Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Role Playing (Games)

Blizzard Responds To Gay Guild Debate 444

Posted by Zonk from the something-is-better-than-nothing dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Blizzard Responds To Gay Guild Debate More

Blizzard Responds To Gay Guild Debate

Comments Filter:

  • A small difference (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FidelCatsro ( 861135 ) * <fidelcatsro@gmaDALIil.com minus painter> on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @12:06PM (#14607910) Journal
    ", 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,"

    You decide upon your political allegiances
    You decide upon your religion beliefs
    You do not Choose your sexual preference .

    I no more chose to be straight than a gay person chose to be gay

    • Re:A small difference (Score:4, Insightful)

      by (A)*(B)!0_- ( 888552 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @12:13PM (#14607977)
      So what? Their contention has nothing to do with a player's choice in these matters. They claim (I'm not arguing for or against this line of thinking, just that your point is completely beside the point) that the topics mentioned are prone to bring up heated debate and therefore they don't want them in their game. No one anywhere in this argument is claiming that a gay person chooses or does not choose to be gay.

      "I no more chose to be straight than a gay person chose to be gay"
      Prove it.

      • Re:A small difference (Score:4, Interesting)

        by FidelCatsro ( 861135 ) * <fidelcatsro@gmaDALIil.com minus painter> on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @12:26PM (#14608111) Journal
        No this is exactly the issue , WOW is rampant with homophobic speech as has been conveyed to me by many friends who are addicted .
        It is natural that people would want to avoid a hostile environment and try to become part of a community in a community where they are accepted and don't risk insult because of who they are , even if not directed at them it is still really irritating .
        Imagine sitting through a conversation with someone who was insulting who you are .

        As for proving it , well , I don't find men attractive ,simple as that .

        Basically what Blizzard are doing is trying to keep them quite as they are offering a safe haven , in case it offends some bigots .. instead of tracking down the bigots .

        • Why is WoW Rampant with homophobic speech?? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Khyber ( 864651 ) <techkitsune@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @04:59PM (#14611030) Homepage Journal
          13-17 year olds. I'm not saying that this is the sole age range of the WoW players, but the main majority are. What else are we to expect with a bunch of people that have not made it through what we call an education? They have no real concept of society at this point, and sadly one of those reasons is that our government is not trying to teach that any longer. Most of our good social programs have disappeared, we no longer teach basic laws in school (as far as the government law is concerned,) and in general we're slowly dumbing down our population by lowering the standards. What we're going to end up with is an ignorant society that has no brains, and very soon Webster's Dictionary WILL have a definition for 'sheeple.' That scares the shit out of me.

    • Re:A small difference (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TheSkyIsPurple ( 901118 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @12:23PM (#14608069)
      You decide upon your political allegiances You decide upon your religion beliefs You do not Choose your sexual preference . I no more chose to be straight than a gay person chose to be gay So what? Nobody choose to be black either (just ask Chris Rock =-) ), but if you had a "Black people friendly" group, I bet they'd have some issues as well. Or to head the other direction... a "White male friendly" group would probably get near universal scorn. You choose to publicly profess what you are in places you know that could offend. You don't choose what you are. The hair on my left arm is slightly darker than on my right. I don't choose that. That is how I am. Does that mean that I have to create a "Lopsided arm-hair color friendly" guild?
      • It does if you happen to be gay and half the things other people playing the game say is "OMG U R GAY U FAG LOL."
      • "Lopsided arm-hair color friendly" guild

        Can I join?

      • It doesn't mean you *have* to, but I don't see why Blizzard or anyone should be opposed to a "lopsided arm-hair colour friendly" guild, either. Do they really expect that members of that guild will suddenly go around and harass others for not having lopsidedly-coloured arm-hair? That seems pretty far-fetched to me, and even more so when the guild is only LAHC-_friendly_, not LAHC-_only_. Big difference...
    • The point was made in a previous thread that Race (which you do not choose) is equally as charged, and if a guild was started that advertized itself as "Black friendly" or "Hispanic only", they would probably receive the same warning.
    • You decide upon your political allegiances
      You decide upon your religion beliefs
      You do not Choose your sexual preference .

      I no more chose to be straight than a gay person chose to be gay

      Actually, all 3 of those are preferences, and could be better stated as:

      You declare your political allegiances based on your political agenda.
      You declare your religious affiliation based on your religious beliefs.
      You declare your sexual orientation based on your sexual desires.

