sort of thing that Blizzard should be banning for "postings of a sexual nature".

They should be preventing people from attempting to make political statements in-game about whatever their favourite banner-waving agenda is and they should be policing it evenly.

I completely agree with this:

I believe in Equality for all - and in this case, I think some here consider themselves to deserve a little more equality than I do..

Positive discimination is a disgrace.

It's fine that like-minded people should get together in Guilds on the same server but it's not OK, or rather shouldn't be IMHO, to make political mileage out of it.

I honestly hope this gets sorted out amicably though I do think that those screaming on the servers because of lag issues have more to complain about.

Killra

01-02-2006, 12:32 AM

god ppl get over it!!!! blizzard is simply not letting the door open! if they do they have to give way to other guilds doing similair! thats all there covering there arses i dont think it was a personal attack against her, and for the ppl complaining baout th chat channels get over it if u dont like it block them!!! i beleive this whinning debate has gone on long enough and should just be dropped!!!!!

PrismaticEcho

01-02-2006, 12:33 AM

"That's so gay" is VERY deragatory, whether the person who says it realizes it or not. I refer you to a quote from an earlier article by Alexander at In Newsweekly (http://innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=Ga&article_code=941):

Shane Dabiri, a producer on WoW says, "Quite simply, [gay] is used all too often as a pejorative term, and its usage in such a manner won't be tolerated. We don't want to foster an atmosphere that condones discrimination against any group, and the term gay when used negatively is discrimination."

god ppl get over it!!!! blizzard is simply not letting the door open! if they do they have to give way to other guilds doing similair! thats all there covering there arses i dont think it was a personal attack against her, and for the ppl complaining baout th chat channels get over it if u dont like it block them!!! i beleive this whinning debate has gone on long enough and should just be dropped!!!!!

Ummm does anyone else see the contradiction here? If I don't like people using "gay" in a negative manner, I should just block them and get over it? But if people don't want to see a glbt friendly guild advertised, Blizzard is in the right for not allowing it? Wow. . .

Grendo

01-02-2006, 12:55 AM

"That's so gay" is VERY deragatory, whether the person who says it realizes it or not. I refer you to a quote from an earlier article by Alexander at In Newsweekly (http://innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=Ga&article_code=941):

Shane Dabiri, a producer on WoW says, "Quite simply, [gay] is used all too often as a pejorative term, and its usage in such a manner won't be tolerated. We don't want to foster an atmosphere that condones discrimination against any group, and the term gay when used negatively is discrimination."

While that was hardly the main part of my argument, I will say:

1. The article link doesnt seem to be working
2. The dictionary.com reference to the term 'gay' has several definitions. Besides the reference you are using it is also:

2. Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
3. Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room.

Not only do you not know the topic one is referring to if 'That's so gay' is yelled out, but you still dont know the intention. I can think of numerous occassions, both in game or not to which Ive seen or used the word in a non-derogatory matter.

I appreciate the responses, and wait for the reply to the other half of my last comment.

PS. I agree Killra's comment did nothing to help the conversation.

Appren

01-02-2006, 02:25 AM

First, this is a long thread, and I cant say I've read everything in detail.
But for this case, while I would be annoyed by seeing a "pro-gayness" guildname, or seeing someone announce their guild want gay people etc etc, I still think freedom of speech should be held higher, and they should be allowed to make their gay guild whatever (as long as they stay away from me at least ), Blizzard seems to run an incredible strict policy on what they allow of in game chat though, especially US servers from my experience.

On the other hand, if this should be allowed I dont see that anyone should have a right to attack me or anyone else in any way for saying things like "how gay" "stupid fag ganker" etc etc, if I could live with the annoyance of seeing and having to tolerate gay people advertising, they should be able to live with my somewhat prejudiced way of talking/acting.

Especially those 2 words/expressions are very common in daily chat (and certainly a normal way in my guild to express your dislike of something in game), and not very offensive IMO.

Seraphon

01-02-2006, 04:57 AM

discrimination, n 1: unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice

prejudice, n 1: An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts; A preconceived preference or idea.

Blizzard flat out doesn't want any form of advertising for any particular group/sex/etc other than things in general like "raiding guild", "casual guild" etc. The fact that some guilds may have slipped by this rule in the past should be treated as a non-intentional exception.

Blizzard wells know that if they allow politics to become an acceptable form of operation on a server they will lose subscribers. Therefore trying to keep it to a minimum (through rules) is what they are doing in order to keep their subscriber base high.

This isn't discrimination or prejudice...this is just keeping the peace to keep profits up. The fact that people are making an issue of this only serves to hurt BOTH groups. You think the people that are somewhat phobic about GLBT are feeling more supportive now? Nobody is gonna win this and come out smelling like roses. GG

-tReP

OK. Let's say that the council of your town decides that the incidence of homophobic attacks is too high, and that the most efficient way of dealing with it is to fine any homosexual who engages in public behaviour to prevent them attracting harassment to themselves. Would anyone think that this was anything but an outrage?

Yet, this is exactly what Blizzard is doing. You can argue that as a private business that they have the legal right to do so. However, that is a legal question and it is not clear that they do. They certainly do not have the same freedom regarding the people they employ.

But the legal issue is separate from the moral issue. And if what Blizzard is doing is morally wrong, then it follows that it is up to the public to shame them into doing the right thing. Imagine if Wal-Mart employed a similar policy -- they would be shamed into rescinding it within weeks.

Someone asked what discrimination is. The sort of discrimination that is ethically relevant is the differing treatment of persons without a morally relevant reason to do so. For example, the fact that someone is black is not a morally relevant reason for a judge to give them a longer sentence than anyone else, but it is a morally relevant reason for testing them for sickle cell anemia, since only blacks suffer from that disease. Similarly, there is no morally relevant reason that would justify banning Jews from your restaurant, but there is in supplying tests for Tay Sachs to Jews and Jews alone, because only Jews carry that disease. So sometimes it is acceptable to treat people differently: ergo it isn't wrongful discrimination.

As Blizzard's policy stands, gay people are not allowed to mention their sexual orientation in general chat, and heterosexuals are. Now let's be very clear: people like Sara are not asking to be allowed to debate the political and moral issues surrounding homosexuality in general chat: they are asking merely to be allowed to mention their existence as gay persons and the existence of gay friendly guilds.

Those are the facts. Blizzard's policy amounts to different treatment. Whether it is justified depends on whether there is a morally relevant reason for the different treatment.

The purported reason is that allowing people to mention homosexuality might cause other people to break the harassment regulations in the TOS by engaging in harassment or starting arguments about gay marriage. But this argument fails badly because it punishes the wrong people.

For example: my beating someone in a duel might cause them to swear at me and call me a "cheating fag". Is that my fault? Should I be banned for agreeing to duels? Of course not, because I didn't do anything wrong. There's all sorts of things anyone might do in game that might cause someone else to break the TOS, but no sane person would think it was their fault. Blizzard's position is risible: it's the same sort of argument used in support of segregation, which should show you how good it is.

If Blizzard doesn't want sexual orientation mentioned in game, then they should ban all mention of it, and not just mention of homosexuality. If they don't, then the policy is not that "Blizzard doesn't want sexuality in the game": but that "Blizzard doesn't want homosexuality in the game."

If that is the case, then they are bigots. If I opened a restaurant and put "No homos are allowed to publicly display their homosexuality and no one is to talk about homosexuality" I would rightly be branded a bigot... just like Blizzard.

Piemaster

01-02-2006, 07:58 AM

If Blizzard doesn't want sexual orientation mentioned in game, then they should ban all mention of it, and not just mention of homosexuality. If they don't, then the policy is not that "Blizzard doesn't want sexuality in the game": but that "Blizzard doesn't want homosexuality in the game."

If that is the case, then they are bigots.

That is complete nonsense. We can carry out an experiment if you like, we'll both log onto a (different) crowded server and go to Ironforge. You repeatedly yell 'ALL GAY PEOPLE DESERVE TO DIE' and I'll repeatedly yell 'ALL STRAIGHT PEOPLE DESERVE TO DIE' and we'll see who gets banned fastest.

In fact I'm entirely confident that in a weeks time, I'll still be roaming Azeroth and you'll be playing Everquest 2.

Seraphon

01-02-2006, 08:12 AM

That is complete nonsense. We can carry out an experiment if you like, we'll both log onto a (different) crowded server and go to Ironforge. You repeatedly yell 'ALL GAY PEOPLE DESERVE TO DIE' and I'll repeatedly yell 'ALL STRAIGHT PEOPLE ARE DESERVE TO DIE' and we'll see who gets banned fastest.

In fact I'm entirely confident that in a weeks time, I'll still be roaming Azeroth and you'll be playing Everquest 2.

Can't you do any better than that? That has nothing to do with my argument.

How about we both go and roll male dwarf hunters. Let's go to IF and start a discussion making it clear that we are both male. You say "I think Angelina Jolie is kinda hot" and I'll say, "I don't like girls, but Brad Pitt does it for me".

Guess who'll get banned.

Not you.

Now please confine yourself to my actual argument, and not some patently ridiculous reconstruction of it.

Piemaster

01-02-2006, 09:33 AM

Can't you do any better than that? That has nothing to do with my argument.

How about we both go and roll male dwarf hunters. Let's go to IF and start a discussion making it clear that we are both male. You say "I think Angelina Jolie is kinda hot" and I'll say, "I don't like girls, but Brad Pitt does it for me".

Guess who'll get banned.

Neither of us, I am 100% certain of this. Yes I am happy to test this if you are on the EU servers.

Now please confine yourself to my actual argument, and not some patently ridiculous reconstruction of it.

Yes, my example was slightly different from the original situation but then again so was yours. You're twisting the facts to make it look like Blizzard has something against homosexuals when the reality is they are just taking sensible precautions to stop the game turning into a stage for a heated debate on politics, religeon and sexuality.

You keep saying about players saying stuff like "you're so gay" not getting punished, but I've heard loads of stories about players that have been. If you are accusing Blizzard of being 'bigots' you better have a better case than the flimsy one you are offering now.

Killra

01-02-2006, 09:56 AM

Ummm does anyone else see the contradiction here? If I don't like people using "gay" in a negative manner, I should just block them and get over it? But if people don't want to see a glbt friendly guild advertised, Blizzard is in the right for not allowing it? Wow. . .

ok u took my words and twisted them, i nvr said ppl dont want to see it advertised read it again!!!!! i said blizzard is doing this to cover themselfs!!!! i understand and at least try to see it from there point of view, i personally DONT CARE if there is a GBLT friendly guild. and i did not controdict myself u obviously cant understand what i'm saying it was in regards to two different things!!!! and the words gay and fag doesnt not really offened me as i see them often in the general chat and is used often in guild chat as well and most of the time there not meant as a direct attack but just used to show dislike, so i believe ppl sometimes just feel like they need to take this as a personal attack

sasja

01-02-2006, 10:42 AM

Seraphon

01-02-2006, 03:40 PM

Neither of us, I am 100% certain of this. Yes I am happy to test this if you are on the EU servers.

Have you actually read the policy? It says that you are not allowed to bring controversial topics into general chat. It has been stated that homosexuality is one of these topics. People have been sanctioned because they are gay. Those are the facts.

Things might be different on the EU servers due to greater tolerance of homosexuals in Europe, but the people in question were playing on US servers, where there is a great deal of homophobia.

Yes, my example was slightly different from the original situation but then again so was yours. You're twisting the facts to make it look like Blizzard has something against homosexuals when the reality is they are just taking sensible precautions to stop the game turning into a stage for a heated debate on politics, religeon and sexuality.

If that is what they are doing, then they are going about it the wrong way, by discriminating against homosexuals. And some of the comments that Prismatic Echo received from Blizzard ("Some people are offended at the mention of the word 'homosexual'") are the stock in trade of homophobes.

But your argument completely misses the point. The precautions, as you call them, involve discriminating against homosexuals, which is what Blizzard is supposedly trying to prevent. No one is arguing that the game should be a forum for debating the politics of sexuality, but if that is the case, then people should be banned for doing that and not for merely mentioning that they are gay.

Unless you can come up with some reason why the current policy is not "blaming the victim", then you've lost the argument.

You keep saying about players saying stuff like "you're so gay" not getting punished, but I've heard loads of stories about players that have been.

And it has had no real effect. If you log onto any high pop US server as Horde and enter the Barrens, you will find a slew of derogatory remarks about homosexuals. You play on the EU servers, where the situation is different, so please don't even try to talk about something you have no experience of.

If you are accusing Blizzard of being 'bigots' you better have a better case than the flimsy one you are offering now.

It's certainly a lot better than your "argument", which is simply to ignore the fact that Blizzard is blaming the victims. Come up with something on that topic and you might have a case.

Piemaster

01-02-2006, 05:21 PM

Unless you can come up with some reason why the current policy is not "blaming the victim", then you've lost the argument.

I was going to give you a detailed reply but then I read this sentance and decided the post no longer deserves it. You don't tell me when I have lost the argument, I will tell YOU when I have lost the argument. Saying stuff like the above is just being a self righteous moron in my opinion. Argue your point by all means but don't start laying down parameters about when the argument is won.

And for the record read through this thread, more people agree with me than you. In fact apart from Prismatic I cant find many people that agree with you at all, and let's be fair you might be Prismatic posting on a different account. I didn't use this as an argument because I'm not going to turn this into a populatrity contest, but consider it before you start laying down the law about the argument being 'won'.

[/flame]

Kellas

01-02-2006, 05:34 PM

I think how heated this argument has become is why Blizzard doesn't really want it in game.

From what I've understood, the problem that it was on general chat, and that someone found it offensive, and a warning was issued. No one was banned. At all, the first mention of it was a warning issued.

IMO it's annoying and rude to spam the general chat with guild adverts at all.
I've started reporting the worst ones, that spam it every few seconds with a 5 line message.
And the 'Christian soldiers' ones because I'm an aethiest, and feel I shouldn't have to be preached at in a game.

http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-guild-recruitment&t=90738&p=1&tmp=1#post90738

Hopefully it won't be hijacked by idiots.

Prasius

01-02-2006, 05:36 PM

A)

And this argument has already been firmly beaten to death. ALL GLBT-friendly means is, you will not be discriminated against, you will not be hassled for your sexual preference/identity. Just as female-friendly guilds do not disciminate against males wanting to join.

Sheesh - are you familiar with the phrase "whats good for the goose is good for the gander"??.

You want the right to say whatever you want that YOU don't consider offensive, whilst preventing anyone else saying something THEY don't consider offensive.

I wouldn't go out of my way to upset you, I wouldn't threaten you - but I do withhold the part of my Right to Free Speech which allows ME to poke FUN at you for what you are/believe/think/do.

Something I would think is true regardless of your gender preference: paranoids and victims arn't attractive to anyone.

Grendo

01-02-2006, 06:59 PM

OK. Let's say that the council of your town decides that the incidence of homophobic attacks is too high, and that the most efficient way of dealing with it is to fine any homosexual who engages in public behaviour to prevent them attracting harassment to themselves. Would anyone think that this was anything but an outrage?

Would this not be closer to the american militaries policy of 'Dont ask Dont tell' than to your town cancel approach? I dont see anyone getting upset over this concept in the military, and it holds the same water.

I dont see anyone writing CNET articles on it, posting on half a dozen public forums, or writing to any one who will listen...and it effects a heck of a lot more people than what happened to Ms.Andrews.

They keep the topic out of the daily hub, and its not a problem. Go figure.

Sure it caused a stir when it was first announced, but just like this situation it will fade away after those craving attention get bored.

Valas Azuviir

01-02-2006, 07:50 PM

Sheesh - are you familiar with the phrase "whats good for the goose is good for the gander"??.

You want the right to say whatever you want that YOU don't consider offensive, whilst preventing anyone else saying something THEY don't consider offensive.

I wouldn't go out of my way to upset you, I wouldn't threaten you - but I do withhold the part of my Right to Free Speech which allows ME to poke FUN at you for what you are/believe/think/do.

Something I would think is true regardless of your gender preference: paranoids and victims arn't attractive to anyone.

Hey, if you want to stick your head in the sand about there being a problem about folks being hassled for either their gender or their sexual preference/identity, by all means, be my guest...

I'm just pointing out those folks have as much a right to play as the haters, and considering that Blizzard isn't really acting against the latter group, that allowing for a Female-friendly or GLBT friendly guilds etc as a compromise is an acceptable enough solution..

Those two groups are getting the most grief, so some extra leeway I don't see as fundamentally wrong.

Will you get tossed out of a guild, because you're a white heterosexual male?? No, but you might get tossed for being an obnoxious and unreliable individual. Will you get tossed for being say a bisexual Male-to-Female?? It's an unfortunate possibility, considering WoW's atmosphere at times.

Will you get asked to cyber, once the other male players know you're a male playing a female toon?? Nope.. Will you be asked to cyber, once the male players find out that you really are a female MMORPG player playing a female toon?? Yes..

The other examples you folks listed.. Like say KKK-friendly doesn't hold any water, considering the message of the KKK violates whole sections of the ToS. The code of conduct promoted by a KKK-friendly guild is not a positive one and will lead to said members hassling other players. And as such you can act against such a guild from being formed.

And before you even start with the existence of GLBT or female-friendly guilds lead to problems being created on the server.

a) This is unproven, and as such it cannot be weighed properly against the potential benefits of such guilds.

b) The problems are created by those who are not members of those guilds.
A female-friendly guild does not lead to female MMORPG players going out of their way to ask guys to cyber. It does not lead to a GLBT-friendly guild to go out and try and convert people to being gay etc. (Physical/Psychological impossibility, but that's another issue.)

It's the ones who subsequently violate the rules, who should be punished, not the ones being attacked. If, you stick with the contention that the GLBT community just needs to go back into the closet and keep their mouths shut, then essentially what you are saying is. If, the kids of your neighbours keep throwing rocks through your windows, that it's your fault for having windows. If, you don't have windows, then they cannot break them either.

c) This unlike a KKK-friendly guild, where the social-economical, social-political and social-psychological views espoused will lead to said players "acting up".

But to move on witht he various groups..

White only?? Are you being hassled for being white?? No.

About the only ethnic group at present who can make any reasonable claims about being discriminated against in-game are the Asian/American-Asian/Australian-Asian folks.. So, I could see some justification for an Asian-friendly guild.

Best case scenario?? Everybody grows up and just judges people on how they play the game, and whether or not they can be relied upon to pull their weight. Considering, how unlikely it is for this is to happen within the near forseeable future, then allowing for *-friendly guilds, with * being groups being hassled in-game is the best compromise.

Any other "compromise" leads to the bad guys winning, and I at least deem that a not acceptable solution. You might disagree about that, matter of fact you might even applaud their winning. Don't know you, not going to judge you and am most certainly not going to mock you, but I am going to politely disagree with you.

There needs to be a solution for the problem of folks getting hassled. One, which involves them being able to play in peace and without fear of harrassment. I'm willing to think of possible solutions?? Are you??

What do you propose be done, so that this goal can be achieved?? Or do you feel that this goal should not be pursued??

Would this not be closer to the american militaries policy of 'Dont ask Dont tell' than to your town cancel approach? I dont see anyone getting upset over this concept in the military, and it holds the same water.

