Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Blizzard CEO Lays Gay Guild Issue To Rest

Posted by Zonk on Fri Mar 10, 2006 01:19 PM
from the our-bad-sorry dept.
Role Playing (Games)
Edge Online reports that Blizzard CEO Paul Sams has responded to the GLBT Guild issue that flared up in World of Warcraft a while back. From the article: "... he again characterized the earlier decision to prohibit mention of real-world subjects in recruiting for guilds as an 'unfortunate mistake,' which only came about because the initial comments weren't properly analyzed before sending a warning. 'It is expected and accepted that players will discuss a wide variety of topics, based on both the game world and the real world,' Sams says. 'Players are free to discuss personal characteristics if they wish, to include their sexual orientations and gender identities.'
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Blizzard Responds To Gay Guild Debate 444 comments
Edge Online reports that Blizzard has responded to the issues raised by a gay guild trying to recruit in public chat. From the article: "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." We discussed this story when it first came up last week.
[+] Gay Guild Recruitment Disallowed From WoW? 514 comments
Fireball394 wrote with a link to an article on the site 'In Newsweekly'. The article, entitled "Blizzard of GLBT gaming policy questions", discusses the application of a harassment warning on a player who was recruiting for a GLBT guild. From the article: "In her follow-up letter to the company, Andrews explained that there was an obvious misunderstanding and that she was not insulting anyone, but merely recruiting for a 'GLBT friendly' guild. The response from Blizzard was, 'While we appreciate and understand your point of view, we do feel that the advertisement of a GLBT friendly guild is very likely to result in harassment for players that may not have existed otherwise. If you will look at our policy, you will notice the suggested penalty for violating the Sexual Orientation Harassment Policy is to be temporarily suspended from the game. However, as there was clearly no malicious intent on your part, this penalty was reduced to a warning.' Blizzard's stance was clear that recruiting for a guild using 'GLBT' was inappropriate as, the company said, it may 'incite certain responses in other players that will allow for discussion that we feel has no place in our game.'"
[+] Blizzard Techs Talk Login Times, Not Gay Rights 632 comments
Shane Dabiri and John Lagrave took an interview with Eurogamer, and used the opportunity to talk about the login problems that have been plaguing World of Warcraft since Christmas. As techs, they're not there to talk about the ongoing discussion involving Gay rights in their game world. Kotaku, however, is not under any kind of restriction, and reports on legal movement against the company by Lambda Legal. The group is organized around procuring civil rights for people in the GLBT community, and sent a strongly worded letter to Blizzard's legal team. From that letter: "We are very concerned that Blizzard's policy, as expressed in the foregoing statement, discriminates against LGBT gamers. Although preventing harassment is an admirable goal, a requirement that LGBT people remain invisible and silent is not an acceptable means of reaching that goal." Blizzard has already removed the warning from the player in question, saying that it was an 'unfortunate interpretation' of their EULA.
[+] Sanitizing Expression In Virtual Worlds 516 comments
1up has a piece looking back at the GLBT guild mixup that happened earlier this year in World of Warcraft. From the article: "'... last summer a friend introduced me to WOW, and I really liked it, though I didn't care for remarks many of the players made, like the fact that everything is apparently so gay when it's bad. So I decided to create my own guild, which would be GLBT friendly.' Sometimes singing, other times slogging her way through WOW's exacting echelons to a formidable level 60, Andrews had big endgame plans for her developing guild--until January 12, 2006, that is, when a note from publisher Blizzard blinkered everything."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Blizzard CEO Lays Gay Guild Issue To Rest 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Huzzah (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jorenko (238937) on Friday March 10 2006, @01:26PM (#14892242)
    I must say that this was pretty much the only possible acceptible thing that Blizzard could have done to resolve the situation while keeping my respect. Cheers to Mr. Sams and everyone else involved in resolving this so well.