      I could no more choose to be Republic

    • Re:A small difference (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Slime-dogg ( 120473 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @12:27PM (#14608116) Journal

      I do not choose my faith, my faith chooses me.

    • Re:A small difference (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      You decide upon your religion beliefs

      That one's debatable, too.

      I didn't choose to become a believer in Christ; God chose me.

    • Re:A small difference (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TheLink ( 130905 )
      "You do not Choose your sexual preference "

      I don't see how that's relevant to the restriction.

      But if you think that's relevant, how about pedophiles - should they be forced to abstain from practising their sexual preferences (in a consensual way of course) because of society's disapproval?

      Should a Pedophile Guild be allowed?
      • But if you think that's relevant, how about pedophiles - should they be forced to abstain from practising their sexual preferences (in a consensual way of course) because of society's disapproval?

        Should a Pedophile Guild be allowed?

        Uhhhh...of course they should be forced to abstain from practicing! There is no consensual way to practice pedophilia, unless you're talking about role-playing with another adult. A child doesn't have the mental capacity to consent to that sort of thing, as they don't und

      • Re:A small difference (Score:3, Insightful)

        by lawpoop ( 604919 )
        "should they be forced to abstain from practising their sexual preferences (in a consensual way of course) because of society's disapproval?"

        No, pedophiles should be forced to abstain from practicing their sexual preferences because it hurts children, emotionally and physically. It's sort of the same reason that men shouldn't be allowed to have sex with any women they want -- most of those women won't want to have sex with every guy that comes on to them. With children and adults, there is no consensual se

    • There is no question of right or wrong here. Blizzard is not trying to be a moral compass or a public censor, they're just doing what they think will draw and keep customers. Evidently, they reasoned that not disallowing gay guilds would indirectly result in harassment (either by or against such guilds), ultimately losing them customers, and that they would lose fewer customers by simply censoring them out, figuring most gay people can get along just fine without a gay guild. Whether or not it's right or by

    • Re:A small difference (Score:5, Interesting)

      by PFI_Optix ( 936301 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @12:40PM (#14608279) Journal
      You do not Choose your sexual preference .

      Obviously, it's not that black-and-white. Sure there are gays who were "born gay", but it seems quite obvious to me that there are people who choose or are influenced to be homosexual.

      Anecdote: A woman I know gave up on men after a third date rape. She started experimenting with women and is now happy in a long-term relationship with a woman. She admitted to me that she still finds men attractive, but she refuses to let herself be hurt again. She considers herself to be gay now.

      There are plenty of cases where gay people didn't grow up feeling "different" or "out of place" or just knowing that they were gay. I know of gay men who went straight...I recall a Christian musician I heard about a while back who was gay, found religion, and is now happily married and raising children.

      There's no one "cause" of homosexuality. Genetics, environment, and experiences all contribute to how a person is sexually attracted to others. Just look at the varying definitions of beauty in different cultures...what is attractive in one place is disgusting in another.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Pfft.

      I know two people who chose to be gay. I know somebody who was gay, decided that he didn't want to be, got some counseling and now considers himself to be straight. I also know a number of people who claim that they never made any choice.

      We don't know a whole lot about what determines what sex people find attractive. And, unfortunately, a lot that we supposedly know isn't trustworthy. Sayings such as "you do not choose your sexual preference," while popular, reflect mo

  • Bullcrap. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @12:08PM (#14607925)
    I don't buy Blizzard's response.

    I see tons of pro-Christian conversations and Guild named all night long when I play. Blizzard never shuts them the hell up or takes action to remove these offensive-to-me names.

    Blizazard's perception is that of homophobes. I can't see them any other way with this type of behavior.

    - Posting anonymously so their GMs don't *find* some reason to kick me out of the game.


    • I see tons of pro-Christian conversations and Guild named all night long when I play.

      You mean like these people? [landoverbaptist.org]...