Not quite true, and before you say pinko commie bias.. This article is from Fox news (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182722,00.html). And it's repeated throughout several other news outlets. Small percentage?? Yup.. But if it's key personel of which you already have a shortage.. Shooting yourself in the foot essentially.

PrismaticEcho

01-02-2006, 08:09 PM

"In fact apart from Prismatic I cant find many people that agree with you at all, and let's be fair you might be Prismatic posting on a different account."

I WISH I was as articulate as him.

"Would this not be closer to the american militaries policy of 'Dont ask Dont tell' than to your town cancel approach? I dont see anyone getting upset over this concept in the military, and it holds the same water.

I dont see anyone writing CNET articles on it, posting on half a dozen public forums, or writing to any one who will listen...and it effects a heck of a lot more people than what happened to Ms.Andrews."

You have no idea how wrong you are. There are activists (one a very good friend of mine, Calpernia Addams) who vehemently oppose the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Her story was quite tragic (Showtime made a movie about it called "Soldier's Girl"). It shows how horribly faulted the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy really is. People have died due to that policy. Granted, that's not likely in a game, but it's STILL not a good idea.

jibbrish

01-02-2006, 08:58 PM

And for the record read through this thread, more people agree with me than you. In fact apart from Prismatic I cant find many people that agree with you at all, and let's be fair you might be Prismatic posting on a different account.
[/flame]

Luckily, where issues of equality and rights are involved, the final say isn't a vote. Either someone is treated equally or they aren't, in this case, they weren't and Seraphon has expressed that perfectly clearly. Many governments have institued laws that were / are supported by the majority of the population but are obviously bigotted (Nazi Germany is an obvious but extreme exmple as are slave laws in the early US). Same sex marriage is one that is currently making headlines. In the US the majority rule has pushed bigotted laws through. In Canada, we have a Bill of Rights that won't allow our government to treat one sector of the population differently than another, regardless of the mass of ignorance supporting the repression.

The 'Don't ask, don't tell' is essentially the same idea as 'Seperate but equal.' It's a way for bigots to continue to be bigots and for non-visable minorities to be pushed into the same closet they've spent generations trying to get out of.

No question that this is blizzards game, they make the rules and they enforce them. But as a business, even in the US, they are required to treat all their customers equally and not discriminate. In this case, they didn't treat everyone equally, they chose to discriminate and they should feel the effect or rectify the situation.

Grendo

01-02-2006, 09:14 PM

Thanks Prism and Valas for the numerous links and tidbits of information. I have not seen a lot of the numbers and studies that the more recent ones showed.

At this point, I wish you both well in your battles. I really dont think a video game is the right place for said battles, but that doesn't change how some feel about it.

I think both sides have very strong points and I look forward to watching the outcome.

I personally hope that Blizzard upholds its decisions, if only to preserve the atmosphere of the game. I dont think any of the hot-topics should be available in general chat (religion/sex/race etc), but there is also no way to police said concept 100%. I also know, from experience, that majorities have been given the same warnings (hetero males for example) regarding conversation in general chat. To say that Blizzard doesnt go both ways about it shows a lack of homework on the subject.

No question that this is blizzards game, they make the rules and they enforce them. But as a business, even in the US, they are required to treat all their customers equally and not discriminate. In this case, they didn't treat everyone equally, they chose to discriminate and they should feel the effect or rectify the situation.

I still dont see where discrimination took place until it can be proven that someone who has an opposite belief, in this case a heterosexual, was not only reported for a heterosexual remark, but said report was then ignored by Blizzard. Show me that, and you have me 100% on your side.

In the end, its the community that dictates the conversation within the game, and I feel its up to that same community to hold itself accountable.

To force Blizzard to not only make a choice in the matter, but to also be accountable is to destroy what makes MMOs great...the open community.

Elly

01-02-2006, 09:23 PM

Barbelos

01-02-2006, 11:40 PM

I'm not going to reply specifically to any of the posts here. I apologize in advance for being vague or writing incoprehensibly, a bit tired here, but couldn't keep myself from replying to this right away.

First about the policy of Blizzard to ban controversial political and religious issues as well as sexuality from their game. It doesn't really apply here.
Being gay is not an agenda, political program or a lifestyle choice, neither is it only about sex. It's who you are. It's not any more or less about sex than being heterosexual. I appreciate that the concept of gay marriage for example is a controversial political issue, and you can probably be opposed to that without also being homophobic. Stating that the orientation itself is controversial, and that you are against it can be nothing but homophobic. With that in mind I can see Blizzard being quite right in cracking down on a debate on gay marriage in general chat, but not merely someone being openly gay in the same way that others are openly heterosexual (more on this below).

Secondly, a short and undramatic story which I hope can help illustrate the perceived need for a GLBT-friendly guild that some feel, as well as shedding some light on what some people have already tried to make clear, namely that heterosexuals express their sexuality all the time without even thinking about it. It only becomes an issue when you are in the minority:

I'm in a very friendly guild myself, with mature roleplayers on an RP-server.
I also play on European servers, and can't say I've really seen much of the homophopic usage of the term "gay" that I understand is quite common on American servers. I have observed it on some occasions, but not often.
I was in a guild meeting with quite "intense roleplay" going on when my potential boyfriend called, and it was one of those calls that can't really be put off for later, you don't want to seem uninterested early on. I wrote in our guild's OOC channel that I would be AFK for a while because of a phonecall, and for them to just ignore my character in the meantime. I got the question "can't you just hang up, and call later?". At this point some of you heterosexuals out there might have written that it was an important call from your GF, and that you didn't want to brush her off or something like that. It would be no problem at all. I actually paused and had to think about whether I should reveal that I was gay in RL, and if not, how to explain without them finding out. Remember that these are nice, friendly and mature people. Still you never know how people will react. To my shame I ended up writing "significant other", a safe gender-neutral term.
It was only because one of the wrote back "Ooooh... Got a new girlfriend?" That I actually did specify "BF" and got on with my phone-conversation.
Of course, it turned out that this wasn't a problematic issue in my guild, but many people are friendly, nice and mature up to the point where they find out you are gay - hence my reluctance. A GLBT-friendly guild would mean that I could be myself in the OOC chat without giving it a second thought.

As I said, a completely undramatic story, but hopefully it can make some of you realize that there IS indeed a difference between creating a LGBT-friendly guild and making a "hetero" guild. Heterosexuals express their sexuality all the time without fear or apprehension, in ordinary exchanges just like that one - it's simply not an issue if you're not in the minority.

[Edited for clarity]

Seraphon

02-02-2006, 12:30 AM

I was going to give you a detailed reply but then I read this sentance and decided the post no longer deserves it. You don't tell me when I have lost the argument, I will tell YOU when I have lost the argument. Saying stuff like the above is just being a self righteous moron in my opinion. Argue your point by all means but don't start laying down parameters about when the argument is won.

Haha... outbursts like this mean that you have lost the argument.

You've offered no real refutation and have just repeated the same claims over and over again when challenged. My point stands. I have addressed your claims in my posts, yet you have not come within a whisker of providing a refutation of my central claim. Here's a clue: in technical terms it is not a refutation to merely offer an argument for the opposite conclusion, you have to show the argument to be logically invalid, or show one of the premises to be false.

And for the record read through this thread, more people agree with me than you. In fact apart from Prismatic I cant find many people that agree with you at all, and let's be fair you might be Prismatic posting on a different account. I didn't use this as an argument because I'm not going to turn this into a populatrity contest, but consider it before you start laying down the law about the argument being 'won'.

I don't care whether people disagree with me or not. If they do, they are simply wrong unless they can come up with some better arguments than the ones in this thread. I think I've been more than fair with you, but you just can't admit that you can't think up a decent response. That's not my fault.

PrismaticEcho

02-02-2006, 03:21 AM

"And for the record read through this thread, more people agree with me than you. "

Actually, check the poll. It looks like the majority (as of now anyways) agrees with us. . .

Piemaster

02-02-2006, 11:47 AM

"And for the record read through this thread, more people agree with me than you. "

Actually, check the poll. It looks like the majority (as of now anyways) agrees with us. . .

Well a couple of points on that:

1. The way you phrased the question makes it likely you will get a no response. Not exactly objective.

2. People who agree with my stance that Blizzards response was understandable might not vote Yes. I didn't vote Yes for example, because I didn't think Blizzard were 'right' to do what they did. I just said I understand their line and you will get nowhere in a legal case.

I don't care whether people disagree with me or not. If they do, they are simply wrong

Lol. Way to co-ordinate an argument.

jibbrish

02-02-2006, 03:47 PM

1. Rush wrote the question and it seems like it's phrased just fine. That's what blizzard did.

2. A business that discriminates against / between their customers will eventually end up in a law suit that they would likely lose.

Seraphons arguements were far more polite and well thought out than yours. And after calling someone a moron, it's a bit late to try to take the high road, don't you think?

Piemaster

02-02-2006, 04:01 PM

I still don't see how this can be called discrimination unless someone advertises a 'hetero friendly guild' and it is deemed okay.

Lots of people are posting tangents about people calling someone 'gay' and getting away with it, but this is just fluff in my opinion. Blizzard have not discriminated against anyone because everyone has to abide by the same rules.

jibbrish

02-02-2006, 06:18 PM

That's just the point, they don't treat everyone the same and hypotheticals about a 'hetero friendly guild' don't cut it. We aren't talking about an imaginary world where equality reigns and there are the same distributions of people. We live in a world where 90% of the population are hetrosexual. ALL GUILDS ARE HETERO FRIENDLY BY DEFAULT. And most of them wouldn't even think twice about a derogatory "that's gay" being used in guild chat. Or where speaking about a wife or husband would be a banning offence because that is a way to define someones sexuality yet that's what this case is about.

The rules posted are definately the same for everyone, no one's questioning that. It's in the application of the rules that blizzard has acted in a discriminatory fashion, whether through the vagueness of the rules themselves or some bias on the part of the GM.

Grendo

02-02-2006, 06:40 PM

That's just the point, they don't treat everyone the same and hypotheticals about a 'hetero friendly guild' don't cut it.

To be fair, you're being hypothetical about them not treating everyone the same as well. You have no proof that if/when the situation is reversed, the same doesnt happen.

So whats not the same?

PS. Ive seen 'hetero-friendly' comments become suspendable offenses.

Piemaster

02-02-2006, 06:50 PM

We live in a world where 90% of the population are hetrosexual. ALL GUILDS ARE HETERO FRIENDLY BY DEFAULT.

That's a huge assumption isn't it?

So what you're saying is that homosexuals need special treatment just because they are in the minority.

Doesn't sound much like equality to me.

Seraphon

02-02-2006, 07:45 PM

That's a huge assumption isn't it?

So what you're saying is that homosexuals need special treatment just because they are in the minority.

Doesn't sound much like equality to me.

It is.

Equality doesn't always mean treating people in the same way. I've been trying to point this out in numerous posts.

For example:

If we say that everyone is equally entitled to medicare, then this doesn't mean that we give everyone the same medication. But if we don't give them exactly the same medication, then we are treating them unequally in this respect. But our aim is not to give everyone equal medication, but to make sure that, as much as possible, everyone is equally healthy. So we treat some people differently by giving them medication when they need it.

There's nothing weird about that at all.

Similarly: college affirmative action polices treat minorities differently than whites. But the reason for this is that members of minorities who have equal academic aptitude to whites, do less well because they come from poorer backgrounds and have had access to a worse standard of education. But in this case the policy aims for a sort of equality: by trying to admit students of equal ability. It does this by noting that some students are at a disadvantage and by correcting for this advantage.

If you want to give each student of equal ability the same chance to get into your college, then you have to correct for certain distorting influences in the case of minorities, and that means treating whites and members of minorities differently. It's equal treatment in one respect, and unequal treatment in another respect.

Whenever we treat people equally in one respect, we are usually treating them unequally in some other respect. The only relevant argument is which respect should take primacy.

In the case of "X friendly" guilds, the point is to provide every World of Warcraft player with an environment that is free of harassment as far as possible. That is the relevant respect in which people are to be treated equally.

Now it's a sad fact that homosexuals and women are minorities in the game and tend to attract far more harassment based on these facts than other players do. In the case of homosexuals, not only is there direct harassment, but the slew of anti gay remarks in general chat creates a hostile environment.

If you want to get some idea of what it is like for them, imagine that black people are the majority of players in WoW and that you are white. Then imagine that general chat is often full of racist remarks against whites, and that if other players find out you are white, they are likely to engage in racist attacks or boot you from a party or guild, etc.

Heterosexual people and guys do not face this problem, since they comprise the majority of players. This is what makes it OK to have GLBT and female friendly guilds and not OK to have hetero or white friendly guilds. There is need for the former and not for the latter in order to provide an environment that is free of harassment as far as possible to every player... equally. The general atmosphere of the game already treats gays unequally: allowing them (or anyone else) to create GLBT friendly guilds goes a long way to remedying this inequality at no cost to other players.

I'm sorry if this sounds a bit complicated. I did a whole year graduate course on equality when I did my MA. It comes in useful now and then.

PrismaticEcho

02-02-2006, 08:12 PM

Valas Azuviir

02-02-2006, 08:51 PM

Really? I had no idea. Undermines the ToC somewhat.:hang:

Was a chap on the official forums, who was trying to collect all such easter egg sound effects and any occurences of where overt sexual preferences was indicated, in a single thread. Not too surprisingly, he got flamed for it, and as far as I can tell, his thread was sent to Fluffy's Blizzardian cousin.

I'd bookmarked so that I could check it when I had some more time.
He was rather polite about it as well, treated it more as a social studies case, with WoW as the subject of study. :grin:

Oh and Piemaster.. 90% of the gaming population being heterosexual and male might not be such an unreasonable guestimate based upon the numbers mentioned here (http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/2000_Census_Total.htm). Based upon the old census of 1990, roughly 4% of the population could be identified as either gay or lesbian. Course, it makes no mentions of bisexual and transgenders.

Still, the *-friendly tag can also be attached to the female gamers.. Not quite sure what the number of female WoW players is, but if you had to add that to the potential GLBT population.. 90% of the server population as male and heterosexual.. It's very much a reasonable working premise..

Herald of Doom

02-02-2006, 08:53 PM

Y'know. Funny thing, I just re-read a part of this thread and even though this may be a bit side-tracking but here's some questions:

1) Why does it bother you that people use fag as a swearword. I mean, all it shows is that they're immature. People use all sorts of words that other people find extremely offensive (eg, i've seen people say "ffs domme marrokaan" in dutch when someone did something wrong. domme marrokaan means stupid morocon*) I mean, it's not just you guys and gals that get offended occasionally.
2)Why does ANYONE tell someone in an online game personal stuff. I've been playing with people for years and all they know is I live in Belgium and that I'm 20. Oh, and that I like metal because I tend to sing along with metallica on teamspeak. Do they know if I have kids? Am I female/male (the ones i dont talk to on teamspeak obviously :p)? Black/white? So why do you tell people if you are indeed a female irl and not just a NE female, or really gay and not just rp'ing a gay Orc. MAYBE if you got to know a person or a group well you could tell more personal stuff, like I have done. I don't walk around telling people i'm into SM (which I'm not, just an example... or am I? Who knows :p) because I know it might get me flamed and stuff.

PS:I should really somehow find out how different the us servers are to the eu servers, because personally I have hardly seen any anti-gay stuff. Would be a shame if the general attitude on us servers is that bad.

*: in dutch, unfortunately, marrokaan is often used as a derogative term for any middle easternlike foreigner or muslims, so it's a racist thing vs a very large group of people.

HoD

Grendo

02-02-2006, 09:00 PM

http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=Ga&article_code=1205

WOW! I REALLY wish I had known that people were protesting an in game wedding, saying things like, "Stop throwing your heterosexuality up in our faces!!!" I would've been right there with them (since my time card doesn't expire until the 8th or so). PERFECT example of how, when people say, "Sexuality has no place in this game", what they REALLY mean is, "HOMOsexuality has no place in game." According to the new "policy" Blizzard has put out, if two male characters had a public wedding in game, it would be a suspendable offense. Discrimination? Definitely.

Now this might just be me, but an interesting thought struck with this article. Blizzard has made it clear that they supposedly dont want outside interferences with their game, in the form of sexuality etc. However, they obviously do - given some of the emotes and weddings and and night elf "hotness".

Now, would it be a fair argument that heterosexuality is actually part of the game lore in the universe theyve created, thus it becoming ok, while an outside-their-universe concept like homosexuality is not, and thus suspendable, or in Ms.Andrews case warnable?

In their world, there has been cases of heterosexual marriages (see Warcraft2 and 3 with Tyranda). But Blizzard has never introduced a form of homosexuality into its world.

Are we saying that the fantasy world that Blizzard, or anyone else creates, becomes automatically discriminatory because it doesn't include a particular type of life, in this case homosexuality? Or that the creator is liable if it tries to protect its world from something that was not intended within that fantasy worlds confines?

If a writer is asked about including a homosexual character in their universe, and he rejects the idea as it doesnt fit in with his world that he has created for a purpse, is he a bigot? Does he discriminate?

Is something that isnt real a hostage to the demands of an interest group in real life?

Piemaster

02-02-2006, 09:33 PM

Seraphon, before I start this post, I want to say please don't take any of this personaly. This post is not an attack on you but more the ideas you represent and the society that propagates them. This I am saying with the utmost sincerity.

Right

Your post reporesents everything that is wrong with the world when it comes to equal rights. You are representing and propagating the views of a politically correct west so guilty about the overt racism of the past that they will go to any lengths to try and 'make up for it' by giving minorities an unfair advantage in areas where they neither need nor deserve it.

Your MA in equality is relevant but only to the system which it applies. This is the internet, where we are not bound by the teachings of US educational institutions (I'm not from the US anyway).

You say that equality doesn't mean treating people the same. Your argument is that equality basically means trying to get equal results (you use a bad analogy about healthcare which I won't discuss, it should have been about a car anyway). I disagree with your definition. You can argue all you like but you'll never convince me because this is the internet and your definitions, even if they represent the law in your country, mean nothing here.

You problem is you can never make things 'equal' for everyone. Take this example. You are saying that gays have to put up with more abuse than heterosexuals so as compensation (effectively) they should be given a privilage that is denied to another group. Thats not making things equal, that's just a fudged attempt to make things fair. "Here gays and lesbians, we realise you get a bum deal so here's a carrot, look we're giving you a right that heterosexuals dont have."

The problem is that this placates the minority group in the short term, but only exasperates it in the long term. A certain group is treated preferentially in one case so they start to asume they should be treated preferentially in other cases too. Meanwhile the majority build up resentment towards the minority because they are being discriminated against.

Effectively the government are using racism/sexism/sexualityism to fight racism/sexism/sexualityism. You seem to like crap analogies so here's one. That's like tryoing to put out a fire with a flamethrower and has much the same result.

The equality policies of most western governments are simply designed to cause as little short-term controversy as possibly, because that is what keeps governments in power. None dare to tackle the true problem of inequality because by doing so they would create a huge short term stink. Minorities have got used to positive discrimination. It allows them to gain benefits denied to other people while still looking downtrodden.

In fact it is now so engrained in society that even people belonging to the majority accept it. If a black youth is attacked by a group of white youths it is a racist attack and gets media attention. If a white youth is attacked by a group of black youths, it is another crime statistic, probably brought about by poverty among blacks in inner city areas. And people sit there watching the news and reading the papers and don't even bat an eyelid at this because they are so used to it.

