Slashdot Mirror


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.

58 of 444 comments (clear)

  1. A small difference by FidelCatsro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ", 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

    --
    The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    1. Re:A small difference by (A)*(B)!0_- · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.
    2. Re:A small difference by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    3. Re:A small difference by TheSkyIsPurple · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    4. Re:A small difference by frikazoyd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:A small difference by tringstad · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      --
      "I got a half gallon of Jack, and 2 dozen Ant Traps. I'm about to get wild." -me
    6. Re:A small difference by FidelCatsro · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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 .

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    7. Re:A small difference by Slime-dogg · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    8. Re:A small difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You decide upon your religion beliefs

      That one's debatable, too.

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

    9. Re:A small difference by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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?

      --
    10. Re:A small difference by RingDev · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I thought your parents did?

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    11. Re:A small difference by FidelCatsro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    12. Re:A small difference by PFI_Optix · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.

      --
      120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
    13. Re:A small difference by FidelCatsro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I should probably have phrased it differently .. Perhaps they are not being intentionally bigoted . The word as an insult derived from the slur on homosexuals , just because they don't mean it in that way does not mean that it is not hurtful to someone who is Gay and has had to put up with insults like that .

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    14. Re:A small difference by ShortSpecialBus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      //FIXME: Bad .sig
    15. Re:A small difference by Zediker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      '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.

      --
      I love to slaughter the english language.
    16. Re:A small difference by theStorminMormon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

      --
      The Southern Baptist Convention has creationism. On Slashdot, we have porn.
    17. Re:A small difference by TheSkyIsPurple · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >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.

    18. Re:A small difference by bugg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -bugg
    19. Re:A small difference by douglips · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    20. Re:A small difference by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    21. 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

    22. Re:A small difference by jythie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  2. 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 TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      You mean like these people?...

      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 so you can pretty much guess that there are lots of gay boys and fat little pale-faced Wiccan girls on the servers who hate themselves and escape into virtual characters so they don't have to deal with their pathetic lives. When they hear that someone loves them, even if it is just the Lord Jesus Christ, they always want to hear more!"


      If you think that was funny, try checking out the links!
      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    2. 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?
    3. Re:Bullcrap. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Bullcrap. by dlZ · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.
      --
      rm -rf ./evidence @ punkcomp
    5. Re:Bullcrap. by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 2, Funny
      If you penetrate the crap ...
      I'm trying to think of a witty response to this, butt...
      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    6. Re:Bullcrap. by Ayaress · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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 and Dragons has been played there... ... and he plays Everquest. AND he can very clearly explain all the myriad reasons why it's ok for him to play Everquest, complete with scripture reference. He can also explain why it's NOT ok for me to play D&D or WoW, but I'm sure he has a counterpart somewhere who's the exact reverse, and I'm furthur sure that if you put them in a room together, they would recognize each other as members of the same faith and not deride each other for their hethen game practices like they would a nonbeliever (or a non-Promise Keeper, who my uncle calls "underbelievers" and who will still go to hell, I've been assured repeatedly).

      The only problem I see with a gay guild is that none of the gay people I know would do something like that to call attention to themselves. I know a guy who has a shirt that says, "Sorry ladies, I like dick," but he only wears it when he goes to the sort of club I'm not secure enough in my own sexuality to go within six blocks of - the sort of place where that would be a foregone conclusion, and the shirt is just a witty joke.

  3. Consequence? by Southpaw018 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
    1. Re:Consequence? by hunterx11 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
  4. Sensitive. by Meagermanx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  5. Do do you know that site's a spoof, right? by Channard · · Score: 3, Funny

    And anyway... I can understand Blizzard's positon. I mean, you wouldn't be able to use 'camping fag' as an insult anymore, and that could cause the world of online gaming to grind to a halt.

    1. Re:Do do you know that site's a spoof, right? by 777film · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And anyway... I can understand Blizzard's positon. I mean, you wouldn't be able to use 'camping fag' as an insult anymore, and that could cause the world of online gaming to grind to a halt.

      There's some truth in your joke. Online games- WOW included- are primarily the domain of 14-30 old men, a group not known for sensitivity. Consider how much words like gay, fag, cocksucker, etc. are thrown around as insults in just about every online game (because as we all know, "noobs", "campers" and "hackers" enjoy having relations with the same sex.) Even if a gay player had a sense of humor about it I would imagine this would get very old very fast, and I could see why they would gravitate towards their forming their own guilds/clans.

  6. Same enforcement? by John+Napkintosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --

    Long signatures suck.
  7. So why no action against the other guilds? by quantax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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.

    --
    "What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
    1. Re:So why no action against the other guilds? by LehiNephi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
    2. Re:So why no action against the other guilds? by jchenx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -- jchenx
  8. I agree with Blizzard by casualsax3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:I agree with Blizzard by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Do you really want to see a guild war between the Pro Lifes and the Pro Choices?"

      Hell, Yes!

      In fact, I am in favor of decided *all* political issues in MMORPGs.

      The Geek Shall Inherit the Earth!

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    2. Re:I agree with Blizzard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe not.

      But let me assure you the Guild of Indestructable vi will totally destroy the Guild of Flower-Picking emacs.

  9. 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.

  10. So who wants to take odds on... by Churla · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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"

    --
    I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
  11. What ever happend to just old fashioned cursing? by LordDax · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Real life and RPGs shouldn't mix by Cyphertube · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
  13. Look at it the other way by Control+Group · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

    --

    Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
  14. Sexuality double-standard by Lendrick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Sexuality double-standard by Lendrick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Sexuality double-standard by halivar · · Score: 2, Funny

      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*

    3. Re:Sexuality double-standard by Radak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

  15. Absolutes by Puhase · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I am and always will be a stereotype, because who in their right mind prefers mono?
  16. Missing the point .. by geekpolitico · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  17. 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.
  18. EQ2 Mirror by Sage+Gaspar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  19. Why is WoW Rampant with homophobic speech?? by Khyber · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.