      From their website:

      "I think the reason so many people are open to hearing about Jesus in the World of Warcraft is because the majority of people who play the game are lonely kids who don't have any friends. I doubt any of them play sports [landoverbaptist.org] so you can pretty much guess that there are lots of gay boys [landoverbaptist.org] and fat little pale-faced Wiccan girls [landoverbaptist.org] on the servers who hate themselves and escape into virtual

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

      by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @12:40PM (#14608272) Homepage
      Yes, of course it's bullcrap. I mean, listen to what they are actually saying. They are saying that granting homosexuals a guild that is explicitly friendly towards them would cause these people to be a target of harassment. So they are saying that WoW is an environment that is inherently hostile towards homosexuals, and the only thing stopping a homosexual from being harassed is that nobody knows they are. Joining a "GBLT friendly" guild would be like "coming out of the closet", and the only way to stay safe is to stay in the closet.

      Just like in real life. And having a support group in real life is a bad idea for the same reasons, people might find out who you really are and harass you. So keep it a secret and don't get any support... that's obviously the answer to intolerance. [/bitter sarcasm]

      Yet it's exactly how WoW isn't real life that makes this argument even more stupid. Having a GBLT-friendly guild is exactly how you would get around harassment in WoW. If you have your guildmates, then you don't need to worry about random strangers to try to get groups. If someone outside your guild trys to harass you for being in your guild, then you just /ignore them. I /ignore jackasses all the time, and once you've done that what on earth can they do to you?

      If you penetrate the crap and look at what Bliz's real motivations are, I'm pretty sure that really they don't want to be seen as truly "gay friendly" for fear of losing the demographic who sees "gay friendly" as basically "Satan friendly". Yet they don't want to lose the actual gay-friendly demographic either, so they toss out this half-assed excuse for why this is really all about tolerance and preventing harassment.

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

        by dlZ ( 798734 )

        f you penetrate the crap and look at what Bliz's real motivations are, I'm pretty sure that really they don't want to be seen as truly "gay friendly" for fear of losing the demographic who sees "gay friendly" as basically "Satan friendly".

        I would have to think that the group of people who see "gay friendly" as "Satan friendly" would have a higher percentage of people who think that any kind of RPG is Satan worship. These people are going to complain and protest no matter what, just because it's an RPG.

        • Re:Bullcrap. (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Ayaress ( 662020 )
          You may think that, but you'd be suprised. The same sort of people who think like that often have an amazing ability to rationalize the most disparate behaviors into their worldview. For example, I have an uncle who I'm generally ashamed to admit I know. He's a member of the Promise Keepers, should have his daughter taken away and put in a foster home, disowned me because I let said daughter watch Harry Potter on TV while she was at our house, refuses to come into our house because he's fairly sure Dungeons
      • If you penetrate the crap ...
        I'm trying to think of a witty response to this, butt...
    • "I see tons of pro-Christian conversations and Guild named all night long when I play. Blizzard never shuts them the hell up or takes action to remove these offensive-to-me names. "

      What are the names that are offensive to you?

      Should Blizzard also take action on people who use offensive (to Christians) words and phrases like God/Jesus (as an expletive), or Jesus-f'ing-Christ?

      How about if people did the same thing to the name of Muhammad whom the Muslims revere? Should Blizzard take similar action too?

  • Consequence? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Southpaw018 ( 793465 ) * on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @12:09PM (#14607934) Journal
    This argument is sometimes used to justify prejudicial behavior. In this case, it's being used to try to prevent it, and it's still wrong. Basically, "she was dressed like a whore, so she deserved to get assaulted" is the line of reasoning being used.
    If the guild's recruiting has the -potential- to incite prejudicial comments among the immature and clueless, then they shouldn't be allowed at all? No. It's always the transgressor's fault. Always.

    • Re:Consequence? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hunterx11 ( 778171 )
      Preventing people from dressing like a whore in a private establishment in order to prevent sexual assault seems perfectly reasonable to me. It has nothing to do with whose fault it is.

  • Sensitive. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Meagermanx ( 768421 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @12:11PM (#14607958)
    It's really a sensitive topic. It'd be like having a guild comprised of black or black-friendly people. It would prompt political debate on whether or not black people should be able to live without asshole rednecks declaring jihads on their asses. Same thing with gays.
    And, really, who wants an argument?
    • So do you also think that Blizzard should be fine with a whites-only guild? Or, specifically, an asshole rednecks-only guild? Would the resulting inevitable debate/argument/fight/flamewar between the various guilds, overall, help or hurt the game? Would it, overall, help or hurt Blizzard's profits?