    • Re:Huzzah (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 88NoSoup4U88 (721233) on Friday March 10 2006, @01:52PM (#14892581) Homepage
      Er... an even -more- acceptible thing would have been if he said this right after the incident happened:
      Not after the accountants/PR people told him.
            • Doesn't take much. Just a little integrity.

              Riiiight. You know as well as I do that for most major corporations, a "little" integrity isn't much in the same way that a "little" neutron star isn't heavy.

    • Re:Huzzah (Score:3, Informative)

      by dr00g911 (531736)
      I'm also glad to see that the issue is put to rest acceptably for all.

      There have been a couple of unforeseen effects that all the media attention has had, though... up until the incident, my main was level 60, alliance on Shadow Moon -- the server and faction that Oz was recruiting from.

      I have the feeling that a ton of people have created characters on that particular server to speak both for and against the issue at hand.

      Since then, the queues have been so long on that particular server, that my wife and I

  • Wow (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2006, @01:26PM (#14892247)
    "Blizzard CEO lays Gay Guild"?!? Now that's customer service!

  • Eh... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kyokugenryu (817869) on Friday March 10 2006, @01:27PM (#14892258)
    I agree with Blizz's previous statement of not having real world issues present in the game, such as a gay guild. I don't know what server they play on, but the amount of gay bashing and whatnot I see in barrens chats, I can only imagine how much arguing and whatnot would be caused by them boldly proclaiming they're gay in their guild title.

    • Re:Eh... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Eric S. Smith (162) on Friday March 10 2006, @01:35PM (#14892363) Homepage
      I don't know what server they play on, but the amount of gay bashing and whatnot I see in barrens chats [...]

      If Blizzard will allow anti-gay sentiments to fly freely, surely they must allow pro-gay expressions as well.

      [...] I can only imagine how much arguing and whatnot would be caused by them boldly proclaiming they're gay in their guild title.

      But forbidding it is saying, "Stay in your closet, the bigots were here first," or something similarly silly. It amounts to choosing a side, in any case, and that's something that Blizzard seems to have decided against doing.

      • thank you (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        "Stay in your closet, the bigots were here first,"

        In less than 10 words you summed up the original problem. Maybe it was easy for you to write, but it expresses EXACTLY what the problem is and what people have spent hours trying to get their brains around.

        It's the bigots who are the problem here, and they should not be appeased. Maybe they shouldn't have done to them what I'd personally like to do to them, but they definitely should not be catered to.
        • It's the bigots who are the problem here,

                No no no, calling you a faggot is a compliment. Why do you get so upset? Sheesh some people are so touchy.
      • it is a f*cking game.. who cares.. i am not for either side here..

        i don't think it should have been an issue to begin with..

        reminds me of a friend that tried to get me to play EverCrack by saying "it's soo cool you can even sit and watch a sun set" i then promptly pointed out the window and told him to go outside
    • Definite agreement here. There must be responsibility on the part of any guild who would do such a thing. Honestly, how would any guild advertise something that goes against many people's societal norms and NOT expect to be targeted for it? I personally don't care as long as they don't pull an "in your face" attitude about their guild; but we all know, whether from experience or reading of others' experiences, that there are people out there who will cause problems anyway. Just being realistic here, fol
      • Honestly, how would any guild advertise something that goes against many people's societal norms and NOT expect to be targeted for it? I personally don't care as long as they don't pull an "in your face" attitude about their guild;

        Read what you wrote again and tell me how this is any different from the normal trash talking that goes on between guilds on a daily basis in WoW. There are guilds with reputations, both good and bad, on every server, for a variety of reasons. Some even brag about them, and are

    • Re:Eh... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by babydaddy (960332)
      The argument that all mention of real life "issues" in-game should be forbidden strikes me as the argument of a hard-core role-player. If you're saying, "I don't want to hear about anything that happens on your side of the keyboard, ever," that's fine, that's just role-playing. It would be nice if you stated you're an RPer, but we'll forgive you that omission.