Now here is Blizzard trying to make a genuine attempt at real equality. Trying to create a little world on their servers where it doesnt matter if you're gay or straight, you can be who you want to be....

Actually what am I saying. They are just trying to avoid the sticky situation of 2 years down the line trying to tell an all white guild that they aren't allowed to exist, while another guild called '******s with attitude' wanders around Azeroth. Of course they are, they are just out for their own interests like everyone else.

Hateblade

02-02-2006, 09:42 PM

Ahh, the easiest and most effective way to ruin a great game. Involve politics, and sensitive people's little hurt feelings. We are here to play WoW, and kill innocent little Murlocs. Leave your personal feelings and bias opinions at the login screen.

PrismaticEcho

02-02-2006, 09:48 PM

Now this might just be me, but an interesting thought struck with this article. Blizzard has made it clear that they supposedly dont want outside interferences with their game, in the form of sexuality etc. However, they obviously do - given some of the emotes and weddings and and night elf "hotness".

Now, would it be a fair argument that heterosexuality is actually part of the game lore in the universe theyve created, thus it becoming ok, while an outside-their-universe concept like homosexuality is not, and thus suspendable, or in Ms.Andrews case warnable?

In their world, there has been cases of heterosexual marriages (see Warcraft2 and 3 with Tyranda). But Blizzard has never introduced a form of homosexuality into its world.

Are we saying that the fantasy world that Blizzard, or anyone else creates, becomes automatically discriminatory because it doesn't include a particular type of life, in this case homosexuality? Or that the creator is liable if it tries to protect its world from something that was not intended within that fantasy worlds confines?

If a writer is asked about including a homosexual character in their universe, and he rejects the idea as it doesnt fit in with his world that he has created for a purpse, is he a bigot? Does he discriminate?

Is something that isnt real a hostage to the demands of an interest group in real life?

If a male tauren makes jokes which make blatant reference toward homosexuality, then it must exist in Azeroth. . . otherwise, how could he make said jokes?

Besides, it's obvious that Blizzard wants to make their game as "realistic" as possible. . . what with having the ability to wed other characters and whatnot. And if that's the case, homosexuality has existed since the beginning of time. . . whether there were "famous" homosexuals in history or not. Same applies to their game. . . and it's proven, with their little Tauren joke, that homosexuality exists in Azeroth.

Since lots of people are keeping up with this thread, I thought I would post this here as well:

I have been asked by the lawyer at Lambda Legal (who is assiting with this issue) to try and find someone from a glbt friendly guild that lives in Califorina (is of age, of course), and that would be willing to help. I'm not exactly sure as to what's involved. All I know is, he's writing a letter in hopes of settling this issue out of court. I've seen the letter and it looks very persuasive, basically saying that what they're doing violates California law.

Anyway, he thinks we have a strong case, and that there is a good chance they'll change their mind on the issue with this letter, since they're based out of Cali. However, he wanted me to try to find someone who lives IN Cali, and would be willing to get involved, just in case we need to strengthen the case (since I live in Tennessee). If you are willing to help, please email me at PrismaticEcho@hotmail.com and I will give Brian (the lawyer) your contact info so he can talk with you in further detail about what this would entail. Thanks bunches!

~
Sara E Andrews

Hateblade

02-02-2006, 09:54 PM

And if that's the case, homosexuality has existed since the beginning of time. . . whether there were "famous" homosexuals in history or not.

That depends on your beliefs in the "beginning of time". Better watch your step. You are going to open up a whole new can of worms. I'd have things to say to you that would get me banned from this forum in a heartbeat. That's MY beliefs. However, I'm excersising restraint, as I do in-game. You should as well. If people harass you, report them. Leave it at that. I'm personally glad that you recieved a ban, and I voted yes to this poll. I'm sad they didn't make it permenant. Your beliefs are yours, and other beliefs are other peoples. YOU crossed that line, when you exposed the population of w/e your server is to YOUR beliefs. Blizz is CTOA because of stuff like this, because we have kids under 18 playing this game. Those little kids make up A LOT of Blizzard's sales. I'm sure they wouldn't want a bunch of screaming parents at thier doors, pissed because thier child was "exposed to something illicit". The topic is too hot, and people are already too crazy about it. This is a friggin video game. Like I said in the above post. It's a game, we are mostly anonymous. Leave your beliefs and personal baggage at the login screen. Someone hurts your "feelings" by saying something that is "rude", use normal reporting procedures, and leave it at that.

Grendo

02-02-2006, 10:10 PM

If a male tauren makes jokes which make blatant reference toward homosexuality, then it must exist in Azeroth. . . otherwise, how could he make said jokes?As you are a gamer I imagine, Im sure you can understand the concept of an easter-egg, as it was called in a previous post. That is, something that is hidden to some degree, usually in the confines of a program, that references the real world, or something often not within the bounds of the normal program. Having such an easter egg in a program does not define the program itself. Take for example the old easter egg in Microsoft Excel, where the right combination of keyboard commands took you to a flight simulator. Would we therefore call Excel a flight simulator? Certainly not.

Besides, it's obvious that Blizzard wants to make their game as "realistic" as possible. . . what with having the ability to wed other characters and whatnot. And if that's the case, homosexuality has existed since the beginning of time. . . whether there were "famous" homosexuals in history or not.
Again this is all conjecture and assumption. Its not obvious that Blizzard is trying to make it realistic within the confines of the daily life on earth as it exists today.

Im sure youve noticed the Forsaken, orc, taurens and trolls that inhabit the game. Or the magic used, the scenery and its multitude of creatures. Just because it shares ties to the reality you know, does NOT mean its attempting to become the same. Some games do try and do just what you are suggesting (the Sims for example), but WoW is definently not one of them. The tauren way of life is very American-Indian as well. Does that mean they are trying to make an 'indian' game. Certainly not.

Seraphon

02-02-2006, 10:27 PM

Seraphon, before I start this post, I want to say please don't take any of this personaly. This post is not an attack on you but more the ideas you represent and the society that propagates them. This I am saying with the utmost sincerity.

Ok. But you are attacking common sense. This is how "equality" has to be used if it is going to make any sense.

Your post reporesents everything that is wrong with the world when it comes to equal rights. You are representing and propagating the views of a politically correct west so guilty about the overt racism of the past that they will go to any lengths to try and 'make up for it' by giving minorities an unfair advantage in areas where they neither need nor deserve it.

This is where you are going wrong. You are just assuming that it's an unfair advantage without arguing for it. As I demonstrated in the previous post, it is often morally permissible and indeed sometimes necessary to treat groups of people differently. We simply cannot treat people "equally" in every respect, because treating them equally in some respects necessitates treating them unequally in other respects.

So merely pointing out that people are being treated differently does not an argument for wrongful discrimination make. This is a wholly conceptual point, entirely independent of substantive claims about which forms of equality take moral primacy -- the point is that not all can.

Your argument about "hetero-friendly" guilds being required if gay-friendly guilds fails because you haven't specified why that is the relevant sense of equality in this case. I've pointed out to you my argument for why gay friendly guilds ought to be allowed. That is that the relevant form of equality Blizzard should be promoting is "all players should, as far as practicably possible, equally enjoy a game that is free from harassment". Given that the game cannot practicably provide that for certain groups, it follows that they ought to be allowed special privileges in order to bring them up to a state of equality with everyone else.

Your MA in equality is relevant but only to the system which it applies. This is the internet, where we are not bound by the teachings of US educational institutions (I'm not from the US anyway).

What does this mean? I've never attended school in the US, and I don't have an MA in "Equality". It's not about being bound by the teachings of any educational institution, but about investigating the ways in which the term equality is used in moral contexts everywhere. It's one thing to say that you aren't bound by the teachings of certain educational institutions and another to say that you are not bound by the way the words are actually used by everybody. If you don't want to be bound by the latter, then you are really not talking about what everyone else is.

Equality per se has a pretty well defined meaning across all cultures. The real disputes are over what it should be of (equality of welfare, equality of resources, equality of opportunity, etc.).

You say that equality doesn't mean treating people the same. Your argument is that equality basically means trying to get equal results (you use a bad analogy about healthcare which I won't discuss, it should have been about a car anyway). I disagree with your definition. You can argue all you like but you'll never convince me because this is the internet and your definitions, even if they represent the law in your country, mean nothing here.

That's not the point I'm trying to make. Equality on its own doesn't mean anything. It is either equality of result or equality of distribution or whatever. You have to specify which respect you are arguing for, merely stating that because people are being treated differently, something is wrong is not sufficient to argue your case... because you haven't specified why your particular kind of equality matters more than the others.

Unless you specify that your particular kind of equality has moral primacy over the others, you have no argument. And so far you haven't provided one.

You problem is you can never make things 'equal' for everyone.

You cannot make things equal for everyone in every respect. That was my point. But it's a trivial point. Whether or not you can make certain sorts of things equal for people is an empirical question, and even if you cannot, it may well be an ideal that you strive to get as close as possible to (like most political ideals).

Take this example. You are saying that gays have to put up with more abuse than heterosexuals so as compensation (effectively) they should be given a privilage that is denied to another group. Thats not making things equal, that's just a fudged attempt to make things fair. "Here gays and lesbians, we realise you get a bum deal so here's a carrot, look we're giving you a right that heterosexuals dont have."

Sure. Most countries also provide guide dogs to the blind and wheelchairs to the disabled. We are giving them rights that seeing and able people do not have. How terrible....

The problem is that this placates the minority group in the short term, but only exasperates it in the long term. A certain group is treated preferentially in one case so they start to asume they should be treated preferentially in other cases too.

This is utter codswallop. This argument is completely irrelevant. Let's say that blind people get certain things to help them cope with their natural disadvantages. Perhaps some of them will want more, but it is always up to the state or whomever is responsible to say no. There's always going to be some people who want more than they are entitled to, but that doesn't stop them being entitled to what they are in fact entitled to.

Here's another example that shows how wacky your argument is. In virtually every society victims of crime are given the ability to extract compensation from the criminals. In many countries such lawsuits become ridiculous as a small number of people try to milk the system for all it is worth. But is this an argument to get rid of lawsuits and/or compensation entirely? Of course not, because then there would be no legitimate compensation at all, and that would be ridiculous. It is however, an argument for adequate policing of the compensation system.

Similarly, Blizzard allowing people to mention homosexuality in general chat might lead to a few people asking for a gay pride week on Azeroth. It's up to Blizzard to make one if they want to, but they aren't discriminating against anyone by doing so, so they are entitled to say no.

Meanwhile the majority build up resentment towards the minority because they are being discriminated against.

This is funny. I don't get a free guide dog or the money it would cost, so I am being discriminated against because I'm not blind, and I should feel resentment towards blind people.

You're joking right?

Effectively the government are using racism/sexism/sexualityism to fight racism/sexism/sexualityism. You seem to like crap analogies so here's one. That's like tryoing to put out a fire with a flamethrower and has much the same result.

You are making the same mistake again. As I have pointed out to you again and again, treating people differently because of their race, sex, orientation or whatever is not necessarily wrongful discrimination. Treating people differently when there is no morally relevant reason to do so is wrongful discrimination, but treating people differently when there is a morally relevant reason to do so is not.

The equality policies of most western governments are simply designed to cause as little short-term controversy as possibly, because that is what keeps governments in power. None dare to tackle the true problem of inequality because by doing so they would create a huge short term stink. Minorities have got used to positive discrimination. It allows them to gain benefits denied to other people while still looking downtrodden.

Don't be silly. They are not. They cause all sorts of controversy in many cases (most of it because of people like you who don't understand why they do it).

The reason governments do this sort of thing is because they are committed to the idea that people should have things like equality of opportunity in education. If we don't correct for the fact that some people have been disadvantaged in the competition by poverty, racism, etc., then the result will not be one that expresses true equality of opportunity.

If you have one college place to give and you have two students with the same exam results, but one is the child of rich parents who paid thousands for private tutoring and went to the best schools, and the other had none of these advantages and went to a bad school, you'd be an idiot if you didn't take the poor kid, since he or she is obviously so much brighter than the rich kid (can get same results without all the help).

In fact it is now so engrained in society that even people belonging to the majority accept it. If a black youth is attacked by a group of white youths it is a racist attack and gets media attention. If a white youth is attacked by a group of black youths, it is another crime statistic, probably brought about by poverty among blacks in inner city areas. And people sit there watching the news and reading the papers and don't even bat an eyelid at this because they are so used to it.

I've some news for you. We live in a society where black people are underprivileged. How many white kids get detained or beaten up by cops just because they are white? What you are trying to do is ignore the facts. Most blacks have it worse than most white people. You'd have to have been living on another planet if you didn't realize this.

Now here is Blizzard trying to make a genuine attempt at real equality. Trying to create a little world on their servers where it doesnt matter if you're gay or straight, you can be who you want to be....

Except the prejudices of the playerbase make it matter. So your whole argument collapses.

Actually what am I saying. They are just trying to avoid the sticky situation of 2 years down the line trying to tell an all white guild that they aren't allowed to exist, while another guild called '******s with attitude' wanders around Azeroth. Of course they are, they are just out for their own interests like everyone else.

And for the umpteenth time: it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the term "equality" works in moral discourse to promote arguments like this.

The real problem here is that the political right, who push these sorts of arguments, have little understanding of the way "equality" works in ethical debates, so they end up doing stupid things like equating the NAACP with the KKK.

Seraphon

02-02-2006, 10:29 PM

s. Blizz is CTOA because of stuff like this, because we have kids under 18 playing this game.

A number of whom are gay.

Pwned in a mere six words... :grin:

Valas Azuviir

02-02-2006, 10:32 PM

1) Why does it bother you that people use fag as a swearword. I mean, all it shows is that they're immature. People use all sorts of words that other people find extremely offensive (eg, i've seen people say "ffs domme marrokaan" in dutch when someone did something wrong. domme marrokaan means stupid morocon*) I mean, it's not just you guys and gals that get offended occasionally.

As I pointed out in the beginning of the thread, I'm a white* male heterosexual, and yes I find the constant tossing about of words like fag or calling everything gay in the negative sense annoying. And I find the phrase:" Domme kut marrokaantjes" to quote Rob Oudkerk just as annoying.. I have a low tolerance level for fools and even less for harmful immature brats.

Why??

Tends to diminish the foolish hope I have, that maybe one day our species will grow up and stop trying to exterminate one and other over what are essentially trivial differences. I point to the speech held by Shylock in the Merchant of Venice, in which he protests against the treatment that he received from the Christian inhabitants of Venice. Course, he then turns around and becomes just as bad, but that's another issue. His speech was a true one..

If you tickle us, will we not laugh?? If you prick us, will we not bleed?? If, you harm us, will we not seek revenge?? Black, White, Yellow, Purple tartan with yellow dots, attracted to adult males, adult females or both, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Budhist, Hindu, Atheist, Agnostic etc etc etc.. We're the same..
We all breath the same air, drink the same water, eat essentially the same foods, we all have to go to the bathroom, and we will all die eventually from old age, barring accidents, illness or violence. Genetically?? We're as alike with one and other or more so even than Wolves, Dogs and Coyotes are.

*: 3/4 Western European, remaining 1/4 is a variable mishmash of Asian nationalities.

2)Why does ANYONE tell someone in an online game personal stuff. I've been playing with people for years and all they know is I live in Belgium and that I'm 20. Oh, and that I like metal because I tend to sing along with metallica on teamspeak. Do they know if I have kids? Am I female/male (the ones i dont talk to on teamspeak obviously :p)? Black/white? So why do you tell people if you are indeed a female irl and not just a NE female, or really gay and not just rp'ing a gay Orc. MAYBE if you got to know a person or a group well you could tell more personal stuff, like I have done. I don't walk around telling people i'm into SM (which I'm not, just an example... or am I? Who knows :p) because I know it might get me flamed and stuff.

You've already answered your own question.. People get to know people and you end up telling them personal info.. Totally dependant upon the people involved as to how much is told and what.. Sometimes, it's inadvertent, like..

One sec, brb, dog is growling at the door..
AFK for a bit, the little one just made a mess of her diaper.
Be back in 5 folks. Bathroom break.. Too much Mountain Dew.
BRB. Call on the other line, probably hubby..

Hey guys, how was the run??
*generic answer*
Yeah, I know.. Wanted to be there too, but the bf had an accident and I had to drive him to the emergency room.
*generic muttering*
No, it's nothing too serious.. Thank God for that.. Just wasn't paying enough attention when he was chopping up dinner.

Ventrillo and/or Teamspeak or similar programs make it even easier to find out what the other person is like. Accents, background noise, language use etc.

You'd be surprised at how much info people let slip, something I've noticed over the years online.. Only those, who I call friends get a lot of info, most folks don't get past the acquantances stage. And as those friends like to say, I'm like that old padlocked book. Damned interesting to read, but a real bastard to get open. :grin:

PS:I should really somehow find out how different the us servers are to the eu servers, because personally I have hardly seen any anti-gay stuff. Would be a shame if the general attitude on us servers is that bad.
HoD

Don't know what the EU servers are like, but I've been on the US Servers both during OB and during my trial run.. If, I had to rate Barrens Chat?? One maybe two steps above the general Battle.Net channels, in the days before WoW and during the height of Diablo I and II.

Or to put in more generalized terms.. If, the Battle.Net channels = The official forums. Then Barrens Chat = gamespy forums.. That's still quite some light years away from the forums here. So the end goal would be, to get the US channels to be more like this place. If, that were to occur, then we probably wouldn't need the *-friendly guilds anymore.

Side note.. Considering all this talk about appropriate behaviour in-game and how heterosexuality isn't supposedly blatant..

Check this thread (http://forums.worldofwar.net/showthread.php?t=362104), and that doesn't even include the chap who caught two folks (apparently bf anf gf) cybering in the Tram Tunnel between SW and IF.

As you are a gamer I imagine, Im sure you can understand the concept of an easter-egg, as it was called in a previous post. That is, something that is hidden to some degree, usually in the confines of a program, that references the real world, or something often not within the bounds of the normal program. Having such an easter egg in a program does not define the program itself. Take for example the old easter egg in Microsoft Excel, where the right combination of keyboard commands took you to a flight simulator. Would we therefore call Excel a flight simulator? Certainly not.
.

On a related matter, considering the number of easter eggs, which have to do with sex, sexual behaviour and/or sexual identity, when compared to the total number of easter eggs. Let's just say that it makes Blizzard look rather hypocritical, when they say they don't want those types of things in-game.. :laugh:

Grendo

02-02-2006, 10:57 PM

On a related matter, considering the number of easter eggs, which have to do with sex, sexual behaviour and/or sexual identity, when compared to the total number of easter eggs. Let's just say that it makes Blizzard look rather hypocritical, when they say they don't want those types of things in-game.. :laugh:Hypocritical using those numbers, maybe. Breaking the law? Absolutely not.

To fix the problem they created (being hypocritical) they should remove the sexual references, easter-eggs or not out of the game. Id say they are much more dangerous than what Sara is trying to combat.

Not only do you have 'impressionable kids' playing, but you could have any one of a number of interest groups that are against what the easter-eggs might be promoting. Nevermind the gaming consequenses, as they dont allow a person to fully integrate themselves into the game for the full experience.