      This is not a troll or a flame, I'm completely serious.
      • "So do you also think that Blizzard should be fine with a whites-only guild?"

        Of course not. The whole point is that there should be no mention of any real-world issues that could be disagreed upon in the game.
        I mean, this is a community spanning millions of subscribers, all intent on reaching their next level, not a group of humans who want to discuss real-world issues. They're not MMOing because they want to interact with people, it's just the immersive leveling system that draws them in.
        • WHOOPS

          My bad; you were serious. I misread your original comment as sarcasm, and so drew conclusions about your opinion that are completely wrong.

          Sorry 'bout that.

          I'll just shut up, now.
    • It's really a sensitive topic...It would prompt political debate on whether or not black people should be able to live without asshole rednecks declaring jihads on their asses.

      Boy, that's really sensitive of you. You swipe both a major ethnic group (people not like you), and a major religion (Islam) in one sentence. A real Two-Fer.

  • Same enforcement? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by John Napkintosh ( 140126 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @12:15PM (#14607994) Homepage
    With that small bit of clarification - "religious, sexual, or political preference" - I wonder if they actually enforce this policy uniformly for all of the above. Do they shut down guilds that align themselves with Christians, Jews, Islam, libs/dems, left/right, etc? If not, then you've gone from potential harassment and being singled out by other players to definite harassment and being singled out by Blizzard.

  • 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 recr

  • So why no action against the other guilds? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by quantax ( 12175 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @12:17PM (#14608013) Homepage
    ... 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.

    So my question is, why haven't they taken any action against the Christian guilds? Nothing against Christian guilds, but they obviously exist and it seems no action has previously been taken regarding their existence before this GLBT debacle. Personally, I think Blizzard is blowing this issue since they never took action on 'sensitive real-world subjects' before this point, atleast with religious guilds, so it definitely seems that they are applying a double-standard here. Given the immature atmosphere of any online game, having a guild of like-minded folk whos first reaction to any intelligent piece of personal information is NOT to curse and mock the individual, well, that seems like something that should be encouraged rather than dismissed. Otherwise, Blizzard should start the Great Guild Purge of 2006 and get cracking on those religious guilds (and if they exist, political guilds, never seen any though) as well as any other 'sensitive real world topics' instead of their current method of selective enforcement.
    • They typically respond to "reports" of rule-breaking, as they don't have a team large enough to be proactively monitoring everyone all at once.
      • I understand what you are saying but given that Christian groups have been around as long as WoW has been out and are quite open about their own existence (what player hasnt noticed them), why has Blizzard not even once tried to enforce this rule upon them? Its possible they did and no one heard about it, but thats something of a moot point since we just do not know unless Blizzard says they did. From the context of the entire thing, especially with Christian groups in such prominence for this long, it come

    • Re:So why no action against the other guilds? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by LehiNephi ( 695428 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @12:37PM (#14608236) Journal
      You must remember that Blizzard was not objecting to the existence of a GBLT guild, but rather to the public recruiting thereto.

      IANA WoW Player, so I can't say whether or not these "Christian" guilds recruit as openly as the GBLT guild. In Blizzard's view (and, incidentally, in mine), it's irrelevant. If Christians were a hated minority, and I were a member of a Christian guild, I would also be hesitant to advertise/recruit openly.

      Although it seems (and may be) discriminatory, we have to keep in mind a few things. First of all, this is a computer game. And like someone else already mentioned, Blizzard wants to keep the focus of the game on the gameplay, and not on the politics/religion/race/sexual orientation of the players. The intent of the game is NOT to recreate real life, but to create a fantasy world, and effectively entertain the players.

      Secondly, Blizzard has a lot to lose from allowing a free-for-all on their forums & servers. Yes, we should encourage tolerance and understanding, but a fantasy online world is probably one of the worst places to do so. Besides, by allowing the free-for-all that would probably ensue if they maintained a hands-off approach, the persecuted members would probably leave because the harrassment ruined the game, some of the persecuters would leave out of disgust that Blizzard allowed the persecuted, and everyone would be a little turned off by the inevitable flamewars.

      Thirdly, you must remember that Blizzard owns WoW. It's a business. And their priority is to make money. If that means asking some players with unpopular real-world views or characteristics to keep said views or characteristics to themselves in order to keep more people happy and paying, so be it. They are not infringing on those players' rights to free speech elsewhere, or their religion/race/sex/orientation/whatever in real life. It's a private institution, and they can set and enforce the rules as you see fit.
      • Most reasonable folks won't argue that Blizzard owns WoW and they can enforce almost whatever they want. However, we're also free to argue that it's a bad response.