      But if you're saying "I don't want to hear about things I personnaly find icky on your side of the keyboard," then you're probably a hypocrite if
      • That's totally fine if you're discussing your character's sexual orientation, but when you're discussing your real world sexual orientation, that's beyond what the WoW world is supposed to be about, and from what I understand, they were doing this based on if you were gay in real life or not. If I made a gay Tauren, but wasn't gay in real life, would they deny me membership?

        • Re:Eh... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ADRA (37398) on Friday March 10 2006, @02:01PM (#14892673)
          Dude, seriously. Have you ever mentioned gender,age,work,family,personal angsts,etc..

          I don't know how you play, bug the guild I'm with is pretty tight on our own personal lives. None of this is 'in-game' appropriate by your standards because its not in character. The only place that should enforce in-game character is in RP realms that ironicly was the 'safe' place to talk about GBLT guilds when bliz first responded.

          It is inevitable that you will talk about your personal lives in game and as long as there is a chat function in game, you HAVE to expect a human being to talk about their real selves at least to some extent.

          About your own gandparent post about more discrimination, you're missing the point completely.
          1. I don't know of a single gay person that hates all straight people (they may exist, but are by far a minority), so if someone starts a 'gay' guild they're actually starting a gay-friendly guild. That means that they only allow in people that can accept their lifestyle.

          2. Being 'outed' in the game doesn't mean much considering there is a harrasment policy thats enforced. If you call a gay person a ---, whatever they can report you. If you know they're gay and you don't want to group with them, thats your right. Its an easy policy to appease.

          3. The ability to distinguish gay-tolerant vs. gay-bashers is the key to this whole issue from the get-go. If I was gay, I'd like to associate with people that don't think I'm going to burn in sinful hell. If you don't allow for channels of dialog to allow people to communicate, you could have a guy join a guild and become perfectly happy with it until one night, some drunk player starts spweing hate with the rest of your group joining in, then you realize, "Oh crap, these people hate -me-", so the common ground you thought you were forging with these people was an illusion. So, what do you do? Quit the guild and search for another one, hoping that they're more tolerant?

          I don't want to change people, though I wish they'd grow up. I want people to be given the opportunity to find a group of people that are tolerant to them, and the pre-article state of affairs left that ability to find that group unnecessarily restricting.

            • Re:Eh... (Score:3, Insightful)

              by ebyrob (165903)
              ---

              What is that really though? Is it self-censorship to avoid saying "fag"? Or is it a meta-cussword representing any nasty thing you could imagine. If it's the latter it's actually a lot more offensive than just spelling something out (like fag). (This is similar to the fact that fear of the unknown is often much worse than fear of something concrete.)

              Of course, maybe it makes sense you'd be offended by the unknown obsenities your mind conjuers in the dark even if no wordly word can achieve such an end.
      • so, are straight guys using female avatars considered lesbians? :P
      • There's a HUGE difference between bringing it up in an appropriate situation and saying "WE'RE HERE! WE'RE QUEER!". If they were a guild with a standard name with members who all happened to be gay, I wouldn't care at ALL. NO ONE would. But if someone made a guild named the Ku Klux Klan and only recruited white supremacists now, would they have the same protection? I'd have to undoubtedly say yes, because if Blizzard is going to say the expression of your real world sexuality is fine, and naming a guil

        • Re:Okay. (Score:3, Insightful)

          by quantax (12175)
          I'd have to undoubtedly say yes, because if Blizzard is going to say the expression of your real world sexuality is fine, and naming a guild after a real-world advocacy group, then they can't say other groups can't do it as well.

          I find it interesting that you draw a link between an advocacy group such as the KKK whom actively goes out and tries to persuade others of their own beliefs and a gay-friendly guild (note that gay-friendly != gay-only) whom actively play a video game; just because a minority gro

            • Re:Okay. (Score:3, Insightful)

              by AoT (107216)
              We're talking about it because they went and said something along the lines of "hey, we don't mind gay people in our guild and won't be assholes to them."