Shellar

03-02-2006, 01:12 AM

It's fine. Learn to play.

PrismaticEcho

03-02-2006, 01:36 AM

Seraphon

03-02-2006, 05:57 AM

Grendo,

As I understand easter eggs, the /silly command is not one. It's not hidden at all. Neither is the /flirt. Regardless, if they're there, they're there. Blizzard is being hypocritical to say they want no mention of sexuality in game.

Oh yeah! And a quick update:

The guild leader of Stonewall Champions, who lives in San Francisco, has agreed to help the lawyer from Lambda Legal. To quote the lawyer, "We're Golden!" And Greg (the leader of SC) said that he spoke with the lawyer today, and that he made him feel VERY good about the outcome being favorable after Lambda gets involved. The lawyer is sending the letter tomorrow! We shall see what happens after that!:grin:

All the best for your lawsuit Sara. I hope that Blizzard pre-empts it with a more reasonable policy. I don't think anyone wants political or religious discussion to mar the game, but they have clearly gone too far with their current policy. It would be worse for Blizzard if they stuck to their guns and had to endure a high profile lawsuit.

For the record, I haven't seen any respectable journalist take sides against you yet.

Besides... I'm relegated by choice to playing Warcraft III (which I don't have to pay them for) until they do change it.

PrismaticEcho

03-02-2006, 06:27 AM

I'm not sure that there will be a lawsuit yet. The lawyer is attempting to get Blizzard to change their position, by showing them how they're breaking Califorina law, apparently. He's hoping that the letter does the trick, so we don't have to take further action. So keep your fingers crossed.

And also, please keep your eye out for the next issue of Computer Gaming World! I did an interview with them the other day. They're having a 3 page spread on the situation in the next issue. he said they were one of the 2"big" gaming magazines on the news stands (them, and PC Gamer, he said).

Renceward

03-02-2006, 06:51 AM

I have actually returned to playing EQ2 since Blizzard pulled this. If you haven't checked it out in while, it has really improved.

I am hoping that Blizzard comes to their senses, but my impression with them in the past is that they make a lot of really stupid decisions and then stick by them no matter what. Blizzard simply does not like to admit that it made a mistake. I think that this whole issue arose out of that. A GM made a mistake, he/she stretched the policy too far and twisted it in a manner it was never meant to be applied. Rather than correct the situation at that time, Blizzard defended the GMs decision even to the point of stating that they would rewrite the policies to make it clear that the GM was correct. So essentially they will write the policy to match the enforcement because the enforcement did not match the policy.

I really think that it is publicity that will get Blizzard to back down. As has been mentioned, no journalist who has touched the story has come down on Blizzard's side. Their position is almost indefensible. Stories like this start slow, but I am hoping that more of the media picks up on this. It would be great to see this in the technology section of USAToday.

PrismaticEcho

03-02-2006, 07:21 AM

ZaxGreia

03-02-2006, 08:18 AM

First of all, for Rutty, homosexuality is all about sex. You cannot consider yourself a real homosexual (according to the etymology of the word) until you actually have sex with someone of the same gender. Otherwise, the term we would use would be something like homophilic. Homosexual literally means someone who has sex with another individual of the same gender. I understand that it may mean something different to different people, but you can't take the sex out of homosexual.

Second, Sara's crusade will end, her 15 minutes over, and what will have been accomplished? People will learn that not even their video games are safe from the pervasive campaign of the downtrodden minority groups. You can't read a newspaper, magazine, webpage, children's book, or bathroom wall without reading about some campaign for the mistreated. As far as WoW goes, the only mistreated group I want to hear about are those poor war orphans - they have a real cause, at least as far as the game is concerned.

Finally, the debate has come to the point that no matter how many big words, affirmative action examples (for or against), or attempts at logical reasoning are put forth, the water's been tainted - forever muddied. Blizzard may be forced to change their policy (or apologize or something), however it's decided, but the game will never be the same. Some of you may think that's a good thing, but judging from the official forums, I doubt it'll help matters.

For my personal feelings on the actual issue at hand, please see my first post. I thought I summed it up fairly well.

P.S. - Rush cheated on the poll - it's heavily biased. Most people don't break the law, and believe that keeping the law is a good thing. If someone is keeping the law, and someone penalizes them, it's wrong. The difference is that real-world law shouldn't be reaching into a made-up world - at least no law other than that which the creator of that world sets. The question should be changed to something that actually states the issue, but doesn't take sides. All that needs to be done is "legal" should be removed, since it's a qualifier and would actually leave enough room for the entire line to fit :)

Seraphon

03-02-2006, 10:14 AM

First of all, for Rutty, homosexuality is all about sex. You cannot consider yourself a real homosexual (according to the etymology of the word) until you actually have sex with someone of the same gender. Otherwise, the term we would use would be something like homophilic. Homosexual literally means someone who has sex with another individual of the same gender. I understand that it may mean something different to different people, but you can't take the sex out of homosexual.

This is simply ignorant. Are the hordes of 14 year old virgins who spam Barrens chat about what they'd like to do to various famous females not heterosexuals?

homosexual |?h?m??sek sh o??l| adjective (of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex. • involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex : homosexual desire.

It's not about what you do, but what you'd like to do.

Second, Sara's crusade will end, her 15 minutes over, and what will have been accomplished? People will learn that not even their video games are safe from the pervasive campaign of the downtrodden minority groups.

Good thing too.

You can't read a newspaper, magazine, webpage, children's book, or bathroom wall without reading about some campaign for the mistreated.

Because it would be so much better if people just accepted being treated as second class citizens..... I mean, those black people were simply being irritating when they tried to get media coverage on the issue of segregation...

I only hope you are joking...

PrismaticEcho

03-02-2006, 10:19 AM

Renceward

03-02-2006, 04:16 PM

Seraphon

03-02-2006, 06:34 PM

Anyee

03-02-2006, 07:27 PM

Think very carefully for a moment: were you attracted to members of the opposite sex BEFORE or AFTER your first sexual experience with one? This is of course assuming most of you have had sex beyond cybering in the Tram, but the point stands.

A 13 year old girl who has never been kissed will nonetheless declare her heterosexuality by being head-over-heels in lust with some annoying pop starlet. She knows what sex is and knows what sorts of people she might like to have it with. Why should homosexuals be any different? This wouldn't be the first time a bizarre double standard was applied to homosexuals and heterosexual, of course.

That said, this is one of the stupidest debates ever. There are mechanisms in place to protect people from harassment and if your guildmates can't find a better adjective for lousy than gay, debate your choice of guild.

ZaxGreia

03-02-2006, 08:11 PM

This is simply ignorant.
I think it's abundantly clear what you think of people who disagree with you, based on this and earlier comments you've made.

homosexual |?h?m??sek sh o??l| adjective (of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex. • involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex : homosexual desire.
Point taken, and I appreciate the reference for many reasons. It says very well what I was trying to say. It's all about sexual attraction. Just because you notice a member of the same gender is attractive, or you have feelings of love towards a member of the same gender (love isn't sexual - just for the record), doesn't make you homosexual. It's when those feelings are sexual.

I only hope you are joking...
As I stated, these are very much my feelings. I would say that I hope you're joking as well, but I know that this issue is very serious for many people. I truly feel sorry for people who grow up not knowing where they stand as far as gender is concerned, or feel that noone will love them if they reveal their true feelings. I'm sure it's a difficult thing. I think they should be treated kindly, with the love that all people deserve, but I don't think they should get special treatment anywhere. Blizzard should not be required to put affirmative action policies in place (because I'm sure you know your reasoning is the same that the AA groups use, Seraphon), simply because a small percentage of their gaming population is feeling unfairly treated.

The great thing about consumerism is that if you don't like a product, you don't have to buy it. Take your money somewhere else.

Oh, and if you call me ignorant again, you lose the argument, Seraphon. :tongue: I figured it's fair to let you know in advance :wink:

PrismaticEcho

03-02-2006, 08:18 PM

ZaxGreia

03-02-2006, 08:41 PM

Zax, you still haven't touched on the subject that transgendered has NOTHING to do with sexual practices. A transgendered person can be homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual. What is your argument against them, I'm curious to hear. . . because that's what I am.

~
Sara Echo Andrews
It's pretty clear that transgendered people would be regarded the same as homo-, bi-, or heterosexuals, depending on whether they made an issue of the fact that they were not their current gender from birth. I would also imagine that the treatment is worst for homosexual (potentially transgendered) males, as most detractors are teenage boys...

As for how I feel about transgendered people - I don't even really get into the idea of cosmetic plastic surgery, so sex change operations are totally beyond me. As I mentioned in that last post, I feel that everyone deserves love, and noone deserves to be picked or preyed on in any way. How I feel about you or your lifestyle doesn't affect the way I live, and I won't purposefully make your life harder. I'm sure life does that all on its own.

The game is a different province, mostly because it's owned and operated by a private business. They set the rules, police them, and change them at their own whim. If I don't like what they're doing, I don't play. For example, I don't like super gory games - they just don't appeal. I never bought Doom 3 because it offended my sensibilities. I don't play Grand Theft Auto III (and related games) because it's a glorification of criminal activity, though I did play the copycat game Simpsons Hit and Run since it had many of the same gameplay elements, just none of the overt criminal activity.

It sounds like you don't like games that don't accept your lifestyle, and WoW may not be what you're looking for. I don't know that there are many games that are overtly sympathetic to your cause - that might be the route to go. Make a game (or help get one made) that includes community support that you would want. That's how the system is supposed to work - society and games have different rules...

Grendo

03-02-2006, 08:46 PM

I dunno if I've linked this here or not. . . but Kotaku has done the first story about Lambda Legal helping out with this case. Here's the link:

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/breaking/gay-rights-group-examining-world-of-warcraft-152461.php

Can anyone post this text in the forum, or PM it to me? The sites blocked from work, likely due to the 'gaming' tag.

Obviously, Im very intrigued in this concept, and after reading that this was indeed more than just a publicity/money thing (from the intelligence of the posts from the other side, and remarks hoping for nothing more than a change) I really hope that it does bring about a change for the better. Policies need to be better defined to bring a better experience to everyone. If people are effected, there should be at least an acknowledgement, and so far Blizzard has really failed to do even that.

Why I dont necessarily think what they did was legally wrong, I do think they didnt do a whole lot right in the situation either.

Good luck =)

PrismaticEcho

03-02-2006, 08:58 PM

Here ya go Grendo:

The nation’s oldest and largest legal group dedicated to the protection of gay and lesbian civil rights is looking into the whole
Brouhaha surrounding Blizzard’s seemingly anti-gay guild recruitment policies.

Lambda Legal attorney Brian Chase told Kotaku Thursday that he is working with Sara Andrews of Tennessee and Greg Woo of California about the issue.

Blizzard sent Andrews an email warning her against trying to recruit for her gay-friendly guild because it violated the company’s anti-harassment policy. Andrews wrote Blizzard back saying she wasn’t insulting anybody. Blizzard replied that her actions could incite others to harass players who otherwise wouldn’t be harassed.

Woo is a member of Stonewall Champions, one of the larger gay-friendly guilds in WoW. The group also has guilds in numerous other MMOs including Guild Wars and City of Heroes.

“You can’t tell gay and lesbian people that they have to be quiet so other folk won’t harass them,” Chase said. “If you want to stop harassment you have to stop the harassers not the victims.”

Chase added that under California law a place of business cannot be discriminatory.

“That is settled law in California, but these laws haven’t been enforced in a virtual world, yet,” he said. “I think telling gay and lesbian people that they have to be quiet and go back into the closet is discrimination.”

Renceward

03-02-2006, 10:47 PM

There are many issues here. A big one is whether or not what Blizzard is doing is morally correct. There is also the legal issue. The moral issue is being questioned by many players and by the media. There is obviously not concensus among the player base on this topic, but the media is generally not supportive of Blizzards position.

The second issue is legal. Blizzard is a private business, but a private business cannot do whatever the hell they want. For example, no business in the US could refuse to hire someone because they are Black. This is against federal and state law, the law has been through the courts and upheld.

Blizzard is based on California. State law there prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, so Blizzard could not hire someone simply because they were gay. These laws also cover public accomidations. Thus a hotel could not refuse to rent a room to someone because they are gay or a restaurant could not refuse service to someone because they are gay.

So we do currently legislate things that private businesses can and cannot do. There is certainly some potential here to interpret the law as the game is a public accomodation (a movie theater, an arcade, an amusement park etc. would all be considered public accomidations, so the courts my extend the definition to an on-line entertainment enviroment). The next issue would be is whether or not the actions taken by Blizzard treat GLBT players differently than other players. Now there are issues with whether or not the law would apply because WOW operates across state lines. This is why Lambda Legal is working now with California residents on this. We then have a California resident doing business with a California based company. It could be an interesting legal case.

But there is one big thing that people are forgetting. Blizzard's legal department writes the Terms of Service and User Agreements. The current TOS does NOT prohibit Sara's behaviour. There is nothing in the agreement that prohibits the advertising of a GLBT-friendly guild. A GM gave her a warning and then twisted the meaning of the TOS. It is a pretty wild stretch to come to the conclusion that the GM did. Blizzard acknowledges this by stating that they are going to rewrite the TOS to "Clarify" this point. So they are going to write this into their TOS as it is not there now.

This decision was made by the GM management staff. They created this policy out of thin air and they want the TOS to reflect this new policy. This means that the LEGAL department will be asked to put this into the TOS. I don't know that the legal department will do that. The legal department is there to stop the rest of the company from doing illegal or legally questionable things. At the very least, this policy would be on shaky legal ground. I don't know if a lawyer would be willing to codify this type of discrimination in a Terms of Service agreement.

The new TOS is not out yet, they have simply stated that they are going to change it, but the change hasn't happened. Their legal department may stop this before it goes any further. There is also a chance that the legal department may have second thoughts when they hear from Lambda Legal. It is quite obvious that there will be a legal challange to this policy if they do adopt it. Is Blizzard's legal staff willing to go to court over this? Do they honestly feel that their TOS could stand a court challange?

It will be interesting to see if any changes actually come out to the Terms of Service or if legal backs away from it.

ZaxGreia

04-02-2006, 12:09 AM

Renceward, recall that in the examples you've mentioned, people are being denied service or employment because of some situation in which they are being singled out. Note that they are unable to participate at all due to the perceived shortcoming.

Blizzard is in no way directly denying service to the GLBT crowd. As has been mentioned, there are large guilds that have a secondary purpose of harboring those GBLTs not comfortable (for whatever reason or bad experience) in other guilds. Because of this, they are not directly breaking the law, though they may be discriminating as to what they do and don't allow poeple to discuss or advertise in-game.

According to my limited legal knowledge, it's not illegal for a private business to limit what is or is not allowed in their establishment (speaking of the game world as Blizzard's property). If they feel something would be potentially inflammatory, they won't allow it - for the sake of the game environment, and the majority of their customer base. I think Blizzard could argue quite ably that being forced to apply real world societal regulations and morality to their game would affect gameplay for much of the player base in a way detrimental to the business.

I'm curious to see if something (anything...) comes of this particular issue, and how Blizzard's legal team will decide to handle it. It certainly sounds like Lambda's preparing for a fight.

I wonder if Blizzard drops any epic loot when they're defeated...

PrismaticEcho

04-02-2006, 12:33 AM

Zax, I believe I'm at liberty to mention some of the court cases that have been won that are similar to this one. In one particular one. . . there was a lesbian couple who was being denied the same rights that other members of their country club were given. I believe I linked a news article to one somewhere in this thread. In that example, the lesbian couple were NOT being denied entry into the county club. But they weren't allowed the same opportunities that other members were allowed. Lambda Legal helped them with their case.

Basically, what that proved was that discrimination isn't confined to whether or not the place of business denies you their service. As Brian said in the Kotaku piece, he believes that telling homosexuals that they have to stay in the closet is discrimination. That's why they're so willing to help, I think.

Grendo

04-02-2006, 12:47 AM

In one particular one. . . there was a lesbian couple who was being denied the same rights that other members of their country club were given. I believe I linked a news article to one somewhere in this thread. In that example, the lesbian couple were NOT being denied entry into the county club. But they weren't allowed the same opportunities that other members were allowed. Lambda Legal helped them with their case.

Basically, what that proved was that discrimination isn't confined to whether or not the place of business denies you their service. As Brian said in the Kotaku piece, he believes that telling homosexuals that they have to stay in the closet is discrimination. That's why they're so willing to help, I think.To be fair, no ones proved whether heterosexuals have been denied the same 'rights' mentioned. Which would be the only case for actual discrimination, like your country club case. If neither side has those 'rights' than there is no favoritism or discrimination present.

Yes, heterosexual chats go unpoliced everyday. So do homosexual chats. The only comments that are policed are ones that are reported (in most cases). So two questions need to be answered to determine actual discrimination:

1. Has any heterosexual comments been reported.
2. If there has, what was done about it/them ?

If none have been reported, there is no basis for determining discrimination, as we dont know what Blizzards' stance on it would be at all, and can only conclude that their stance on the GLBT-friendly is as they say and would apply in both directions (not discrimination).

While I myself have seen someone banned for hetero comments in General (an old guild, needless to say im not with them anymore with members like that), my heresay situation would not qualify a legal foundation to argue upon.

SweVoyager

04-02-2006, 12:48 AM

Pwned in a mere six words... :grin:

Please do so more often, your posts are inaccesable long most of the time!

SweVoyager

04-02-2006, 01:04 AM

After reading this morning's crop of threads in the General Forum, I could understand why some gay people might never want to play again. I thought it was bad a couple of days ago, but this is far worse.

I can't understand why Blizz doesn't permaban every person who has posted hateful material in the forums. Or I guess I can... money.

I remember reading somewhere that Blizz stated that their company was GLBT friendly. Yeah right...
I picked one of many thats stating mostly the same thing.

How do you know that they haven't been perma-banned?

The same goes for all of those comments about people not being banned for saying gay or fag in GC, have you reported them and added them to your friends list just to see if they ever log in again? I have done that on several occasions myself, and every single time there have been a ban! Explain that, please, if noone gets banned for saying gay or fag? Methinks you guys haven't bothered reporting anybody, and just assumed noone gets banned because it makes your argument here somewhat stronger.

Personally I think I've changed my mind regarding this single incident, and I think that Blizzard made a mistake. But so did Prism, since there is so many other ways of saying the exact same thing without taking such a political powered term into GC as GLBT. And it would have so **** easy to just change the add to not include that term it's almost laughable. But no, instead it's turned into a big ruckus on too many boards to count and also made into a big media circus. And all because Blizzard had made one single political term off limits.

And may I also point out, that if what you have asked for (I guess it's a chat-bot of sorts that scans GC's everywhere for offensive words) GBLT would most assurdly also be affected. Not that it would be possible in the first place, with the servers being so lagged down as it is.

And I still think Sara is mainly on a power trip on this one. But I may forgive her if it makes GLBT's lifes everywhere better, I just hope that Blizzard is still around when it comes to that.

PrismaticEcho

04-02-2006, 01:26 AM

To be fair, no ones proved whether heterosexuals have been denied the same 'rights' mentioned. Which would be the only case for actual discrimination, like your country club case. If neither side has those 'rights' than there is no favoritism or discrimination present.