        The problem I see is that the way Blizzard has chosen to enforce the policy basically boils down to a popularity contest. Yes, ANY recruitment based in part on political, religious, and sexual preferences is not allowed. But the problem comes down to the enforcement policy. Currently, it's based on whoever complains. Since Christianity is the rel

  • I agree with Blizzard (Score:4, Insightful)

    by casualsax3 ( 875131 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @12:21PM (#14608050)
    It's a game - the reason you're playing it is to escape reality. Why would you try and bring real world issues into it? Just shutup, and enjoy the game. Blizzard certainly has two feet to stand on regarding this issue. Do you really want to see a guild war between the Pro Lifes and the Pro Choices?
  • Though they are paying customers, WoW players are tenants of the virtual property owned by Blizzard. They have the right to welcome, tolerate, or decry whatever kind of behaviour they wish.

    WoW players are not citizens, they are guests who must abide by the law of the land.

    I'm all for free speech and the right to congregate, recruit, and broadcast, but I think Blizzard is well within their right to dissolve whatever guilds they want for whatever reason they wish. The situation is akin to putting up p
  • How long before I'd be shut down for opening a guild as follows:

    "The knights of the White Dragon are looking for new members, we are a guild centered around white christian gamers of conservative viewpoints with strong sense of racial pride"

    Then when someone protests shut down all arguement with:

    "We're already taking down Rag and don't mind letting you leech tier 1 epics on the weekly runs as we're all decked"

  • What ever happend to just old fashioned cursing? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LordDax ( 703437 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @12:35PM (#14608211)
    I know that "Aww Gay!" "Dude thats so gay!" is running rampant in the online gaming community. After being accosted by a few friends of mine(RL&IG)of differing sexual orientation, we've gone back to the old days of just saying "Ah fuck" and "Dude! You got fucked!" Cause in essence thats what "Gay!" has become, a replacement "Fuck!".(Wow what a strange sentence)

    Why not just go back to saying "Fuck" and not caring if someone thinks you have a lesser command of the english language?

    If they harrass you for that, just tell them that... You[I] have taken up the cause to use "Fuck" in order to minimize the negativity and abuse of someone's sexual orientation by using the word "Gay" as an explitive in order to foster a better virtual reality for all manner of gamer.

    That should catch them off guard.
    • If I didn't use all my mod points yesterday I would of modded you up.

      People seem to have lost the fact that swear words only mean what you make them mean. To me "fuck" is just another word to add a bit more strength to a sentence, where as "gay" is an insult 12 year olds scream at each other while trying to deny they eye each other's cocks in the gym showers.

  • Real life and RPGs shouldn't mix (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Cyphertube ( 62291 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @12:38PM (#14608245) Homepage Journal
    I'll probably get modded as flamebait, but this argument smacks entirely of the whole 'Fear of Girls' video kind of situation, but in reverse.

    Instead of a bunch of people deciding to yank role-playing into their lives, the decided to spend their time in MMORPGs and inject their real lives into role-playing.

    Last I checked, WoW didn't have sexual orientation, and Christian beliefs weren't part of the fundamental makeup of multiverse created by Blizzard. If you want to role-play, then role-play and enjoy. If you need to socialise and engage in some kind of group therapy, then seek out a professional.

    There is nothing more frustrating, IMHO, that people who usurp a perfectly good RPG to substitute for their real-life needs. Your real personality will of course affect your choices in the game, but it's still a game. If you can't handle that, log off, and go seek some help.

  • Look at it the other way (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Control Group ( 105494 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @12:40PM (#14608271) Homepage
    Questions:

    Are there currently guilds that only recruit heterosexuals? What's Blizzard's policy on this? What should it be?

