Blizzard Responds To Gay Guild Debate

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.

Comments

A small difference

[FidelCatsro]

", 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

[(A)*(B)!0_-]

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

[Profane MuthaFucka]

It's the truth, and is well supported through many years of research. You're entitled to your opinions, but you are not entitled to your facts. I don't think a factual statement deserves to be labelled flamebait.

Re:A small difference

[TheSkyIsPurple]

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?

Re:A small difference

[frikazoyd]

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.

Re:A small difference

[tringstad]

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 Republican or Muslim than I could to be Homosexual.

Not that there is anything wrong with being Muslim or Homosexual.

-Tommy

P.S. I think Blizzard is wrong, but then, I think they're wrong about a lot of things when it comes to managing the community, which is why I quit.

Re:A small difference

[Slime-dogg]

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

Re:A small difference

[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

[TheLink]

"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?

Re:A small difference

[RingDev]

I thought your parents did?

-Rick

Re:A small difference

[FidelCatsro]

I have an inherent interest in doing away with anti-semitism .So perhaps I am biased..
people can choose to become Jewish , some people are born ethnically Jewish as well , so that doesn't wash.
though Anti-semites don't give a shit about whether you chose to be Jewish or if your Jewish parents begot you .

I am not here to prove to you a common theory on Homosexuality , there is plenty of info on this for you to study , either at your local university library or on google even .
However what I am stating is that allowing bigots to use Faggot as an insult all the time , then starting on a group which is a safe haven for people who don't want to hide what they are and to avoid hatred .. is frankly appalling

Re:A small difference

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazingly, neither side in this thread has offered any facts. Go figure.

Re:A small difference

[ShortSpecialBus]

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 understand the actions and the rammifications of said actions.

Perhaps I was missing a sarcastic point you were making, in which case I apologize.

Re:A small difference

[Zediker]

'Recovered' or socially pressured into acting straight? What if they were not completely homosexual to begin with, but were bisexual? It would be a thousand fold easier for a bisexual person to chose to partner with a person of the oposite sex then it would be for a homosexual. Are those issues even brought up on that site? On a side note. Both sides need to present evidence of their claims during an argument. Claiming your side does not need to present evidence does not provide any weight to your argument and actualy infact detracts from it. Infact dont even pick sides, provide impartial evidence for or against, and then come to a conclusion based upon it. Otherwise the argument will go nowhere, and nothing will come about of it.

Re:A small difference

[theStorminMormon]

You think that you can just stand up and say "the scientific community thinks X" and the rest of us are going to go "Oh, OK, he says that's what they say so it must be what they say". There are two main problems here.

1. You can't just tell us what the scientific community says and act like you've proven anything. I can't believe you even wrote "my citatoin is all the pyschological literature..." Your citation is non-existent. You didn't cite ANYTHING.

2. Again - consensus is not proof. You're just walking evidence of the fact that science is the new dogma. Even if "all the psychological literature of the past 50 years" was really in your court that's still not proof. Literature is not proof. Consensus is not proof. Popular opinion - even of the best and brightest minds - is not proof. Proof is when you have a testable hypothesis, a repeatable experiment, and the analysis to back it up. Go get me that, post it for review, and we'll talk.

In the meantime you haven't proven anything other than your own utter misapprehension of what does and does not constitute a scientifically valid argument. The fact of the matter is that real science spits in the fact of consensus. That's why we have scientific revoluions: because the best and the brightest have a long track record of being proven wrong.

You should also take note that I haven't once even intimated that I know or can prove that homosexuality is a choice. This is not an either/or proposition. It's quite possible - and I believe this to be the case - that NEITHER side has amassed enough evidence to "prove" their viewpoint.

All I'm pointing out is that you can spout all you want about "citations" but the fact remains that you're just a political hack trying to bludgen your way to the top on the sheer authoritative weight of experts you can't quote or reference. How does that make you any different from some religious nutjob who says Jesus talks to him? I don't see that nutjob's Jesus any more - or any less - than I see your citations.

You can take your self-assured consensus and shove it. There was once a consensus that the sun rotated around the earth, consensus that man couldn't fly, consensus that the world population would be 10 billion in 2010, and consensus in the superiority of the white race. Congratulations, you've joined the long and illustrious ranks of those who are right "because everybody else says so".

-stormin

Re:A small difference

[TheSkyIsPurple]

>which is unfortunately ALL too common while playing WoW

But being in that guild makes you a target, doesn't it? Seems like it might actually increase the exposure.

Whatever happened to "on the internet noone knows you're a dog?"

If you are getting exposed to homophobic language, report it... confront it... whatever. It's out there, and it won't get minimized until it is dealt with.

Re:A small difference

[bugg]

This is off-topic, I know. So, I'll get modded down, which seems to happen anyway when you talk about race on slashdot.