              Except they said it as "GLTB-friendly"

              And, god forbid, they made sure people knew this, in public.

              The nerve.

  • wait wait wait wait... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2006, @01:31PM (#14892303)
    Hold on... Liberals won?! In the United States, in this conservative day and age, with politicans and corporations bending over backwards to appease the religious right, and capitalism trumping everything... ...and you're telling me the liberals won one?!?

    WOO-HOO!!!

  • "Gay Guild"? (Score:3, Informative)

    by gorbachev (512743) on Friday March 10 2006, @01:35PM (#14892361) Homepage
    It wasn't a gay guild, it was gay-FRIENDLY guild.

  • Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Locke2005 (849178) on Friday March 10 2006, @01:43PM (#14892461)
    On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog [unc.edu] Unless, of course, you join a dog-friendly guild.
  • yay! now my fantasy world is firmly grounded in reality! we can now also have republican guilds fighting democratic guilds, nazi guilds killing jewish guilds (on sight)! Lets not forget the Al-queda horde of saudi players! this will make exciting stuff! how far will blizzard allow this to go? are we going to allow all types of special interest groups? is it limited to sexuality or can we include politics and religion?

    I think this is the last straw. No more wow for me. Its not a fantasy wolrd to escape to a

  • Role Playing as gay (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Cy Sperling (960158) on Friday March 10 2006, @02:21PM (#14892887)
    Many arguments keep bringing up the idea of keeping 'real world' issues out of the fantasy game. So, what if the character you are playing is gay? If one were to open a gay themed guild, requiring members to stay in character, is that then still a problem? I don't see how a fantasy game precludes any sense of character's sexual identity. It is patently ridiculous to think that all characters in a fantasy game must be straight and any deivation from this means people have slipped into 'real world' identity. How many straight guys play female characters and would jump at he chance to cyber with another female player? Role-playing is about assuming a character. I can see people being upset about players talking about 'real world' things in such a way that it breaks the game's illusion- but in that context you can't pick and choose which 'real-world' topics offend- they ALL should. But, if the character is played as gay wholly within the context of the game world, how is that a problem?

  • What Blizzard can and cannot do (Score:4, Insightful)

    by meadandale (605319) on Friday March 10 2006, @03:10PM (#14893375)
    Lambda writes:

    Although Blizzard is well within its rights to insist that players avoid referring to other gamers in an "insulting manner," Blizzard cannot issue a blanket ban on any mention of sexual orientation or gender identity.


    I find it funny that Lambda thinks that they can tell Blizzard what it's own terms of service may be. Last time I checked, Blizzard was providing a subscription service. You don't like the terms? Stop paying them and go somewhere else. That's your right and your choice. They can be as discriminatory as they want and while it may piss some people off, that's their perogative.

    • Re:What Blizzard can and cannot do (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ArtDent (83554) on Friday March 10 2006, @04:43PM (#14894292)
      I find it funny that you think that California law can't tell Blizzard what it's terms of service may be.

      According to Lambda's letter to Blizzard, "Discrimination against LGBT individuals in the provision of public accommodations is clearly prohibited by California law. Id., see also, Cal. Civ. Code 51 et seq. It has been so for more than fifty years. Stouman v. Reilly, 234 P.2d 969 (Cal. 1951)."

      It would appear that Blizzard's lawyers didn't find this particularly funny.

  • Read Blizzard's Policy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by babydaddy (960332) on Friday March 10 2006, @03:16PM (#14893443)
    Too many people are responding to this article in hysterics because Blizzard has changed its policy to revoke a ban on gay chat and overt sexual references in guild names and to allow descriptions of homosexual acts in public chat channels.

    That's not the case now, nor has it ever been. Blizzared never banned gay chat in public channels, only insulting references to sexuality. And descriptions of sexual acts always have been, and continue to be, forbidden. The policy has not changed.