    Are there currently guilds that only recruit African-Americans? How about guilds that only recruit whites?
    • Just to clarify, the guild in question was not recruiting only LGBT players, it was recruiting people friendly to LGBT people. I said it before on the last thread about this topic, Blizzard has a policy against descrimination based on sexuality, and this guild was essentially recruiting people who followed this rule. Blizzard then penalized the guild for emphasizing one of Blizzard's own rules. It's ridiculous on its face.
      • Just to clarify, the guild in question was not recruiting only LGBT players, it was recruiting people friendly to LGBT people. I said it before on the last thread about this topic, Blizzard has a policy against descrimination based on sexuality, and this guild was essentially recruiting people who followed this rule. Blizzard then penalized the guild for emphasizing one of Blizzard's own rules. It's ridiculous on its face.

        Just to clarify, Blizzard was not and has never challenged the EXISTENCE of such a gui
      • Interesting. That does change the issue, but it's not, IMHO, patently ridiculous.

        If the group were to be recruiting in a truly non-sexually discriminatory way, then they should be recruiting blind to the sexual beliefs of the people being recruited. The fact that they include any criteria related to sexual orientation in their recruitment means that they are not being completely agnostic to it.

        Similarly (in concept, not in my estimation of either's value), if a guild was recruiting KKK members and sympathiz
    • Please get your facts straight. It was not a glbt-ONLY guild; it was a glbt-FRIENDLY guild. Big difference there, isn't it? All that they were essentially saying is "homophobes aren't welcome here". I fail to see why anyone could possibly take offense at that.

  • Sexuality double-standard (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lendrick ( 314723 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @12:42PM (#14608294) Homepage Journal
    I play warcraft with my wife. Our guildmates know that we're married, and thus they implicitly know that we're heterosexual. In fact, by so much as mentioning my wife, I'm revealing my sexuality. Of course, even if I were reported for that, I highly doubt I'd receive any sort of warning.

    On the other hand, if god forbid a male player mentions that he has a boyfriend, he can get a warning for revealing that he's gay... not to mention getting flamed in forum discussions for "throwing his sexuality into people's faces."

    I'm not clear on why someone being gay is an affront to other people's existance. Wingnuts, care to respond to this? Sin or not, why does it bother you so much if someone else is gay? Why does someone else's decision about their own sexuality have to be contraversial? Why choose to be offended when you could shrug it off as none of your business?
    • Because it's in the Wholly Babble that homosexuality is a sin, so it Must Be True.
    • There's a difference between pubically advertising a GLBT guild and casually mentioning you have a "boyfriend" in your own guild chat. The latter is no big deal, but the former is pushing an agenda that many people don't want to see in an online RPG. And Blizzard doesn't want to deal with flamewars resulting from Gay, Pro-choice, Pro-life, White/Black/Asian/Hispanic, Republican, etc. guild advertising. And I don't blame them.
    • Did you decide to find your wife attractive? No you didn't, you were born liking women just as everyone is born with their sexuality.
    • "Wingnuts, care to respond to this?"

      Hey, quit throwing this in my face, you fag! If you want to suck cock, go ahead. Just leave me out of your man-trains. </sarcasm>

      AFAICT, guys who hate on gays are closeted gays and can't come to grips with it. They unconsciously fantasize constantly, like all guys do. That's why they're always talking "gay this, fag that" -- they constantly have gay on the mind. However, when these gay scenes bubble up in their minds, they have to alienate themselves from it. T
    • Instead of engaging in Theorycraft, how about you provide an example of a player that was suspended and/or banned for saying that he has a boyfriend (or that she has a girlfriend).
    • On the other hand, if god forbid a male player mentions that he has a boyfriend, he can get a warning for revealing that he's gay

      But every day, thousands of gamers on WoW openly broadcast the fact that they are gay.

      They do so by playing paladins. *ba-dum-bum-CHHHHH*
    • Why does someone else's decision about their own sexuality have to be contraversial?

      Decision? I don't remember deiciding whether to be straight or gay. It was kind of just there. I never came to some fork in the road, paused for a moment, and then said, "Heck, I think I'll like wang."

      When did you decide?

  • Absolutes (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Puhase ( 911920 )
    Blizzard really only has three options in this situation:
    1. Freedom of Expression,
    If you say that these people have the freedom to collect together and openly espouse the values/personal choices/lifestyle similarities, than you must open this standard to all "virtual citizens" in WoW. The verbal harassment system becomes moot because Blizzard has given a basic set of freedoms to all its players. This is the, "If Jewish pride groups can march near city hall then so can the Neo-Nazi's" because freedom can
  • I randomly chose black as my skin colour for the game. At some point, some Euro kid ran up to me and yelled "NEGER!" which I thought was pretty hilarious given that (a) he has no clue what colour I really am, and (b) we're talking about a made-up land full of midgets and Spocks.