It is worth pointing out that you have suggested, intentionally or not, a false equivilency between the identities "Black" and "White." This has no basis in reality.

The "Black" identity in Western cultures is based upon a shared experience of being discriminated against because of having a Black skin color. There is a large number of diverse and distinct peoples that get lumped in as "Black" - Kikuyu, Oromo, Amhara, [countless other African nationalities], West Indian, and African-American cultures are all distinct and have different defining characteristics. The only reason it's convienent to speak of the Black identity is because Black people in Western countries have been the victims of the exact same racism and treatment: the Klan doesn't care whether you're from Trinidad or Ethiopia.

Conversely, the "White" identity is based on the exact opposite: being in a position of privilege in Western society. There are huge differences between being Italian, German, and Gaelic. The only thing that unites them is the color of the skin and other identifying "racial" traits- that is, the only thing that unites White people is being on the "winning" side of racism.

This is why having pride in being Black is not analogous to having pride in being White. One is having pride in being a member of a people that has been held down because of skin color, the other is having pride in having a skin color that is granted privilege from racist institutions.

"White pride" isn't okay because it means being proud of benefiting from racism.

This not to say that there exists a set of people who shouldn't be proud of something, or shouldn't be able to celebrate -- but just think of what, exactly, you are celebrating. Here in Pittsburgh we have Little Italy week complete with Italian pride parades. Nobody calls that racist, and with good reason: but a "White pride" parade would be called racist, and that would be correct, in my opinion.

Re:A small difference

[douglips]

Do you think that if you lived in India that Vishnu might have chosen you?

Re:A small difference

[lawpoop]

"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 sex. It's all rape. Children are not emotionally and physically mature enough to handle sex with adults.

However, if two men are having consensual sex with each other, that's fine. They are not hurting each other in any special way. Their relationship may not be perfect, but that's true for any heterosexual relationship. If there is abuse in the relationship, that's a fact of the two particular personalities, not the fact that there are two men in the relationship.

So sex with minors is wrong, because minors can't give consent and it hurts them. Sex with an unwilling partner is wrong, because they haven't given consent and it hurts them. However, consensual heterosexual relationships don't hurt anybody, just like heterosexual relationships.

Does that clear things up?

Re:A small difference

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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 .

No, what they are saying is they don't want groups dedicated either to or against highly charged issues, since that defeats the purpose of the game, to escape from reality and have fun. Since their official policy forbids certain charged topics, simply report anyone making derogatory comments about race, political affiliation, sexual preference, etc. If they don't respond and do something, then you have a valid complaint. Until you have followed proper channels though, you're just being a rabble rouser.

Re:A small difference

[jythie]

I really do not think the guild was supposed to be about 'sex' and more about putting together an explicit 'safe haven' for a certian group of players that feel they are generally harrassed and made to feel unwelcome by a large percentage of troublemakers.

Consequence?

[Southpaw018]

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?

[hunterx11]

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.

[Meagermanx]

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?

Same enforcement?

[John Napkintosh]

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.

So why no action against the other guilds?

[quantax]

... 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.

Re:So why no action against the other guilds?

[jchenx]

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 religion of the majority, the chances of someone complaining about a Christian-friendly guild recruitment is going to be a lot smaller than, say, a Muslim-friendly guild recruitment. I know if I started an Asian-American friendly guild (but open to everyone), it's very likely someone's going to complain (especially with all the "CHINESE GOLD FARMER" racism that goes on). But an Australian-friendly guild recruitment would have no problem (and it's something I see quite regularly). In a popularity contest, any minority group is just going to lose. No, it's not quite racism/sexism/etc., but to the minorities, it certainly may *feel* like it.

I understand the problem that Blizzard faces. If they allow open recruitment, they're afraid that opens the door for things like KKK-friendly guilds, Nazi-guilds, etc. That would, obviously, generate a lot of anger and non-gaming related chatter on the general chat channels in the game. But you know, it's not like this is a never-seen-before problem. I think of my university and how there were plenty of religious, political, etc. groups that were advertised and talked about openly. Yet there weren't any KKK or Nazi groups to be afraid of.

I imagine all Blizzard needs is a clause that says, "Blizzard is allowed to moderate and stop any guild recruitment that it deems is offensive." Yes, I'm saying to keep it subjective! Blizzard can decide, by itself, what it finds as inappropriate. For the most part, this job should be easy. They can probably look at their own company policies and culture to see what's acceptable and what's not. I'm sure there are plenty of gay employees working in Blizzard, as well as plenty of people from minority religions, political groups, etc. And I would surprised if there was anyone at Blizzard that allied themselves with KKK or Nazi groups.

