Do you mean Lesbos Island [wikipedia.org]?

duh, she didn't want to be hit on incessantly.

Can we stop this misinformation? Most gamers do not buy a new video card every 4 days.

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey [steampowered.com]

Despite RAM prices, over 35% of Steam gamers have less than 2GB of RAM. About the same number are still running single-core CPUs. Just under half don't have a DX10-capable GPU, meaning their GPU is well over a year old. And that's with a generation of graphics hardware that gives extremely good value for money.

Not in the US maybe ... but in say Canada they could get in real trouble with selective enforcement.

The meaning of the word lesbian derives from the poems of Sappho, who was born in Lesbos. The poems contain powerful emotional content directed toward other females and have frequently been interpreted as expressing homosexual love.

Huh, so gamers don't mention their family? Funny, because when I googled Elrous0, one of the first pages I found was this [derkeiler.com]... and hey, looky what's in the "Relevant Pages" section at the bottom:

"I am the only one to use the PS3 in this household ... I very much doubt my wife would want to play Warhawk"

And *even still*, it'd still be hypocritical to have a policy *ban* one group from doing so and not another.

Really? Many researchers and observers of animal behaviors in the wild would disagree. Many species perform 'gay sex', and other homosexual behaviors, naturally. There's tons of research on the subject, you should do some reading some time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals [wikipedia.org] http://www.livescience.com/animals/080516-gay-animals.html [livescience.com]

Obarthelemy is not using that example to justify, he's using it to disprove the naturalistic fallacy [wikipedia.org] the guy before him [slashdot.org] used.

Stephen Toulouse works on the live team and posted his thoughts [stepto.com] on the matter.

Giving legal advice to strangers is rarely a good idea.

Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. United States [wikipedia.org], upholding Title II, Civil Rights Act of 1964 [wikipedia.org].

That said, you were right inasmuch as such economic boycotts and demonstrations helped create the social consensus necessary to pass these laws.

P.S. I take no position on whether or not these laws were wise or just.

Morally? No. Legally? Yes

Actually, by virtue of the Interstate commerce clause- and it applies to MS as well, Microsoft or your diner would be in violation of federal law for refusing service based on race. As far as Xbox and the gay population though- sexual orientation is not a protected status- yet. So, MS is completely within their rights to ban this girl. If she were however banned for being black or Asian or whatever, then they would be breaking the law.

Any legal company policy is based on the local laws and codes.

We have shall-issue concealed carry in Washington. As far as I know, there is nothing whatsoever illegal about having a gun in the trunk of your car here.

Users are almost never banned for a first offense, especially when the offense is a Gamertag deemed 'inappropriate'. The user was subject to a FNC (forced name change), as is standard practice when dealing with Gamertags deemed inappropriate. For understandable reasons, 'gay','lesbian' and related words are banned from Gamertags, as they're usually used as epithets on Xbox Live (you know what I mean if you've been into enough Halo 3 matchs online with people you don't know). But, they're working on a way to allow people to express their sexual orientation in their bio and the like, as stated by the manager of the policy team (Stepto) via twitter: http://twitter.com/Stepto/status/1250237116 [twitter.com].

Why should someone be banned for a word that someone else finds offensive?

Eh? Banning someone because they were offended by a word is surely what happened here. And yes, it is "horseshit".

it's THEIR Xbox Live, not ours. ... and it is Microsoft's rulebook. Don't like it? Don't join.

I don't think anyone's saying this shouldn't be allowed. But just as they might have a right to do this, equally others have a right to tell people about what happened, and criticise Microsoft to do so. Don't like it? Don't RTFA.

You are also missing several major points:

* That an account is suspended, rather than being warned up front.
* That MS do nothing about people being harrassed, and instead responded by saying that people found her sexuality "offensive".
* If the article is correct, it seems they blanketly ban "gay" - even if it's in your name. Do they automatically ban anyone who puts the word "straight" somewhere in their profile, even in another context?

And like I asked before, WHAT does your sexual orientation NEED to be displayed for? So you can get a higher score in something? WHY BOTHER? I don't put "I love the ladies" in my profile

Of course, the decision of what people should want to put in their profile should be based on what Doctor_Jest (688315) thinks should go in his profile. Heaven forbid that someone should have a different point of view.

Supposing MS disagreed with you? You wouldn't moan if your account was suspended without warning?

I have yet to see anything that disputes that the user would have been similarly banned if they had "I'm heterosexual" in the profile.

TFA states that someone got banned even when "gay" was part of his name. ( http://consumerist.com/5010527/microsoft-confirms-gaywood-is-an-offensive-surname-mr-gaywood-responds [consumerist.com] ). Also given that this doesn't seem to be part of a TOS that states "don't mention your sexuality", this seems to more be a case of banning people for using words deemend offensive. I'd be suprised if someone was banned for the word "straight" being in their profile, but I'd be curious to see.

Furthermore, if someone was banned for saying they were straight, you can bet that people here would be all over it, criticising Microsoft, generally taking the anti-censorship line (both these views are are common on Slashdot), and playing the "Straight people have it worse than minorities" card. Yet because it's someone gay, that's okay? I'm ashamed to be reading some of the comments here.

Like it or not, sexual orientation is a mature subject.

Right, so let's censor all mention of sexuality for kids - relationships, marriage. Let's certainly not have kids at weddings. Of course, your argument is absurd - no one thinks that this is a mature subject, unless it's two people of the same sex.

"I'm into bondage and have a latex fetish"

Well, you're getting into specific acts, rather that what people you like.

What I do have a problem with are people--gay or straight or anything else--who use everything in life as a forum for their cause, even in "neutral" places such as an online gaming service.

So why do they allow these "tags" at all?

Everyone who plays online games knows that it's actually moderately difficult to get banned unless you're incredibly stupid or actually trying, which is another reason that I think the user is either soliciting something or pushing an agenda.

Citation needed?