    I have to say though that's the one and only time where I've heard anything inflammatory (apart from the usual juvenile Southparkian humour) and I rather suspect he was doing it to provoke.

  • Blizzard is trying to be Politically Correct. Although there is no specific law implementing so-called Political Correctness, they're trying to prevent some players from being angry, pissed off, insulted, and other related feelings from the free speech and opinions of others. A savvy business move to keep as many customers as possible, and an illogical position to try and maintain.

    The glbt community always tries to portray themselves as downtrodden and in need of protection. Stop everyone else's offens

  • Okay guys just a bit of personal annoyance here.. it's on topic but I'll still get modded down.

    Can we stop to refering as gay people as "gays", they're PEOPLE not "gayians", I wouldn't refer to you as a Hetro or a Straight, so don't start calling people by their sexuality. Other than what they get up to in their heads, beds and hotel rooms they're exactly the same as everyone else, so can we please stop using that damn label?

  • Missing the point .. (Score:3, Funny)

    by geekpolitico ( 743680 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @01:03PM (#14608551)
    Everyone is missing the point. The real concern is that a group of WoW'ers will form a lesbian guild. In a few months when they discover that every member is actually a man playing with a female avatar, they will become enraged and destroy Blizzard HQ for making them face their deep-seated fear of being gay.
  • BTW, just how do you play an openly gay, or lbt, character in WoW? I don't recall seeing an explicitly glbt character type there.
    • There are mods that'll let you have a little bit of text when people click on you. Generally these are done only for role playing purposes (made up backstory, general info, etc), but its not hard to imagine it being used to admit being gay.

      And then theres always the option of running around naked whenever you aren't out fighting something. (Which no one does due to the fact that the character models look ugly and on PvP servers theres always the threat of being ganked.) The incredibly bad fashion designs in

    • As Margaret Cho has said, the US Army could *never* win a war without lesbians.

      What WoW really needs is a makeover from the Queer Eye five.

  • Missing a part... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Kesch ( 943326 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @01:09PM (#14608622)
    The Blizzard text is copy pasted from a post on the WoW Forums. [worldofwarcraft.com]

    What is missing is the second half of the post. They are not banning these guilds, they are just against advertising them in open chat in the game. They have said that the best avenue of recruitment is through their own Guild Recruitment Forums [worldofwarcraft.com]. What they are trying to stop is Orgrimmar and Ironforge (Main capital cities for non-Azerothians) turning into huge (gay/republican/black/white/purple/democrat/straig ht/christian/Jew/Muslim/doglover/catlover/chronica llyillwithcancer) bashing centers.

    In game bashing should properly be restricted to the opposing faction, n00bs, gold farmers, overpowered classes, and the hardcore guys who have no life and stand around showing all the 1337lewts you'll never get but still want.

  • EQ2 Mirror (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Sage Gaspar ( 688563 ) on Tuesday January 31, 2006 @01:17PM (#14608699)
    This does really highlight a difference between the population in EQ2 and WoW, in my opinion. A guild advertised exactly the same thing in EQ2. A couple players questioned their agenda, though only a select few were hostile. After this initial phase of discovering they're legit, they're willing to accept anyone, and they're not evil ghey folks out to convert your children, people stopped bothering them and the guild got formed. I kept seeing 'em around, so I guess they were doing okay.

    Another thing that happened on a chat channel was that someone start making borderline racist jokes (being both drunk and stupid), and the guy's friends immediately did the right thing and told him to get some sleep and come back tomorrow. It was one of the most amazing things I've ever seen on the internet - no flame war, no cursing, no angry posts on the forums, it just ended.

    As to WoW, if they want to handle everything real world by banning its discussion, I have no problem (though I'm curious if it's equally applied -- their policy might actually get them into legal trouble if it's not). I don't know, maybe they have a point with the kiddies, but I think most people in WoW have seen enough elves strip teasing and people talking about teh cybarsechs that it's not an issue. If we really need to head in this direction, I would absolutely love to see 18+ servers so that we could stop having to worry about offending the kiddies constantly.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Facts are stupid things." -- President Ronald Reagan (a blooper from his speeach at the '88 GOP convention)

Close