Yes, heterosexual chats go unpoliced everyday. So do homosexual chats. The only comments that are policed are ones that are reported (in most cases). So two questions need to be answered to determine actual discrimination:

1. Has any heterosexual comments been reported.
2. If there has, what was done about it/them ?

If none have been reported, there is no basis for determining discrimination, as we dont know what Blizzards' stance on it would be at all, and can only conclude that their stance on the GLBT-friendly is as they say and would apply in both directions (not discrimination).

While I myself have seen someone banned for hetero comments in General (an old guild, needless to say im not with them anymore with members like that), my heresay situation would not qualify a legal foundation to argue upon.

As I said before. . . telling homosexuals that they must stay in the closet in game is discrimination. As they've stated in their reply, they want to keep subjects that are controversial out of the game. Heterosexuality is NOT a controversial subject, so it's allowed. This goes beyond just advertising for a GLBT friendly guild. Check out this livejournal post, where a guy had a conversation with a GM regarding weddings ingame. He brought up a great point. Heterosexual couples can have weddings in game, however, if two male toons do this and someone complains. . . then it violates this new policy that they're proposing. THat's discriminating against gays. Simply MENTIONING that you're homosexual in any way, shape, form, or fashion will be against this policy. The same doesn't apply to heterosexuality, because it's not a controversial real world topic. This is what makes it discrimnation. You can't tell gays that they can't mention their sexuality (even mentioning that you've got a boyfriend), without telling heterosexuals the same (they can't even mention thier spouse). Anyways, here is the LJ post:

http://brewergnome.livejournal.com/186819.html?#cutid1

Valas Azuviir

04-02-2006, 01:46 AM

To be fair, no ones proved whether heterosexuals have been denied the same 'rights' mentioned. Which would be the only case for actual discrimination, like your country club case. If neither side has those 'rights' than there is no favoritism or discrimination present.

.

I think the argument can be made, that if other guilds are allowed to recruit people on general chat, on the basis of them being casual players, hardcore raiders, or belonging to certain nationalities, then Blizzard denying a GLBT-friendly guild or a female-friendly guild the same opportunities could be considered discrimination.

Renceward.. Situation is a tad more complex than you outlined, that is, if I understood all the mail between Sara and Blizzard, as linked to by Rushter, correctly. The rules the GM quoted against her are the ToU for the World of Warcraft Forums, and not the ToS included in WoW the game. I did the quoting of the relevant rules myself here (http://forums.worldofwar.net/showpost.php?p=3644516&postcount=107).

So in short, even the warning she received is not warrented, because she did not break that rule. It would be like getting a ticket for speeding, whereas you should be getting a ticket for putting your garbage can outside a day early. Fair is fair.

Oh and Zax.. Transgenderism isn't about lifestyle, so much as, and I hope that Sara doesn't mind my choice of words, trying to correct a mistake made by Mother Nature. The brain has been hard-wired to act in one way through way of overexposure to certain hormones during the pregnancy, yet the body does not match set hard wiring, because something went wrong during one of those hormone flooding phases.. IIRC, there are three in total, which help determine, sexual identity, sexual preference and I don't recall what the other aspect was..

It's really no different from offering cochlear implants to people born deaf. Or offering corrective eye surgery for people who would otherwise go blind or remain so.

Might want to give the webcomic known as Venus Envy a looksee, it can explain things about transgenderism a while lot better than I can.

Oh and just as a small aside that Mother Nature does seriously malf up at times.. Example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28genetics%29). And example (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1392149). Or in short.. Things are seldomly as simple as they seem. Same applies to the GLBT group. Lot of folks think it's choice, then again, who in their right mind would willingly pick a life in which they would get battered, verbally abused, spat upon, murdered, discriminated against, raped, tortured and the list goes on and on.

And just as an extra reminder why more tolerance is needed for this community.. Bloody attack on Mass. gay bar stuns region (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060203/us_nm/crime_massachusetts_gay_dc_2;_ylt=Ai7Bfp_ouf.buRtkaFNk2uZH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--).

And in addition to all of this, keep in mind that a ban on GLBT-friendly guilds would also mean a ban for female-friendly guilds. Ergo more harrassment of female players, and considering how perps seem to bounce straight back after a few days of suspension.. Not an option imo. Not an option at all.

Renceward

04-02-2006, 02:12 AM

If a movie theater admits straights and gays, but requires that the gays sit only in the last four rows, that is discrimination. True they can all enter the same theater, they call see the same movie, but they are not treated in the same way.

I do not believe that this is a clear cut case in terms of the law. I believe that morally it is very clear cut. It is blatant discrimination on the part of Blizzard. They are punishing the victims rather than the perps. etc.

Legally it gets a bit trickier. GLBT players can certainly play the game, but are there additional restrictions on GLBT players. I think in fact that there are.

Right now they can state that they would not allow someone to state "I am straight" just as they would not allow someone to self-identify as being gay.

Currently many player will self-identifier their gender. I hear statements such as "I'm a guy" or "I'm a dude" especially if someone is confused because of the gender of the character. This is not against TOS in any way shape or form.

We also hear statements such as "My wife thinks I play WOW too much" Again nothing wrong with this statement. If this statement comes from someone who has identified themselves as a man, we now have a statement of sexual orientation. We know this man to be straight.

For equal treatment then, it could not possibly be wrong for a person who has self-identified as being male to state "My boyfriend thinks I play WOW too much". If the prior statement was acceptable, than equal treatment would dictate that this statement is acceptable too.

Now my account is cancelled and it expires tomorrow so I won't have a chance to test this out. But since Blizzard doesn't seem to want anyone to bring up the fact that they are gay publically, how would they react if it were done as mentioned above.

Because sexuality enters into all aspects of a persons life, Blizzard would have to ban simple innocent statements like the ones above and there is no realistic way they can do this.

PrismaticEcho

04-02-2006, 02:21 AM

Nicely put, Valas. . . on all accounts. ;)

ZaxGreia

04-02-2006, 03:42 AM

Valas - just for the record, I'm a biologist. I understand that nature doesn't always get it "right". I just handled a bat the other day that had a deformed tail - it was all twisted up. At any rate, you're preaching to the choir - I made sure to mention in that post that I'm sure it's a complicated thing.

At any rate, I'm waiting to hear more from Blizzard before I add more fuel to the fire. If they adjust their TOS, things will likely be even more interesting.

Seraphon

04-02-2006, 05:26 AM

I think it's abundantly clear what you think of people who disagree with you, based on this and earlier comments you've made.

Perhaps, but then again doctors tend to get annoyed by laypeople who disagree with them on medical issues that the latter know nothing about.

Due to my job, I'm in a similar position with regard to this.

Point taken, and I appreciate the reference for many reasons. It says very well what I was trying to say. It's all about sexual attraction. Just because you notice a member of the same gender is attractive, or you have feelings of love towards a member of the same gender (love isn't sexual - just for the record), doesn't make you homosexual. It's when those feelings are sexual.

So what's the point? So is heterosexuality.

Seraphon

04-02-2006, 05:42 AM

I picked one of many thats stating mostly the same thing.

How do you know that they haven't been perma-banned?

Because some of them have posted offensive comments in most of the threads. I'm not going to name names, but there is one guy in particular.

The same goes for all of those comments about people not being banned for saying gay or fag in GC, have you reported them and added them to your friends list just to see if they ever log in again? I have done that on several occasions myself, and every single time there have been a ban! Explain that, please, if noone gets banned for saying gay or fag? Methinks you guys haven't bothered reporting anybody, and just assumed noone gets banned because it makes your argument here somewhat stronger.

I don't think I said that no-one ever gets banned. If I did, then I was wrong. However, I did say that however many bans Blizzard has handed out for this, it doesn't seem to have put a dent in the problem.

But I don't think it would make a difference with regard to Blizzard's policy if it were the case that the bans worked. As the policy stands gay people are treated differently from straights where there is no moral reason to do so.

The alarm bells really started ringing for me when Sara got the email that said something like: "Many of our customers are offended by the mere term "homosexual". That's language straight from Bob's Big Book of Bigotry, and makes me think that the GM in question has a problem with gays. Frankly the policy seems bizarre and will attract all sorts of negative publicity.l

Personally I think I've changed my mind regarding this single incident, and I think that Blizzard made a mistake. But so did Prism, since there is so many other ways of saying the exact same thing without taking such a political powered term into GC as GLBT. And it would have so **** easy to just change the add to not include that term it's almost laughable. But no, instead it's turned into a big ruckus on too many boards to count and also made into a big media circus. And all because Blizzard had made one single political term off limits.

And may I also point out, that if what you have asked for (I guess it's a chat-bot of sorts that scans GC's everywhere for offensive words) GBLT would most assurdly also be affected. Not that it would be possible in the first place, with the servers being so lagged down as it is.

It's a term that offends some people and not others. Crucially, it doesn't offend the people it refers to, and that is what should take precedence over what other people think. "Queer" is slightly different, since some gay people find it really offensive, while others use it to identify themselves (like Queers on Campus at my old college). GLBT is about as inoffensive as you could get unless you invented some slang term like "Blueberries" or something ridiculous like that.

But as the policy stands, she would have been banned for making it clear what she was referring to, even if she used other words.

And I still think Sara is mainly on a power trip on this one. But I may forgive her if it makes GLBT's lifes everywhere better, I just hope that Blizzard is still around when it comes to that.

I don't think she is. I'm deeply unhappy with the policy, and it doesn't even directly affect me. I just have this funny thing where I can't stand it if people are being treated unfairly, even if they are people I disagree with (like Christians). Given the popularity of WoW and the degree to which I personally enjoyed playing it, I would hate to see this become standard policy across MMORPGs. If people let Blizzard get away with this by saying nothing, then they have only themselves to blame if other companies start doing the same thing.

But even if Sara were on a power trip, it would make no difference to the justice of her cause.

PrismaticEcho

04-02-2006, 09:52 AM

Seraphon

04-02-2006, 10:30 AM

So. . . I'm not going to release very much of this information YET. . . I promised the first article to Alexander at In Newsweekly, who broke this story to the public. BUT. . . I will say that I have just received word from the head of Blizzard's Global Customer Service. The outcome of their "review" of the current policy has yet to be seen, which is why I'm not releasing much of the info I've received. But know that things are looking REALLY good!!! I'm so excited I could just SPIT! =D

That's a relief. I hope that everyone can put this unpleasant episode behind them.

If what you have been told is accurate, then a lot of homophobes on the official forums are going to go berserk. I was going to wait a while before reactivating my account, but I might well do so early in order to gloat (I'm only human after all).

SweVoyager

04-02-2006, 01:25 PM

So. . . I'm not going to release very much of this information YET. . . I promised the first article to Alexander at In Newsweekly, who broke this story to the public. BUT. . . I will say that I have just received word from the head of Blizzard's Global Customer Service. The outcome of their "review" of the current policy has yet to be seen, which is why I'm not releasing much of the info I've received. But know that things are looking REALLY good!!! I'm so excited I could just SPIT! =D
Congratulations is in order, I guess! I'm just happy to be wrong and that you were after a change in policy, and not just a big settlement! :thumbsup:

That's a relief. I hope that everyone can put this unpleasant episode behind them.

If what you have been told is accurate, then a lot of homophobes on the official forums are going to go berserk. I was going to wait a while before reactivating my account, but I might well do so early in order to gloat (I'm only human after all).
Go ahead! The forums wouldn't be the same without some gloating! :)

And frankly, if what you guys are saying is true, the homophobes really had it coming. :cloud9:

ArcaneOne

04-02-2006, 03:51 PM

19 pages and the answer is so simple. Keep your RL out of the game!

Its so sad when I see things like this because they counterac exactly what they are trying to avoid. By creating a race/gender/sexual orientation/religion specific group you alienate and ostracize, which is exactly what you are trying to avoid. I can understand the "similar view" grouping, but with sensitive issues such as these you are bound to upset those not "invited" to the group.

Blizz is trying to keep issues like these out of the game. There is no need for it and it would create a LOT of issues. If someone falls into a group such as these then just put them on your friend list. Heck a simple signature such as "God loves you" would be promotion enough in a forum setting. Dont like the way some people chat? Leave or boot them! Im not homosexual and "That is so gay" still makes me want to kick em on the head.

Hey Im Puerto Rican....should I make a Rican/Hispanic-friendly guild? I am a Christian...should I run and create a Christian-friendly guild? How about really ostracize people and make it a Christian-Rican only Guild! Heck no! Keep it out of the game!

Renceward

04-02-2006, 10:25 PM

ArcaneOne --> It is a pity you didn't read any of the 19 pages.

Go to a major city and watch general chat for 10 minutes. Count how much RL ends up in chat. "I gotta go eat dinner", "I'll be on tomorrow after school", "The wife got home I gotta run", "My kids need the computer to do homework", "Chuck Norris is Awesome" etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

An MMORPG is a social game and this chat is SUPPOSED to be part of the game. The exception would be a role-play server where you are supposed to remain in character. Now the reason they have role-play servers is because the DO NOT expect you to remain in character on the other servers and note that there are far more non-role-play servers than role-play servers.

If you enforced a No-RL policy you would end up banning the vast majority of players as everyone makes real-life references ("Damn the cat just jumped on the keyboard", "Gotta run the baby's crying", "We're having a bad storm, I may lose power" etc. etc. etc. etc.) Be realistic, it can't be done.

To be honest, I have no problem with a Christian friendly guild. I would expect that such a guild would prohibit swearing in guild chat, especially the use of the Lord's name in vain. They may elect to pray together on-line, perhaps a bible quote of the day in their guild message. All that would be fine by me. If you don't like it, don't join their guild, but they certainly have the right to create a Christian friendly guild environment in which to play. No problem with a guild for folks of Puerto Rican descent or even Puerto Rican Christians. Some of the strongest guilds in MMORPG are built around folks with a common interest.

Also go back and read what a GLBT-friendly guild is. It is not GLBT only. My guild has actually declared itself to be GLBT-friendly even though I am the only openly gay person in the guild. What it means is that I can be open about who I am within the guild. I can say "Gotta run, my boyfriend's home" in guild chat and no one gets upset.

Sara --> Way to go. I cancelled my subscription a week ago and it runs out tonight. Haven't played in over a week. My friends miss me but understand completely why I felt that I had to leave. I assured them that I would be back when Blizzard reversed its stance. Hopefully I'll be back sooner rather than later. I love show tunes (I'm gay -- duh! Bring on the stereotypes!), if you aren't familiar with it you have to hunt down the song "One Person" from Dear World (one of Jerry Herman's lesser known shows). I hereby dedicate the song to you.

Maksym

05-02-2006, 02:35 PM

I havn't posted on this thread, but I have read all of it.

Just popping in now to congratulate you Sara. Well done ! It takes alot of heart and courage to do what you did, but our society, in and outside games, cannot advance without people like you.

Oh and Arcade One, you are looking a bit silly at this point in time, I reccomend you give the 19 pages of this thread a read.

Kellas

05-02-2006, 05:51 PM

Elly

05-02-2006, 08:15 PM

http://www.innewsweekly.com/innews/?class_code=Ga&article_code=1205

Over the weekend, during the game, which is the world's largest massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG), it was reported there was a wedding at which several characters showed up to protest people flaunting their heterosexuality.

And it's people like this who completely undermine the entire argument. The issue steadily gains favour and then some prat pulls a stunt such as this.:dunce:

SpiritWalker

05-02-2006, 08:30 PM

Renceward

05-02-2006, 09:31 PM

SpiritWalker - you clearly have not read the entire 20 pages. The answer to your question is brought up again and again. Your argument has been refuted over and over and you bring nothing new to the table. Why did you bother to post?

Valas Azuviir

06-02-2006, 12:31 AM

Cba to read 20 pages, just like to ask why in godsname was she looking for a GLBT friendly guild? It's a game, she can easily keep her personal life just that, personal. If I go looking for a new guild I don't care what sex that person is or what sex he/she prefers, just as long as I can enjoy the game with them. She just put an unnecesary load on a game.
That said it's typically american to blow stuff like this way out of proportion and screw up handling it in all ways possible.

Spiritwalker, she wasn't looking for.. She was advertising that her GLBT-friendly guild was open for business and looking for some new recruits. No different from a Casual or Hardcore raiding guild looking for some new members either.

Why advertise?? Because otherwise folks won't know where to go or what this particular guid's code of behaviour is.. Why have a GLBT-friendly guild?? Please see the various arguments put forward in the previous 20 pages.

But to summarize it all for you, if you still cannot be bothered. It's about creating a harrassment free place for players who are either GLBT or to those mature enough who can handle having guild members who belong to that group and who won't freak if they get the message. Sorry, folks. Gotta go. The BF just came in with tickets to Chicago*.

*: Or any other musical/movie or whatever that particular couple is into.

By that same token, having an enviroment which supports the creation of GLBT-friendly guilds, also allows for the creation of female-friendly guilds..
And why would they be needed?? For a somewhat humouristic reasoning See here (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/17/27). Some chaps, won't take no for an answer, with regards to the pics or having their requests for cybering turned down.

Female-friendly guilds offer the same type of protection for female players. Safety in the group and enough players to tackle instances.

SpiritWalker

06-02-2006, 04:20 AM

SpiritWalker - you clearly have not read the entire 20 pages.
This is sarcasm right? Because I said in my post that I can't bothered to read through 20 pages of arguments. So my question to you could be did you even read the first 5 words of my post?

Anyway, thank you for summarising Valas.

To be honest I still don't see a reason, with the arguments supplied by you, why to create such a guild other than to stir things up. Unless you're playing on such an immature server with bnet kiddies I can't even imagine people being bothered by someone for his or her sexual preference in a game. Of course you will have always have some, but if they can't even ignore those few people, then how do they manage in real life when confronted with the same?

Also I don't know about you but I see a guild as a group of friends or people you like playing with, if you are in a guild with friends or people you like what does sexual preference matter? Nothing, unless you make it into a problem, which doesn't exist on a large scale, like this girl does.

And on a side note we have a gay person in our guild, I was surprised the first time I heard it, so were some others, but he was in no way harrassed or whatever, nor do I see this happenening in any other guild really.

SO if she really was that harrased for her sex or sexual preference she shouldn't make such a guild, she should change to a server with a bit more mature people, though I doubt there is a server with that many bnet kiddies.

Seraphon

06-02-2006, 04:37 AM

Unless you're playing on such an immature server with bnet kiddies I can't even imagine people being bothered by someone for his or her sexual preference in a game.

I've yet to see a server that didn't have quite a few of these, and I've yet to see a PvP server that didn't have a whole lot of them.

hungc9

06-02-2006, 05:12 AM

I believe that Spirit has a very valid point. If someone goes out and create a heterosexual friendly guild and advertise it as so I believe that the responses would be just as irrational. This is a game and sexual preference should not matter, it's all about the gaming experience. With that as the basis, to explicitly advertise is the equivalent as trolling.
In real life if you advertised like that you expect controversy. There will always be people who will take offense. That's life, and in the internet it is amplified due to anonymity. What do you expect? Why do you think there are flame wars?
If the creator of the guild was trying to take up a cause kudos to them but be prepared to take the heat. The life of a martyr is seldom easy and often violent. If you can't take the heat /Ignore that's what it is there for.