The only problem I see would be "gray area" groups, where it's not obvious that the organization would be offensive. One example might be a "Hamas-friendly" guild. But I'd argue the chances of that happening is slim (this IS a game after all, not a political forum), and besides, whatever Blizzard does in that case probably won't offend nearly the amount of people as, say, banning a GBLT group.

I agree with Blizzard

[casualsax3]

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?

So who wants to take odds on...

[Churla]

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"

Get Real.

[Anonymous Coward]

Blizzard would also crack down on public recruiting for heterosexual only guilds. In fact I've seen people warned about that EXACT thing believe it or not.

God forbid someone not wanting to know about your sexual preferences. Problem is gays and lesbians tend to be hypersensitive about these things. I mean I guess they have reasons to be in all honesty. But it doesn't give them the right to label an otherwise good company as being haters.

What ever happend to just old fashioned cursing?

[LordDax]

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.

Real life and RPGs shouldn't mix

[Cyphertube]

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

[Control Group]

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?

Re:Bullcrap.

[Chris Burke]

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.

Sexuality double-standard

[Lendrick]

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?

Re:Sexuality double-standard

[Lendrick]

This has already been pointed out many times, but the guild isn't homosexual-only, it's homosexual-friendly. And believe it or not, gay-friendly isn't code for gay-only. It means exactly what it says: everyone is welcome as long as they don't have a problem with gay people and don't use offensive language.

The big problem, really, stems from the fact that basically all guilds are straight-friendly (not that that's a problem in itself). You don't have to advertise it in your guild spams because it's just sort of assumed, the same way one assumes a car comes with wheels. It's not something you even think about, it's so obvious. Gay people don't have that luxury; the have to worry about people kicking them out of their guild if it's discovered that they're gay. Mind you, not all guilds would do this, but you can bet a lot more would kick you out for being gay than being straight.

There was a guy in a WoW forum thread a while back who was talking about how he got kicked out of a guild for mentioning that he had a boyfriend. That's something gay people have to worry about; whereas the thought of someone kicking me out of my guild for mentioning that I have a wife is ludicrous. Maybe somewhere, somehow it could happen, but I doubt it ever has.

Gay people generally don't want to throw their sexuality into peoples' faces. They just don't want to have to worry about casual remarks that might tip people off about their sexuality.

Re:Sexuality double-standard

[lawpoop]

"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. They sort of throw it from themselves, and on to someone or something else. Thus the hatred and abuse of others. If they can pin their own gay fantasies on someone else, it relieves their cognitive dissonance. Also note this is why their gay bashing is so full of explicit gay imagery. They are gay, and their subconscious mind is constantly creating gay fantasies. When these gay images hit the conscious mind, they have to blame them on someone else, with violence and hatred.

Re:Sexuality double-standard

[Radak]

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

[Puhase]

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 fully be offensive," example.

2.Allocate generous resources to monitoring harassment issues and make thousands of daily decisions in a timely manner,
This is the only way Blizzard could decide which groups can come together and advertise and which can't. Leaving behind how in the world they could develope a fair and far-reaching policy standard, the workload for this "Quality of Experience" issue would be enourmous and vastly overload the current less-than-pervasive GM staff. They would set a standard that the Executives agree with and enforce it around the clock. Unless they had the intellect of Solomon, I'm guessing that they would still take a ton of crap.

3. Cut of the problem with a "blanket" ban of things that might incite harassment,
This is the cheapest and least time consuming of the three, as they can just say, "Nope, we don't want this and its ours game so you can't do it." It is fully within their rights. We can always yell and scream about the fairness of our virtual social experience, but they are the one's in control. If you want to punish them, stop giving them money. That's what they are after in the first place. I personally am not all that up in arms about this decision. If you really wanted to do a Guild that espoused a certain value-set or lifestyle, its easy to do so in a way that is on a "person-to-person" level. And you'll probably end up with better guildmates that way anyway.

So much for trying to be PC

[Nom du Keyboard]

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 offensive speech. But the moment they want to say something themselves that might either invite criticism -- or be offensive to anyone else -- you start hearing screams of "My free speech rights are being suppressed."

Truism Number 1: You can't suppress some speech rights without trampling on all speech rights.

Truism Number 2: Political Correctness is a game that can never be won due to its internal hypocrisies.

Re:Bullcrap.

[dlZ]

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.

And you're right, having a GLBT friendly guild would be the best way to get away from the jackassery. Ignore is a powerful function. I don't even play WoW, but I used to play EQ and didn't play with anyone outside of my friends normally because I got sick of seeing 12 year olds type "OMG U SUX FAG!!" because I just wanted to solo or tried to actually share loot. I'm straight and it bugs the hell out of me.

Re:Interesting

[NiteShaed]

funny, I always thought the most hated group on Slashdot was Anonymous Cowards.

Why is WoW Rampant with homophobic speech??

[Khyber]

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.