    So before you have a freak out, you might want to read the posted policy. It's here:

    http://www.blizzard.com/support/wowgm/?id=agm01719 p [blizzard.com]
  • That's right fuck Blizzard, and fuck their CEO and his politically correct bullshit. I'm so tired of everyone being so afraid to make decisions and stick to them because of PC pressure.

    It's a game. I don't give two shits about the nightelf I'm teamed up with prefering to suck cock while I'm killing 50 bunnies to get a patch of fur to craft a new tunic or whatever lame ass quest I'm on. I don't feel compelled to talk about screwing chicks while I play a game. Gay/lesbian people need to ease up on this force-feeding of their views and lifestyle on everyone else. It's a game, just fucking play it. Period.

    • Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. (Score:5, Informative)

      by rabel (531545) on Friday March 10 2006, @01:41PM (#14892424)
      *sigh* Care to explain what's so offensive about GLBT chatter on the public airwaves? If it's over-the-line sexual discussion, it should be banned outright regardless of the orientation. Isn't that what you really meant to say?

        • Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by babydaddy (960332) on Friday March 10 2006, @02:51PM (#14893174)
          That just means the majority of people are bigots, right? So if bigots are the majority, that makes it OK?
            • Welcome to the real world, just like making disparaging remarks about people believing in a god is currently ok, welcome and even illustrates that you must be one of the intelligent enlightened in current society.

              Ever made a comment about "Kool-Aid drinkers" or cult members otherwise?

              That is how a lot of us feel about the Christian right. Except said Kool-Aid drinkers don't hurt anyone but themselves, but the Christian right is out pushing anti-gay marriage amendments, trying to have the adopted children o
    • And for that matter, they should be forbidden to discuss their race or their religion. Everyone should appear in the game as a straight, white Christian male. We need a pure WoW environment! Warcraft uber alles!!
    • "I don't want to be exposed to GLBT chatter over PUBLIC CHANNELS. If they want to do it in the privacy of their guild, that's cool! But it should NOT be allowed in public channels."

      If you were referring to discussion about GLBT issues and discussion topics...that would be one thing...but what the hell is wrong with advertising that something is friendly to those people. Its the same as having an advert for any other type of guild. This wasn't "chatter"...it was a fairly succinct advert.

    • Here is what the terms of service say:

      Language which falls under the following categories is deemed to be highly inappropriate. Clarification on what constitutes each category can be found by clicking on the links below.
      ...
      Sexual Orientation
      This category includes both clear and masked language which:

      * Insultingly refers to any aspect of sexual orientation pertaining to themselves or other players

      If a player is found to have used such language, he/she may:

    • If they want to do it in the privacy of their guild, that's cool! But it should NOT be allowed in public channels.

      Heh, that sounds like the people that complain about gay pride parades. "I dont' care if they're gay, but why do they have to parade it around all the time?!?!?!?"

      Heh, I'll tell you why: Because these people have been shunned and ousted from society from so long, and they're sick of it. They're proud of who they are, and they want to be able to express themselves and their way of life freely the same way that the rest of the world does...

      Your comment almost sounds like you think that homosexuals should all just stay in the closet...

    • Re:Legal liability..... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Yosho (135835) on Friday March 10 2006, @03:34PM (#14893641) Homepage
      What does the fact that the guild is gay have anything to do with that? Do you think straight people never molest children?

    • Re:Legal liability..... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by thesandtiger (819476) on Friday March 10 2006, @05:03PM (#14894465)
      Considering that homosexuals make up a disproportionately small percentage of child molesters, I'd say that an 8-year old is safer in a "gay friendly" guild than in a straight one.

      Honestly, if one looks at the statistics, I'd be much more frightened of leaving my child with straight people than gay.
    • "It was about people making targets of themselves."

      Methinks it was more about people targeting them.

      I mean, if a raging horde of violent heterosexual male rapists burst through the doors of the local YWCA, I doubt it would fly to say "well, honestly, if they didn't so blatantly advertise that there was nothing but women in there. I mean, that's just inciting this kind of thing."

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.