Valas Azuviir

06-02-2006, 12:58 PM

Anyway, thank you for summarising Valas.

To be honest I still don't see a reason, with the arguments supplied by you, why to create such a guild other than to stir things up. Unless you're playing on such an immature server with bnet kiddies I can't even imagine people being bothered by someone for his or her sexual preference in a game. Of course you will have always have some, but if they can't even ignore those few people, then how do they manage in real life when confronted with the same?

Also I don't know about you but I see a guild as a group of friends or people you like playing with, if you are in a guild with friends or people you like what does sexual preference matter? Nothing, unless you make it into a problem, which doesn't exist on a large scale, like this girl does.

And on a side note we have a gay person in our guild, I was surprised the first time I heard it, so were some others, but he was in no way harrassed or whatever, nor do I see this happenening in any other guild really.

SO if she really was that harrased for her sex or sexual preference she shouldn't make such a guild, she should change to a server with a bit more mature people, though I doubt there is a server with that many bnet kiddies.

Spiritwolf, hungc9.

The issues you raise were addressed in the previous 20 pages. Now, I just gave a quick summary of the main points. If, you feel they weren't convincing enough, then please see the far more thorough explanations given in those 20 pages.

They were deemed weighty enough by folks who initially took the same pov, as you two are doing and as they now seem more inclined towards the more leeway for these types of guilds in order to allow for a more enjoyable playing experience for all involved.

Yes, I could probably give another summary of those other arguments, but then this is my lunchbreak and I'm running out of time here. :laugh:

So be a sport and find the time to read all the arguments back and forth, will make debating far easier.

SpiritWalker

06-02-2006, 03:02 PM

They were deemed weighty enough by folks who initially took the same pov, as you two are doing and as they now seem more inclined towards the more leeway for these types of guilds in order to allow for a more enjoyable playing experience for all involved.

So be a sport and find the time to read all the arguments back and forth, will make debating far easier.
Ok, so I went and be a sport for you, I read those 20 freaking pages. Though nowhere do I read people suddenly magically agreeing with your point of view.

Since everything I've said and everything I'd like to say more or less has already been said, and if it's not, you'd probably argue it has been, eitherway, then I want to say this as a last: I laugh at this girl's attempts, not for being a minority, but for being a majority, they're called Americans and they sue everything possible, and they blow everything out of proportion, and they make themselves look like fools to Europeans and the rest of the world.

Ohnoes, I made a stereotype which could be seen as racist, discriminating, politically incorrect, sue me!

PS. "Domme kut marokkaantjes" haha..

Toper

06-02-2006, 03:49 PM

Also I don't know about you but I see a guild as a group of friends or people you like playing with, if you are in a guild with friends or people you like what does sexual preference matter?

It doesn't: that's the point.

That's why people want gay-friendly guilds - because they want to know that if and when someone mentions their BF then answers "I'm not" to the chorus of "yr a girl???" in guild chat, there will be no-one in the guild who'll react in a negative, immature manner.

That sort of thing puts a downer on everyone's play - and knowing in advance that the friends you're going to make won't turn out to be a*****les is priceless, in a guild just like in real life.

We all know that general chat is full of homophobic 15-year olds calling everyone gay (and I play on European servers, so it's not just a US issue). A guild should be somewhere you can escape such casual bigotry and feel relaxed and happy, and knowing that a guild is gay-friendly and will not tolerate any such BS will make many players more relaxed and happy - which is a good thing - and improve everyone's playing experience.

Believe it or not (and I guess you won't), being GLBT-friendly is a selling point for a guild advertising for recruits. But then, I guess Blizzard would issue me a warning if I advertised my guild by saying "no w***ers, immature a*****les or ninja looters welcome" too...

Hateblade

06-02-2006, 05:23 PM

Is this post buried yet? Is everyone done? So glad that I don't have anything like this happening on my server. Still some sembalence of normality. I pity you poor people on the servers that are affected by this. Hopefully, the article in that online paper, and the OP canceling his/her subscription will solve this. If you don't like my opinion, that's fine. I don't like yours. I'm calling no names, and pointing no fingers. I do hope to never hear anything like this on my server, and I hope that this thread will end soon. I enjoy playing a game where this sort of thing is ignored, and the only thing we worry about is the little kiddies spamming Barrens Chat.

BTW, if you don't like the Barrens Chat, or w/e channel the "lil kiddies" are spamming in, fix it. Shut the channel off, ignore the player, or report the player. The fixes are in place. Use them. The "15 min of fame" that this post and news article created have only proved one thing to me. The human race is circling the drain. I weep for the species.

Herald of Doom

06-02-2006, 06:56 PM

I laugh at this girl's attempts, not for being a minority, but for being a majority, they're called Americans and they sue everything possible, and they blow everything out of proportion, and they make themselves look like fools to Europeans and the rest of the world.

Quoted for truth :>

I'll rephrase some of my thoughts:

1) Homosexuality IS a dangerous subject. People are offended by it, people make fun of it, people sue over it ::cough::
2) Homosexuality is NOT the norm. People will always make fun of what they don't understand and you can NOT blame Blizzard for what people say ingame UNLESS they get reported and nothing is done about it.
3) RL sensitive stuff should be banned as much as possible from public chats. Saying "my wife is home" isnt sensitive. Saying "my homosexual life partner is home" is. Trust me, I'm a very tolerant person and I would LOVE to make the world a better place but that's reality.

So based on 1-2-3 I would like to see this:

1)Blizzard bans everyone making homophobic comments. Using "fag" or "faggot" as general swearing words is a border case, because once you do that you have to ban everyone who says goddamit or something similar
2) people report others who act homophobic, or rascist, or anything similar. you'd be amazed at how few people report :-/
3) people get warnings for starting "sensitive" guilds. That includes but isnt limited to christian, muslim, gay, rascist guilds etc. The only exception should be language based guilds because, and this may shock you, not everyone knows english. or french. or german. My nephew is 14, plays WoW and only speaks dutch. Not letting language based guilds exists takes away the whole guild system for many people. So unless Dutch servers (or spanish etc) are made language based guilds should be there. Which wont happen because there arent enough dutch players :-/

K, that about sums it up. I am really scared about how Blizzard changed the tos or tou.. Next thing you know everyone is sueing blizzard to change stuff :/

HoD

Renceward

06-02-2006, 07:03 PM

It should be an interesting week. Waiting anxiously for any further news based on Sara’s last post. I think we all infer from Sara’s excitement that Blizzard has indicated that is going to back down on the policy, at least to some extent. I am hopefully, but my account remains cancelled until I actually see what Blizzard is going to do.

Assuming that Blizzard does reverse itself, I think that this is going to create quite an uproar, no matter how the handle it. Current the homophobic portion of the WOW community has felt empowered by Blizzard’s stance. Many now feel that harassment is acceptable and condoned by Blizzard. They interpret Blizzard’s current policy as being that anyone who brings the topic up is asking for harassment and deserves it. There will probably be angry forum threads, account cancellations etc. from those on that side of the issue.

Blizzard as a company does not like to admit mistakes. I am wondering what stance they will take. I could see them blaming it all on low level employees …. “The original GM created an interpretation that was never intended, unfortunately the staff the reviewed Sara’s appeal did not recognize this misinterpretation and it was perpetuated by the forum staff’s clarification message. The policy never was and never has been to exclude the in game advertisement of guilds for being GLBT, this whole matter was the result of a few employees who misunderstood the policy. The policy is now clarified and additional training will be offered to prevent this from happening again”

Other options is to say that they reviewed the policy and are further clarifying it. Perhaps they can point to bringing their policies more in line with the competition or in line with California state law, I doubt that they will say that they are doing this simply because it is the right thing to do.

I think that Blizzard would like to sweep this under the rug, but they kind of have to announce something. They are still getting negative publicity and if they don’t publicly announce a change, the publicity will continue to spread. I know of some larger media outlets that are starting to look at this story and it won’t go away until Blizzard addresses the matter. Also if they don’t clarify it, anyone who advertises a GLBT guild will be subject to a drubbing from other players telling them that they are breaking the rules etc.

It will be an interesting couple of days or weeks. It sounds like from Sara’s post that Blizzard is still ‘reviewing’ things. My take on this is that Blizzard knows that there is a problem, they know largely what they have to do, but they still need time to figure out how best to do it. They need to undo a lot of damage and while doing as little additional damage as possible. I just hope that Sara’s enthusiasm was not premature and that we see some positive changes ahead.

rutty

06-02-2006, 07:12 PM

Other options is to say that they reviewed the policy and are further clarifying it. Perhaps they can point to bringing their policies more in line with the competition or in line with California state law, I doubt that they will say that they are doing this simply because it is the right thing to do.

I have to say, I'm bemused as to why California State law should have even the slightest bearing on my gameplay in Europe. Fine, the company has a base in California but it is an International company. Why should some flakey <excuse stereotype> US State dictate game rules? There are international discrimination laws that are better suited for such things. We are not all Californian after all.

Anyway, I do hope this works out well for all concerned.

Hateblade

06-02-2006, 07:17 PM

Seraphon

06-02-2006, 07:30 PM

rutty

06-02-2006, 07:35 PM

They don't, except that the US Servers are located in California, making them subject to California law. I imagine that the Euro servers have to abide by EU laws and the laws of the particular country they are in.

It was a bad policy decision on Blizzard's part. If they correct it, there will be another flamewar on the official forums and that will be the end of it.

They'll be changing the ToU on both sides of the Atlantic, most likely, to comply with whatever has been decided.

Either way, it's an awful lot of fuss over something that should have been avoided in the first place. Blizzard already have the game rules in place for anti-discrimination and just aren't enforcing it. I hope they've learned from it.

Anyway, this has all been gone over already.

Valas Azuviir

06-02-2006, 07:47 PM

I have to say, I'm bemused as to why California State law should have even the slightest bearing on my gameplay in Europe. Fine, the company has a base in California but it is an International company. Why should some flakey <excuse stereotype> US State dictate game rules? There are international discrimination laws that are better suited for such things. We are not all Californian after all.

15. Choice of Laws.

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without giving effect to any principles of conflicts of law. Other laws may apply if you access the Service from Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, but shall affect this Agreement only to the extent required by such jurisdiction. In such a case, this Agreement shall be interpreted to give maximum effect to the terms and conditions hereof. If you access the Service from New Zealand, The New Zealand Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 ("Act") may apply to the World of Warcraft software and/or the Service as supplied by Blizzard Entertainment to you. If the Act applies, then notwithstanding any other provision in these Terms of Use, you may have rights or remedies as set out in the Act which may apply in addition to, or, to the extent that they are inconsistent, instead of, the rights or remedies set out in these Terms of Use. Those who choose to access the Service from locations outside of the United States, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand do so on their own initiative and are responsible for compliance with local laws if and to the extent local laws are applicable.

Source (http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofuse.html)

Or in short, they claim protection from other laws by pointing to liability under California Law, unless said laws cannot be circumvented by such actions.

Course, in this case California laws are far more stringent than the laws elsewhere, barring certain European nations and Canada.

Though on a related point, Seraphon is correct that the EU does have certain different laws, which take precedence over the California Laws. Case in point, being the Credit Card information retention aspect. EU is far more stringent, meaning having to re-enter your CC info at the EU sites every other few months, due to data deletion in accordance with EU guidelines.

Renceward

06-02-2006, 07:48 PM

The state law issue becomes even clearer when you realize that some WOW players live in California. Company based in California, servers based in California, many players in California.

Even if a court ruled that the law only applied to the treatment of CA residents in the game it would put Blizzard in an awkward situation..... It is now official policy that only residents of CA can advertise GLBT-friendly guilds...... That wouldn't be real workable so Blizzard would most likely adjust the policy globally.

Blizzard did make a mess out of this one. Let's get in our way-back machine and go back to the day Sara advertised her GLBT-friendly guild. Now I still have not been able to determine from my reading whether someone reported Sara for her advertising or whether a GM initiated action on their own without a report. Either way, when the matter came to the GM's attention, the GM could have read the policy as written, which did not in any way shape or form porhibit this. The correct response would be to do nothing. If it had been reported, the person reporting it would get the standard "Thank you for bringing this to our attention, we will look into this" Blizzard never tells someone who files a report, what action is taken based on the report.

So what happens next? NOTHING! No bad press, no endless flame wars on the forums, no in game protests, no folks looking into legal remedies, no cancelled accounts from supportive GLBT and GLBT-supportive players. The matter just quietly goes away. I bet that there are some at Blizzard that wish they could have a do-over.

Piemaster

06-02-2006, 08:23 PM

Personally I hope the change in policy is that everyone can start guilds on the basis of whatever they like, that would be the fairest way in my opinion.

Of course this would mean you could have GLBT friendly guilds and also Hetero-friendly guilds. You could have Puerto Rican Guilds but also 'All American Guilds'. You could have Christian guilds but also Muslim guilds or atheist guilds for that matter.

That really is the only fair way everything else is just fudged.

ArcaneOne

06-02-2006, 08:28 PM

ArcaneOne --> It is a pity you didn't read any of the 19 pages.

You're right. I didnt. Mostly because I think this thread should have died about 19 pages ago. I know its not what people want to hear, but the reality is as much as you hate 13 year olds yellin F***OTT over the General Tab (which I turn off right after character creation) it will be just as inadecuate to have a guild that (inadvertently) ostracizes the majority. I know its GBLT and open to all others, but people dont see it that way. If it truly doesnt ostracize and you dont want idiots then say just that when advertising. MATURE players only please!!

Sara, I apologize if I offend, I just dont see the point to this except to make a big deal. I've GM'd a large guild which included young people and GBLT...never was an issue. Yeah people talked about their significant others but as long as you pick MATURE people then its never a problem. Dont blame Blizz, picking/ keeping the right people is your department.

Easy fix....online questionaire which would include views on GBLT and Religion, ect.

There, keep your other 19....oops 21 pages now. Kill this thread!!

SpiritWalker

06-02-2006, 08:35 PM

So unless Dutch servers (or spanish etc) are made language based guilds should be there. Which wont happen because there arent enough dutch players :-/
Play Stormscale, more than enough dutchies and belgians here. Was a Belgian guild called Flemish Lions (National pride or what? ;) ), but they merged, there is still a Dutch guild called Fight the Darkness. My guild has some dutchies and belgians, and I know some random other guilds that have em. So all in all a lot of dutch and belgian players here.

/off topic

Carry on with feeding the biggest attention.. seeking person I've ever seen.

Renceward

06-02-2006, 08:40 PM

Piemaster, I pretty much agree with you. Guilds are voluntary associations of players who choose to work together. Guilds with a strong common bond can be very successful.

I see three basic categories of guilds here: The friendly, the exclusive and the anti.

Whatever-friendly guilds should be largely allowed. GLBT-friendly, Christian-Friendly, Australian-Friendly, East Coast-Friendly, Female-Friendly, Teen-Friendly etc. etc. These guilds indicate that they welcome the specific classes of players listed but are not exclusive to that class of player.

I also don’t have too much trouble with the exclusive guild concept. Replace the word Friendly above with only. I personally wouldn’t want to join an exclusively guild, but I think to an extent, players should be able to form guilds of like-minded individuals. I’m sure some would disagree with me on allowing these, but I see it as a choice that the guild leadership makes and guild members decide for themselves whether or not to join. I don’t think that these guilds would be as successful as the friendly style. I could go either way on this and would not be upset of Blizzard allowed or disallowed this style of guild.

Anti guilds are more of a problem Anti-GLBT, anti-Christian, Anti-Female etc. These I don’t think can be allowed. Now the catch is when someone twists things up a bit. Some discretion will still be required. For example a Homophobe-friendly guild or a bigot-friendly guild. These are really anti-guilds disguising themselves as a friendly guild. This is where Blizzard will need to be careful, define their policy clearly and make sure the staff is properly trained.

As for a Hetero-friendly guild – more power to them. In essence all guilds are hetero-friendly, but if they feel the need to label themselves and advertise it, more power to them. An self-labeled Hetero-friendly guild would probably not be something that I was interested in as the I would assume (perhaps wrongly) that the label was a protest to GLBT-friendly guilds and that it would not be a welcoming place for the likes of me. But hey – thanks for warning me up front.

Valas Azuviir

06-02-2006, 09:20 PM

/off topic

Carry on with feeding the biggest attention.. seeking person I've ever seen.

Actually, I know of several politicians, both of my own nation and elsewhere who deserve that title far more than Sara does.

She got a ticket for speeding, when she should've gotten a ticket for setting her thrash out a day early. She may have gotten it downgraded to just a warning as opposed to the proverbial fine (was supposed to have been a temporary suspension, the 3 hours one iirc), but she still didn't commit the "crime" of which she was accused.

After that, Blizzard's own foot in mouth disease took over and folks got somewhat understandably insulted. Unfortunately, bad press is often the only way to get Blizzard to heel and see reason, well either that or announce that you will be crippling servers if a patch goes live, which contains a class-crippling bug, which has been proven well beyond even the reasonable doubt standard, but that they don't want to remove until after X patches later. Only other thing that works is a mass cancellation of accounts, course in this case that approach would mean the bigots win and that imo is a non-acceptable solution to this issue.

Also considering the assurances given back during WoW's closed Alpha/Beta stages to this community.. It was a slap in the face, and making a stink about it, was the right thing to do.

No different from me holding Bioware to the assurances they gave back during BG1's creation about the things they'd include in BG2, which they didn't. Result?? I'll only buy bioware games from the bargain bins, thus minimizing any potential profit they may get from the sale.

PrismaticEcho

06-02-2006, 10:11 PM

"This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without giving effect to any principles of conflicts of law. Other laws may apply if you access the Service from Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, but shall affect this Agreement only to the extent required by such jurisdiction. In such a case, this Agreement shall be interpreted to give maximum effect to the terms and conditions hereof. If you access the Service from New Zealand, The New Zealand Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 ("Act") may apply to the World of Warcraft software and/or the Service as supplied by Blizzard Entertainment to you. If the Act applies, then notwithstanding any other provision in these Terms of Use, you may have rights or remedies as set out in the Act which may apply in addition to, or, to the extent that they are inconsistent, instead of, the rights or remedies set out in these Terms of Use. Those who choose to access the Service from locations outside of the United States, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand do so on their own initiative and are responsible for compliance with local laws if and to the extent local laws are applicable."

Thank you for that Valas! I was just about to post this, coz someone just posted it on the gamers.experimentations.org forums. The last sentance in it answers Rutty's question for him (I noticed you didn't have it underlined).

PrismaticEcho

07-02-2006, 02:36 AM

Quoted from a post on Gamers.experimentations.org forums:

"http://kotaku.com/gaming/breaking/wow-bliz...ning-153075.php

The letter has been sent.

Now we wait."

My reply:

Yes. . . I didn't know that Brian sent his letter to Otaku. I'm sending my letter from Blizzard (which is the good news I've been keeping on the DL) to Alexander at In Newsweekly. My guess is that he'll do a writeup with it included sometime this week. Alexander has been so helpful and I wanted to give him the opportunity to do the breaking story, but it looks like Brian already gave it to Otaku.

Oh well. . . the letter basically said that the whole thing was a misinterpretation of their current policy(which is under review) by their GMs. Basically, the GMs made a HUGE mistake. They have removed the warning from my account. The letter was sent from their head of Global Customer Service.

