Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Blizzard Responds To Gay Guild Debate

Posted by Zonk on 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.

7 of 444 comments (clear)

  1. Bullcrap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.

    1. Re:Bullcrap. by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      Landover baptist is a parody site. This isn't. This thread discusses a Christian guild (The Forgiven). Here's another (Pillar of Autumn), and here's a whole slashdot thread about Christian recruiting on WoW, such as the God's Peons guild.

      --
      FSB hits! FSB hits! Your democracy dies. Do you want your possessions identified?
  2. It's a satire, everyone . . . by James_Aguilar · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just making sure . . . you realize that that website is a satire, right? I think the polemicized Slashdot population might not realize that. It's not a real church. Not that there aren't Christians who really think like that, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that they are a minority.

  3. Re:Look at it the other way by kidcharles · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une sig.
  4. Missing a part... by Kesch · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Blizzard text is copy pasted from a post on the WoW Forums.

    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. 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.

    --
    If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
  5. Re:Look at it the other way by slavemowgli · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  6. Re:A small difference by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Informative
    It HAS been proven.

    By the way, one of the studies also mentions they're able to breed gay animals by manipulating the prenatal hormonal environment. Gays ARE born tht way. Your famous "Mostly it is determined by a relationship to the subjects father, meaning that is it not genetic but conditioned." is a red herring - prenatal hormones aren't genetic - they're environmental. However, how the individual responds in such an environment IS genetic. The gays who claim to be "cured" have responeded to conditioning in the environment to accept that being gay is wrong - and most of THAT pressure is from religios proselytes who can't accept that the Bible is wrong in this matter, as it is in a few other things.

    Here are links to previous debates - if you look thorugh them, you'll find the research, and more:

    1. debate on gay marriage
      http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson/journal/79630
    2. the infamous "would you bang her" poll
      http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson/journal/79828
    3. gay-bashing troll On Lawn gets caught sock-puppeting
      http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson/journal/80081
    4. the end result
      http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson/journal/80351

    You might also want to review my series on gender: it starts here http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson/journal/123094

    Your sexual preference, just like your gender identification, is determined before birth. Get over it, and get over yourself. The stuff you've posted further on in this thread ... well, lors ipso loquitur - it speaks for itself.

    Or you can do a little googling for 2D:4D finger ratio and how it shows what actually happened in the womb.
    http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2000/yax-209.htm

    The background

    First, we have to understand the background, for without having the same understanding of the background as the scientists, we cannot grasp their conclusions. In the paper, the background was sketched in just the first sentence: "Animal models have indicated that androgenic steroids acting before birth might influence the sexual orientation of adult humans." In plain language, what it said was that previous studies, using animals as subjects, have found that certain hormones called "androgens" had an effect on foetuses and their subsequent sexual orientation. The best known androgen is testosterone.

    Some people may trip over the paper's opening sentence. They are those who refuse to accept that animal studies can be extended to humans. If you take this view, there is very little I can say, because your position is akin to the Creationist view. It is an assertion of belief, nothing more. Given that position, you really don't accept any science. You only want belief. Note however, that no serious scientist today dismisses animal studies as irrelevant to humans, since we share the same evolutionary origins.

    The second idea contained within that first sentence is also important, and has been established for a while now, though it strikes many people as a new idea: that animals can also be homosexual. It is not a trait found only in humans. Scientists have observed homosexuality in animals in the wild, and have bred homosexual animals through modifying androgen levels in foetuses.

    ....

    Homosexual women

    "The right-hand 2D:4D ratio of homosexual women", said the researchers, "did not differ significantly from that of heterosexual men." This suggests that "homosexual women were exposed to greater levels of fetal androgen than heterosexual women."

    Homosexual men

    For the men, however, the results were more complex. Taking homosexu