So. . . ya. . . the GMs were wrong for doing what they did, sorry all you doubters! (hadda get that little bit of gloating in there. . .sorry LOL)

Renceward

07-02-2006, 03:08 AM

Sara:

That's great news. So far they seem to be doing the right thing.

I, like many others, made a personal statement by cancelling my account. Some of my guild-mates (straight by the way) were ready to follow suit. I made it clear that I wasn't calling for a boycott, I just could not in good conscience continue to pay money to Blizzard.

The removal of the warning from Sara's account is huge, the admission in an email is also huge. I can see Blizzard justifying not making a public annoucnement about this on the basis that they never discuss discipline action taken against a player. The word will get out once the story breaks with Sara's letter.

The one thing in all this that concens me is that the policy is still under review. Blizzard now admits that the policy never prohibited Sara from advertising her guild, but now they want to "review" the policy. Does this means that they want to keep the policy the same but just review it to make sure it is clear? Does it mean that they want to review the policy with all of their GMs to ensure that the staff understands the policy and enforces the policy as written? Or does it mean that they are considering changing the policy and if they change the policy, in which direction will they change it?

Caydiem, a Blizzard CM, posted a message that viewed the policy the same way the GMs did. If the GMs were wrong, then Caydiem was wrong and that statement needs to be retracted. We know that this will hit the offical forums soon enough. What, if anything, will the Caydiem and the other CMs say regarding this?

Part of me wants to hop over, put my credit card information in and get back to playing WOW, another part of me thinks I should wait until more information comes out on this topic.

PrismaticEcho

07-02-2006, 03:15 AM

I REALLY want to post my letter that Blizzard sent me. . . omg, it's sooo hard for me to keep it to myself!!! But I really want to give Alexander the opportunity to publicize it first since he was so helpful.

Rence, you're right. . . I wonder what they mean by the current policy being under review as well. However, Brian has sent his letter, basically saying that they can't make it discriminatory (the letter is posted on Kotaku's article). . . so we shall see. Brian has also said that Lambda Legal is willing to help them with the policy if they need it.

SpiritWalker

07-02-2006, 12:29 PM

Also considering the assurances given back during WoW's closed Alpha/Beta stages to this community.. It was a slap in the face, and making a stink about it, was the right thing to do.

No different from me holding Bioware to the assurances they gave back during BG1's creation about the things they'd include in BG2, which they didn't. Result?? I'll only buy bioware games from the bargain bins, thus minimizing any potential profit they may get from the sale.
Funny, you're pretty naive. You shouldn't hold a gaming company to any promises they make that aren't written down in legal papers. Ever.

Eitherway, how do you even know they aren't keeping their promise, you guys keep claiming that Blizzard isn't doing anything against people who curse in chat, but have you reported them? Have you seen it with your own eyes that they got a warning or perhaps even a suspended account for a few days when they have been reported? No, you haven't and no, you can't prove it doesn't happen. Where are these devastating numbers of people getting away with cursing when they have been reported then? I don't see them, you keep claiming and claiming that Blizz is doing this outrageous thing, yet you have zero proof of it, all you have is a few of these "ohmahgawd! I reported that kiddie for having a potty mouth and I saw him the next day omfgwtfbbq" stories.

So what was that again about Blizzard not keeping their promise, they so to speak made in beta to the community?

PS. Don't diss BG1 or BG2 or I'll sue you! :cry:

PS2. Maybe I'll go sue Blizzard if Sara wins this case for positive discrimination, yeah, might get some money out of this too.
/salute to the US flag

TheJarulf

07-02-2006, 01:39 PM

Quoting the US version:

Source (http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/legal/termsofuse.html)

Though on a related point, Seraphon is correct that the EU does have certain different laws, which take precedence over the California Laws.

Actually, laws doesn't "take precedence" over each others. Laws apply to their own country only (and in US there is also state specific laws, working pretty much the same I assume).

As for the EU, it is quite irellevant to quote or look at the US version of the document you quote as it is different from the one they attach to European versions of the game.

Still, no matter what, if you look at the consumer sales laws in Europe (based on common EU directive) they will basically say that you can't claim another countries law to apply to sales (be it of goods or service). So even if it would have said that US laws should apply to the game you buy in Europe, such provisions would be void and thus it is quite irellevant what they ToU would say in this case.

egoz

07-02-2006, 03:22 PM

Atredies

07-02-2006, 04:03 PM

Quoting the US version:
<-snip->
Still, no matter what, if you look at the consumer sales laws in Europe (based on common EU directive) they will basically say that you can't claim another countries law to apply to sales (be it of goods or service). So even if it would have said that US laws should apply to the game you buy in Europe, such provisions would be void and thus it is quite irellevant what they ToU would say in this case.

Superb I say, hopefully the obvious fallout from people whose only focus is on litigation & attempting to seek fame by spamming various "news" (and I use that term loosely in this modern net driven age) centres, is confined solely to the shores of America.

I hate to say this but I am glad that some of the people involved in this have cancelled their account and left the game, fairly negative I admit but given the hyped up opinion some people have of fairness in the real world then I am happy they have left my little slice of fantasy life called WoW.

She got a ticket for speeding, when she should've gotten a ticket for setting her thrash out a day early. She may have gotten it downgraded to just a warning as opposed to the proverbial fine (was supposed to have been a temporary suspension, the 3 hours one iirc), but she still didn't commit the "crime" of which she was accused.

See my point above about fairness, sorry to disappoint you but people being treated far harshly than what was deserved happens every second of every day in the world, I mean geez I have had been removed from a contract not because I didn't perform but because my replacement was related to the decision maker. Is that fair no, could I have sued possibly but the point being I wasn't going to cry out to the media with some sob story about my woes nor run off and tie up the overburdened legal process with a revenge motivated legal suit against the employer. I picked up and continued on.

NB: life is full of unfairness.

All I can say is that I really do hope that this over opinionated person “Ms Andrews” does not spoil what is a true masterpiece of gaming life for the rest of us.

Cheers,
Atredies
PS: This thread is now offically way too long :shocked:

edited: correcting grammar

rutty

07-02-2006, 04:22 PM

America is about equal treatement for all.

Really? From the recent debacle over same-sex marriages in the States I fail to see much evidence of that. Equal treatment for those with the money maybe.

It's similar over in Europe. Equal-treatment/rights is often promised but not delivered. People are bigots and money talks. Things are improving but there are too many obstacles in the way (usually politicians) to true equal rights.

Is same-sex marriage legal in California? I seem to remember it was, then it wasn't anymore. Shame, but if it's not legal in California would you expect it to be "legal" in WoW?

It's OK asking for non-discriminatory rules in WoW, I'm all for that, but is this even the case in the States?

I hope, I really do, that this GLBT-friendly guild can allowed to continue but I also hope that this storm in a teacup will end soon without causing too much of a ruckus in the general WoW community. Real Life really shouldn't invade too much in-game after all.

Valas Azuviir

07-02-2006, 05:16 PM

Funny, you're pretty naive. You shouldn't hold a gaming company to any promises they make that aren't written down in legal papers. Ever.

I'm principled, there's a noted difference between the two concepts. The approach you espouse just leads to all sorts of false promises and thus in a sense to false advertising. My approach just hits them in the pocket book. Granted, I'm just one person, but if enough folks do it. They'll either end up listening or they'll go under, or they'll switch to another genre so that they have another audience to fool around with.

Eitherway, how do you even know they aren't keeping their promise, you guys keep claiming that Blizzard isn't doing anything against people who curse in chat, but have you reported them? Have you seen it with your own eyes that they got a warning or perhaps even a suspended account for a few days when they have been reported? No, you haven't and no, you can't prove it doesn't happen. Where are these devastating numbers of people getting away with cursing when they have been reported then? I don't see them, you keep claiming and claiming that Blizz is doing this outrageous thing, yet you have zero proof of it, all you have is a few of these "ohmahgawd! I reported that kiddie for having a potty mouth and I saw him the next day omfgwtfbbq" stories.

And you do have proof that these folks have been banned then, considering you're castigating myself and others from not providing evidence that they're not being banned?? :grin:

I can only speak from experience from some of the all nighters I've pulled. Reported folks, and still saw them online throughout the time I was online. Even taking into consideration time differences, time it takes for a GM to react, and the sheer amount of crud still being spewed on the general channels.. Only logical conclusion is that no, these folks are not getting banned, or at least not consistently, because if they were, than sooner or later folks would've gotten the message already. WoW is over a year old, and the same crud is still going on.

Heck, consider this situation. The GM who went after Sara may have been a rogue homophobe, and thus not representative of his/her company, having said that, how many more homophobes may Blizzard be employing?? Folks, who do not enforce the rules dealing with these issues as set down by Bllizzard, thus leading to an exasperation of the situation, because the complaints they get about these issues just get binned by these folks??

Not saying this is the case, but it would help explain why the general chat channels are still a mess after well over a year of operation. Even the most immature kiddies would have to understand, after having their backsides banned a few times, with the threat of longer or even permanent suspensions hanging overhead, that it's really not a smart idea to be mouthing off about this issue and thus moderate their behaviour.

Heck, even rats learn not to push a certain button, if they constantly get blasted with electricity each time they do push the button. Even the most immature of brats, should, at least, be on the same smarts level as a rat.

So what was that again about Blizzard not keeping their promise, they so to speak made in beta to the community?

Same as before, they made promises about stringent safeguards with regards to how this minority group would be handled, heck how harrassment in general would be handled.. Fact, that this very occurence took place is very much in contradiction with their previous assurances, some of the PR statements sure as hell didn't help either.

Is it enough of a reason for me to quit the game?? Considering, I'm a heterosexual white male, and that I'm not the one being harrassed, not quite. Having said that, doesn't mean I won't speak up in discussions like this and put in my 2 cents. Hypocritical?? Possibly, but then I strive for perfection, never said that I attained it or that I don't backslide at times.

PS. Don't diss BG1 or BG2 or I'll sue you! :cry:

BG1 was a good game, even with its limitations, and I was more than willing to overlook its imperfections, considering those aforementioned limitations. BG2 was somewhat disappointing, because while they did have the means to pull off what they had promised, they did not have the will to do so.

Oh, and just for the record.. There is NO shared Helmite temple in Athkatla. The tri-deity order that Keldorn and Anomen belong to should've been beholden to the Triad: Tyr, Torm and Ilmater, who do have a shared shrine in that city. (Heck, there is no temple to Helm at all in the city to begin with.)

And that was just one of the issues.. Neither have the time or the desire to list everything. So make of it what you will.

PS2. Maybe I'll go sue Blizzard if Sara wins this case for positive discrimination, yeah, might get some money out of this too.
/salute to the US flag

Have to point out, that Blizzard complying with local state laws, means you wouldn't have a leg to stand one, and that you'd have to pay the costs for the lawsuit, which considering the price of corporate lawyers.. The grandkids of your grandkids would be the ones who finally paid off the debt owed.

But, if it'll make you happy. Have at it. We'll be over here.. *points at the sidelines* Laughing.. :evil:

See my point above about fairness, sorry to disappoint you but people being treated far harshly than what was deserved happens every second of every day in the world, I mean geez I have had been removed from a contract not because I didn't perform but because my replacement was related to the decision maker. Is that fair no, could I have sued possibly but the point being I wasn't going to cry out to the media with some sob story about my woes nor run off and tie up the overburdened legal process with a revenge motivated legal suit against the employer. I picked up and continued on.

NB: life is full of unfairness.

All I can say is that I really do hope that this over opinionated person “Ms Andrews” does not spoil what is a true masterpiece of gaming life for the rest of us.

Cheers,
Atredies

I'm well aware that the world isn't very fair.. But then I am reminded of that one simple saying.. For Evil to win, all it needs to do is ensure that good people do and say nothing. Rough paraphrase, but you get the idea.

And, am I the only one to find it ironic, that someone who bears a variation of the name of House Atreides has lost faith in the concept of fairness.

Atredies

07-02-2006, 05:52 PM

<-snip->

I'm well aware that the world isn't very fair.. But then I am reminded of that one simple saying.. For Evil to win, all it needs to do is ensure that good people do and say nothingp. Rough paraphrase, but you get the idea.

And, am I the only one to find it ironic, that someone who bears a variation of the name of House Atreides has lost faith in the concept of fairness.

Ironic yes pertinent no :wink: what’s in a name huh

Cheers,
Atredies
aka someone that was really stretched to come up with a name and couldn't be assed thinking about anything further than the book he was currently reading :grin:

rutty

07-02-2006, 05:58 PM

There's a Boing Boing article about it here:

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/07/ban_on_gayfriendly_g.html

Grendo

07-02-2006, 06:11 PM

There's a Boing Boing article about it here:

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/02/07/ban_on_gayfriendly_g.html

I stopped reading this article after :

World of Warcraft's moderators have been shutting down gay-friendly guilds in the game on the tortured grounds that letting people mention that they're gay will encourage jerks to say nasty things about gay people, and since saying homophobic things violates WoW's policies, ignorant jerks shouldn't be tempted into being homophobes. No guild was shut down over this. That would be a WHOLE seperate matter of which I dont think this thread would have been 1/4 as long.

Its sad with how many good, strong points there are on both sides of this debate, that there is twice as many ignorant comments coming from both sides as well. Sigh.

And you do have proof that these folks have been banned then, considering you're castigating myself and others from not providing evidence that they're not being banned?? I dont think anyone was being castigated. I believe the point was that you cant speak from fact, as you keep doing, on the subject, when you (or anyone else) obviously doesn't have proof either way. You can say it SEEMS Blizzard is only doing this one way, but to say 'Blizzard is discrimating.' is logically flawed.

Blizzard changing its policy due to the PC-machine of todays world is not evidence of discrimination. Only an example of power of the news media.

Atredies

07-02-2006, 06:28 PM

Have to agree with Grendo, as soon as I saw the link:

ban_on_gayfriendly_g.html

I suspected this would be another great example of some media outlet trying to hype up a story. Wouldn't be the first and I am sure won't be the last.

All I would say to Ms Andrews though is to not get your hopes up. Just because media outlets will write up a Blizzard bashing story, (can anyone say "tall poppy syndrome"), doesn't mean that all of sudden the world will suddenly turn into a flowery paradise where everyone gets along and no bad words against peoples race, colour, creed, sexual preference, hair colour, tattoos, shape, size ahhh who are we kidding humans aren't meant to exist peacefully. We are still animals albeit very creative animals.

Cheers,
Atredies

jibbrish

07-02-2006, 06:53 PM

Congratulation Sara, Oz and all the other GLBT friendly guilds out there. Looks like blizzard finally clued into what they should have done in the first place.

Kellas

07-02-2006, 07:32 PM

BG1 was a good game, even with its limitations, and I was more than willing to overlook its imperfections, considering those aforementioned limitations. BG2 was somewhat disappointing, because while they did have the means to pull off what they had promised, they did not have the will to do so.
Just a quick note on BG1 and BG2, and the bioware bashing:
Bioware made the engine.
Black Isle made the game.

Further on that note: Early design documents are usually made without a thought to the time and consequences. If a feature becomes more trouble than it's potential returns as related to gameplay, story, or if it doesn't fit in with the gameplay or story as it's been established, it may be cut. Boycotting a company because they had to, for one reason or another, cut a feature, means you won't be buying games. Ever.

Off topic, but as a game developer, I found that stance to be somewhat objectionable, high handed, and ignorant.

Sorry, touchy topic with me.
We all have our sore spots.

mike20599

07-02-2006, 08:24 PM

Kellas

07-02-2006, 08:31 PM

This is retarted, wasting Blizzard's resources by suing over this garbage. Although there is a rememedy. If you are a PVP server and see anyone belonging to one of these stupid guilds, gank them on sight. If it's PVE, steal their kills and nodes until they quit.

And that's exactly why the policy change is needed.
Thank you, sir, you've expressed the reasons why far better than anyone else could.
If someone does this to you, for any reason, /ignore and /report. Get em banned.

Valas Azuviir

07-02-2006, 08:35 PM

Just a quick note on BG1 and BG2, and the bioware bashing:
Bioware made the engine.
Black Isle made the game.

Further on that note: Early design documents are usually made without a thought to the time and consequences. If a feature becomes more trouble than it's potential returns as related to gameplay, story, or if it doesn't fit in with the gameplay or story as it's been established, it may be cut. Boycotting a company because they had to, for one reason or another, cut a feature, means you won't be buying games. Ever.

Off topic, but as a game developer, I found that stance to be somewhat objectionable, high handed, and ignorant.

Sorry, touchy topic with me.
We all have our sore spots.

Uhm.. Am afraid you're misinformed.. Bioware made the engine and BG1, ToSC, BG2 and ToB, it was produced under the Black Isle banner, which was a subdivision of Interplay.

Black Isle went on to do PS:T (which was done before BG1 was incidentally) IWD, HoW, ToL, IWD2 all based on the Infinity Engine. They also had Snowblind make BG:Dark Alliance, whereas BG:DA2 was done inhouse. They were also working on BG3 (It was either Jefferson or VanBuren project, the other thing they were working on at the time before the plug got pulled was Fallout 3. Josh Sawyer was running the show on BG3, and I know him from the Bard's Table the rp section of the BG1 boards), which would've been the start of a new series, when they lost the license.

In addition, there was the same type of PR doublespeak Blizzard is using on occassion, which just irks me to no end. At first having the new guy claim that they made no such promises and when confronted about it, admit that they did make them, but that XYZ is going to be so much cooler.

Just to point out one of the cool stuff things, which didn't fit with BG1 and its storyline. The barbarian class.. After having spent your entire formative life in a flipping libary, heck one of THE biggest libaries in all of the Realms. Only really outdone by the one they got in Shou Lung. When you kept a journal all throughout the previous game.. Self same barbarian class, which is illiterate and has you growing up in a tribal society a la the Uthgar..

Now contrast this with the missing specialty priest classes, which ended up being kits and which could only be applied to the first class in a dual class situation. Heck, the hackers at TBG solved that issue before Bioware, and it's Bioware's own danged code. And that issue even applied to one of their own npc's Anomen or as I called him Anoyme. Pesky Helmite should've been a fighter/specialty priest in accordance with his backstory.

So, I do believe I know what the heck I'm talking about in this situation, especially considering I was a looooooooong time boardie over there, till about a few months before the demise of the boards there.

As for the boycot.. I did point out, I only pick them up from the bargain bin, thus minimizing the profit involved for them. They make decent games, but I don't like being played for a patsy, and I do hold grudges, so bargain bin material only. Soon as they they learn to live up to their end of the proverbial bargains, when dealing with technical difficulties in the first game and making promises for the sequal, than I'll start buying their games at full price again, and not a moment sooner.

So what about Blizzard, who's pulling some of the same stunts?? a) They had more credit built up than Bioware did, so they got a tad more to spend before they reach that point, b) the promises made during the closed alpha/beta and open beta stage are being delivered. Slowly, but it is being added. Tends to weigh up against some of the malarky that some of the devs are perpetrating, like that whole Battleshout never added to RAP crud and when proven wrong, claim that it was never intended, ingame tool tips and web design statements to the contrary. Changing your mind is one thing, admitting that tends to irk me less than having to go through the whole rollercoaster ride of denials and refutations. That's just wasting energy on both sides.

Kinda like the current situation here. With Caydiem claiming that what the GM did was legit, whereas the letter sent to the people involved states the opposite. A simple: Sorry folks, we don't have any more information for you, barring that we're looking into this issue, together with the heads of the GM teams and the boys from legal. If something changes, we'll let you know

And if folks were to ask, why are the boys from legal involved?? Well, they were involved with setting up the ToS in the first place, having them clarify what was meant is a given in this situation. Said answer, would not have been disloyal to the GMs, but it also wouldn't have painted Sara as the bad guy either.

Then again, I have not exactly been impressed with Blizzard's PR skills in these small debacles thus far, only one who does impress me is Morhaime. No smoke and mirrors, just plain talk. His employees could learn a thing or two from him imo.

Kellas

07-02-2006, 08:58 PM

According to a coworker, former employee at bioware, before nwn, the only games they made fully inhouse was the MDK series. <Shrug> But I could be mis-informed. There's also the mismanagement of Activision to consider in all of this. I've heard my share of horror stories.
Plus, they have no 'bargain' with you specifically. They make damned good games, if you feel they have let you down on some personal level, then you might have some coping issues.
Sorry, still sounds like a "I could be better" armchair game developer argument to me. If you can, good. Go do it. Industry needs good people.
Of course, I've seen a lot of people try just that, even on something small. They tend to come out of it with a much different opinion of the way it all works and the sheer amount of work involved. To spend three years of your life, your health, a marriage or two I know of, every waking hour, basically, working on something just to have someone go "It doesn't have such and such." My response to that is "What about the other 100 odd things that are there?". You'll enjoy games more if you focus on what's there, rather than what you feel they left out, or didn't have time to do. If you can't do that, well, you're going to be dissappointed a lot.
On a different topic: PS:T. Got to be the best Crpg out there. If you manage to find a copy, hold onto it like the gold it is.

Anyways, back on topic.
The whole things just a mess, regardless. You read the news, you can watch the story distort and bend, with people flipping it around to suite one side or another. That bothers me to no end. The issue was clearcut in the begining: Blizzard made a mistake, issued a warning when none was warrented.
Then the story became she was banned.
Then the story became that blizzard disbanded the guild.
There's even comments flying around that all the GLBT guild members were banned.
This is useless, and counterproductive.
Edit:
To keep the thread from being derailed, just PM anything else on gamedev re: state of.
Important issue, and cluttering it up is bad.

Grendo

07-02-2006, 10:23 PM

This is retarted, wasting Blizzard's resources by suing over this garbage. Although there is a rememedy. If you are a PVP server and see anyone belonging to one of these stupid guilds, gank them on sight. If it's PVE, steal their kills and nodes until they quit.
Thanks for proving my point! :shocked:
Its sad with how many good, strong points there are on both sides of this debate, that there is twice as many ignorant comments coming from both sides as well. Sigh.

PS. No ones suing anyone...try reading the thread first.

Trixtin

07-02-2006, 11:19 PM

Although I have no animosity towards any type of sexual orientation, and I feel the mistreatment of any sexual orientation should not be tolerated. I must side with Blizzard's original position for a variety of reasons.

First off, I think it is important to note, that blizzard has the right to set forth any rules they deem fit within its virtual world. Remember that World of Warcraft is Blizzard's world and no one else's. They may even choose to discriminate against any type of people they want to, however that is not what they are doing. I myself, would never pay to participate in any virtual world that discriminated against anyone based on any type of personal preference of belief. This does not change the fact that they have the right to do so if they so desire. You or I might not like that, but they have the right none the less. If Blizzard chose to act in such a way most of us would just take our business elsewhere.

Having said that, I do not believe that Blizzard is attempting to mistreat or silence those of any sexual orientation. They are however, attempting to reduce the amount of negative banter on public channels, by banning the discussion of certain topics. Which means people are not allowed to promote or belittle gay or straight behavior. You could claim that Blizzard is silencing everyone on certain topics. But you can not claim that they want gays to be silent or invisible any more than they demand that straights to be silent or invisible.

Also remember that they are only banning these types of discussions from open chat. Everyone is still free to talk about these things in guild, party of private channels. This I believe is the best coarse of action. And remember Blizzard has to be as tolerant to those who are intolerant, just as they are tolerant of everyone else.

Why I cant imagine any reason why a person's sexual orientation would ever need to be mentioned or discussed, Blizzard is not banning guilds that are gay-friendly, straight-friendly, or whatever-friendly. Players may still advertise guilds of this type on personal webpages, forums etc.

I do not understand why Sara simply did not just apologize and use some other method to advertise her guild.

PrismaticEcho

07-02-2006, 11:45 PM

"First off, I think it is important to note, that blizzard has the right to set forth any rules they deem fit within its virtual world. Remember that World of Warcraft is Blizzard's world and no one else's."

I find it disturbing that people seem to think that this video game is another world outside of the one we live in and that rules in this world don't apply. That's like saying, "Jimmy's Bar is Jimmy's world and he can do what he wants to the people once they walk through that door coz it's HIS world inside those walls." Ummm. . . not quite. Blizzard is a building on this world we call EARTH, in the country we call America. It's nothing more than a business that is bound to the rules of this real world just like any other business. The fact that you believe this company to be some alternate reality that exists outside of the real world is terribly disturbing. . .

Grendo

08-02-2006, 12:01 AM

I find it disturbing that people seem to think that this video game is another world outside of the one we live in and that rules in this world don't apply. That's like saying, "Jimmy's Bar is Jimmy's world and he can do what he wants to the people once they walk through that door coz it's HIS world inside those walls." Ummm. . . not quite. Blizzard is a building on this world we call EARTH, in the country we call America. It's nothing more than a business that is bound to the rules of this real world just like any other business. The fact that you believe this company to be some alternate reality that exists outside of the real world is terribly disturbing. . .The game 'world' referred to is one of imagination, where anything is possible..or not possible. Other games are not bound to the same restrictions youre attempting to hold WoW too. A bar is not imagined.

You can kill people in WoW too. That doesnt mean we are allowed to in the real world. And we can rez, but if that happened in the real world you'd be considered a savior. The real world we cant conjur magic that shoots from our hands. But guess what, in WoW...

Why do you think people of say they play "to get away from the real world" or to "relax" ? Because WoW, and other games, are not bound to the often disheartening world that we actually live in.

If all games were like that, wed have thousands of 'the Sims' clones, and no imagination in our lives. No thank you :grin: I find it terribly disturbing you dont have an imagination if you honestly feel that way.

Killra

08-02-2006, 12:14 AM

i guess i'm just lucky i mean i openly kiss my male friends in game and sometimes i use my naughtier macros and i have nvr gotten in trouble i guess i'm lucky, but going as far as takin it to lawyers wow i think thats abit low it makes me sad :( that BOTH sides had to take it to that :(

PrismaticEcho

08-02-2006, 12:17 AM

Maraxus

08-02-2006, 12:24 AM

Concerning the news item of the letter sent to Blizzard by Lambda Legal... I thought I'd do a google news search to see what else Lamba Legal had been doing letely...

"Lambda Legal says Subway worker was fired due to HIV"

A lawsuit filed Thursday by Lambda Legal claims a Las Vegas manager of a Subway restaurant was wrongly fired from his job because he is HIV-positive. ...

"Lawsuit seeks marriage rights for gays"

... A strong opponent of gay marriage says the lawsuit is "the only shot" Lambda Legal, the organization backing the lawsuit, has. ...

"ACLU and Lambda Legal Challenge Law Barring Transgender People ..."

(Milwaukee, WI) - Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of two transgender women challenging a ...

"Suit Seeks Access To Medical Treatment For Imprisoned Transsexuals"

... treatment of prisoners," said John Knight, senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project which, along with Lambda Legal, is representing ...

4 lawsuits related to GLBT and HVI in news items, and I just counted since January the 25th until now...

Zzzz... Now I am not surprised at all... :)

Grendo

08-02-2006, 12:46 AM

I'm referring to the actions that the COMPANY (Blizzard) tries to take toward their customers (ya know. . . of their BUSINESS?). People act like this virtual world just exists somehow and Blizzard are these gods that created this world, and aren't bound to the rules and laws of the real world. Come ON! I mean, there's a section in their TOS that states that they (and their customers) are bound to the laws of the state of California. They cannot do "whatever they want" because it's "their world". No. . . it's not their world. . . it's their business, which is a big office building in the state of California with real people working for them and discriminating against people in the REAL world. The thought that this game world isn't a part of this world is absolutely insane.
Youre blending things a little much I think. If Blizzard directly discriminates I agree they are liable as such. If there is indirect lack of something within the game, and someone feels they arent represented in it? Theyre nothing but whiners.

In your case specifically, it involves a blizzard employee directly, and thus the laws of california (thus the ToS) apply. However, if we're arguing why homosexuality is not within the confines of the game world, you leaning towards the whining side. The argument of 'its not in WoW' is valid based on your reading of the ToS, and why it was originally brought up. As the ToS should likely be changing, that argument likely wont hold water.

I think the changes you have pushed for will better apply to the entire gaming community of WoW and keep all respectful customers happy, and I think youre a great person to push these changes through necessary channels.

However, I think bliz's only fault in this matter was the lack of definition in their ToS that allows open interpretation (a legal tactic as to never be truly liable).

Should they tip the scales (ala positive discrimation / reverse discrimation) within the new terms that you keep eluding to, you can bet that Ill at the front of that war looking for a change. Just because im the 'majority' does not grant you, or anyone else, special priveledges above me.

PrismaticEcho

08-02-2006, 12:57 AM

SpiritWalker

08-02-2006, 01:24 AM

"a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work."
An organisation leaching of people seeking attention and getting attention themselves, how practical.

Why do you even bother continueing this? You've quit the game, yet you keep persisting in trying to ruin it for others. Get over it, and go your own way.

/hands Sara a crate full of cheese

PrismaticEcho

08-02-2006, 01:50 AM

To ensure a better experience for future gaymers (gay gamers). . . and if Blizzard does the right thing (which is looks like they're doing), I very well may return! I've put a lot of hard work into my guild and don't wish to leave. But I was willing to make that sacrifice if Blizzard proved itsself to be a discriminating company. It looks as though it was just a few rogue GMs who were misinterpreting the policy to fit their own agenda though. . . from what the head of their Global Customer Service department said to me.

Renceward

08-02-2006, 02:22 AM

I don't know if Blizzard gave you much of an explanation for the rogue GMs. I could see them just being ignorant, poorly trained, or having a personal agenda along with dozens of other possibilities.

Through their actions they generated a lot of bad publicity for Blizzard, got a significant portion of the player-base quite upset (on both sides of the issue), lost some customers unnecessarily, and created a mess that other folks are having to spend a lot of time to clean up. The ramifications of their actions will linger for months.

I just hope that Blizzard does a post-mortem on this. In our company when something serious goes wrong, always conducts a review. We avoid finger-pointing but we go step by step and try to figure out what happened and how we can prevent it in the future.

Why did the first GM think it appropriate to issue a warning. What was happening was clearly not against policy, why did the GM think it was? Was he told by others, was he trainged that way? Did he believe that any mention of GLBT topics was negative as the topic, in his his mind, is never positive? I know that GMs are overworked and underpaid, so this mistake doesn't bother me that much. I know that the GMs make stupid mistakes all the time.

What bothers me more is that the review process failed. The GM who saw the appeal had the stretch the policy even farther. It is clear from the response that the GM could tell that the policy did not prohibit GLBT guild advertising, but this GM really twisted things around. Was it a matter of always support the other GMs no matter what? Was the GM a bit homophobic with an agenda? Was this GM trained this way as well?

Then what is really bad is Caydiem posting this as policy on the forum. I realize that there were a lot of posts and a resoponse was needed. But burying the response deep inside Part 3 of a huge on-going debate post was not a good idea and then parroting the flawed policy yet again was huge. Did Caydiem have an agenda also? Could Caydiem not see that the policy did not say what the GMs were inferring? Or did Caydiem just ask the GMs for a response and posted what they gave her without review?

Once the story started to break, why was a response so slow? I'm sure that some in the company were aware of the story very early on (I mean it was all over their very own forum). A quick response could have put this rest much faster. Why didn't management see the ludicrous statements of the GM, contact Sara immediately, apologize and explain what the policy real is. This could have been done before the story spread all over the net, before the followup stories appeared that made Bliizard look even worse. There was absolutely no sense of damage control.

They are still behind. At this point it is great that they have contacted Sara, but the debate still rages. Since a CM posted the old flawed policy, why has there been no post correcting those statements? Quick action could help defuse some of the endless posting that is occuring on the WOW forums.

Blizzard does a horrible job of customer communication. This is just one example. It would benefit them greatly to examine this issue, find out where the breakdowns were and determine how to handle an issue like this better in the future.

The one thing that virtually everyone is in agreement on is how poorly this was handled by Blizzard. Hopefully they can learn from this.

PrismaticEcho

08-02-2006, 02:40 AM

Agreed Rence. I have an interview tomorrow with the Washington Post! Lambda Legal's PR department wants to talk with me first and go over some "talking points" that I should mention. . . the story is getting bigger and bigger still. . . and Blizzard has yet to make any real statements aside from the email to me. Even that says their current policy is under review, which leaves the debate wide open still. They would be wise to put an end to it before it reaches something even bigger than the Washington Post.

Thortok2000

08-02-2006, 03:38 AM

I think that letter sent to Blizzard is exactly right.

Blizzard's stance is understandable... If someone was acting in such a way to intentionally encourage everyone to harass him (without doing anything 'wrong' himself, just being harass-worthy), he is normally at fault for creating all the harassing in the first place. The point here is on purpose.

The GLBT advertising for a guild was not meant to say "harass me now please", from my understanding. So making them be quiet so others won't harass them is, like the letter says, clearly the wrong way to handle it.

I'm a straight person, and a homophobe, but I support their rights (I'm just scared of them). They can do whatever they like. I wish they would do it in more privacy (since it turns me off and annoys me), but then again, people wearing lots of piercings annoy and turn me off too, and they're allowed to walk around just fine. *shrug* My wish that they would choose to do it somewhere I can't see doesn't mean they don't have the right to do it where I /can/ see, if they choose.

Anyway, just wanted to say, I have hopes this issue will be resolved happily for all involved. And that letter to Blizzard was spot on and very polite. Good job!

PrismaticEcho

08-02-2006, 03:38 AM

From today's patch notes:

"Are you looking for love? All of Azeroth soon will be! As winter draws to a close the races are starting to seek that special someone. Be on the lookout for amorous individuals! Put on that special perfume or cologne, express your love, and receive gifts in return! Prepare yourself... love will soon be in the air!"

What are they thinking bringing sexuality into a game where it doesn't need to exist?!?!? :tongue:

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I found it rather ironically humorous, seeing as how so many of the opposing side's arguments consisted of "why do gays have to bring sexuality into a game where it doesn't already exist?!?!?"

Edit:

Thor, I respect you VERY much for what you've said. I think a lot of times the term "homophobe" gets thrown around to people who are more "bigoted" than actualy "homophobic". ACTUAL homophobes (like yourself) I completely understand, simply because you're afraid of the unknown. I, myself, am terrified of straight people but I don't dislike or hate them because of that fear. I like all of them that I've ever met (aside from the ones who've tried to hurt me for being a sissy). . . I'm just terrified of most because I don't know who could be bigots and may try to hurt me. Bigots, on the other hand, who HATE homosexuals (or bigots who hate heterosexuals for that matter), I don't understand.

Basically, I understand fear of the unknown. . . I don't understand hating without justifiable cause. It doesn't sound like you hate homosexuals. . . just that you don't understand them and that scares you somewhat.

Thortok2000

08-02-2006, 04:04 AM

Well, to be honest, I just feel awkward around them, don't know how to act, they kind of turn me off a little, and I just don't know how to socially connect with them.

As far as fear, though, I'm very afraid a guy would hit on me. Like I said, I just have no idea what I would do in that situation. Very afraid!

In general, though, I support their rights.

There was only one gay that I didn't like. That was a guy who was "In Your Face" gay. He was very antagonistic, and it seemed like he cared more about the fight itself than the cause to fight. He would get up in your face, and be like "I'M GAY, RESPECT THAT!" whether you already respected it or not. There were several times when I wondered if he was actually gay or if he just liked making a statement and causing controversy and getting on everyone's nerves. Wasn't a day he didn't wear a rainbow shirt, always handing out pamphlets, etc. It was like he was daring people to stop him so he could take them to court about it or something. Very annoying. He was rude, quite unlike you guys, that letter y'all wrote was very professional and I was quite impressed by it, which is why I commented.

So yeah, except for him, most gays I meet are fine, just people like everyone else is, my only real 'fear' is if one ever hit on me or if I ever got into an awkward social situation with one, I wouldn't know how to handle it, I'd be highly nervous and anxious. In general, given the choice, I'd rather not be around gays (hence why I call myself a homophobe), but I totally respect their rights.

south

08-02-2006, 04:54 AM

To put my two cents.
Basically I agree with Trixtin.
Also kids play on this server.....as a kid I hated, abhorred,loathed, detested people pushing their sexual orientation on me...I preferred my family orientation or my own.
I had and have GLBT friends, and guess what I still am of the same opinion I would rather be the main influence on my kids meanwhile they are growing.
And yes straight people are still the majority. So I believe that a minority should make a few small concessions to a majority simply for manners sake.

For example:
I spent many years in countries where you salute in a very physical manner handshaking, hugging and so on..... living at the moment in a country where people freak out at physical contact...lol..... I try to adapt.

Nowadays my GLBT friends are open about their orientation around me but not overtly pushy, specially around kids.

Although I have no animosity towards any type of sexual orientation, and I feel the mistreatment of any sexual orientation should not be tolerated. I must side with Blizzard's original position for a variety of reasons.

First off, I think it is important to note, that blizzard has the right to set forth any rules they deem fit within its virtual world. Remember that World of Warcraft is Blizzard's world and no one else's. They may even choose to discriminate against any type of people they want to, however that is not what they are doing. I myself, would never pay to participate in any virtual world that discriminated against anyone based on any type of personal preference of belief. This does not change the fact that they have the right to do so if they so desire. You or I might not like that, but they have the right none the less. If Blizzard chose to act in such a way most of us would just take our business elsewhere.

Having said that, I do not believe that Blizzard is attempting to mistreat or silence those of any sexual orientation. They are however, attempting to reduce the amount of negative banter on public channels, by banning the discussion of certain topics. Which means people are not allowed to promote or belittle gay or straight behavior. You could claim that Blizzard is silencing everyone on certain topics. But you can not claim that they want gays to be silent or invisible any more than they demand that straights to be silent or invisible.

Also remember that they are only banning these types of discussions from open chat. Everyone is still free to talk about these things in guild, party of private channels. This I believe is the best coarse of action. And remember Blizzard has to be as tolerant to those who are intolerant, just as they are tolerant of everyone else.

Why I cant imagine any reason why a person's sexual orientation would ever need to be mentioned or discussed, Blizzard is not banning guilds that are gay-friendly, straight-friendly, or whatever-friendly. Players may still advertise guilds of this type on personal webpages, forums etc.

I do not understand why Sara simply did not just apologize and use some other method to advertise her guild.