Slashdot Mirror
Blizzard Techs Talk Login Times, Not Gay Rights
Shane Dabiri and John Lagrave took an interview with Eurogamer, and used the opportunity to talk about the login problems that have been plaguing World of Warcraft since Christmas. As techs, they're not there to talk about the ongoing discussion involving Gay rights in their game world. Kotaku, however, is not under any kind of restriction, and reports on legal movement against the company by Lambda Legal. The group is organized around procuring civil rights for people in the GLBT community, and sent a strongly worded letter to Blizzard's legal team. From that letter: "We are very concerned that Blizzard's policy, as expressed in the foregoing statement, discriminates against LGBT gamers. Although preventing harassment is an admirable goal, a requirement that LGBT people remain invisible and silent is not an acceptable means of reaching that goal." Blizzard has already removed the warning from the player in question, saying that it was an 'unfortunate interpretation' of their EULA.
"Although preventing harassment is an admirable goal, a requirement that LGBT people remain invisible and silent is not an acceptable means of reaching that goal."
Can we count on that support by trying to reverse the downmods for the Gay Nigger Association of America, member of which often post to Slahsdot?
This is merely meant to stimulate discussion on the second part of TFS.
Keep your goddamn politics out of my game. I play to escape reality dammit...
Nuff said.
What rights do anyone have to a privately-owned system?
The sharks smelled blood in the water eh?
What players do in their own private areas (houses, guild halls, whatever) is their own business, but in public areas, Blizzard has the full authority to define their own rules; it is, after all their own sandbox. I don't agree with Blizzard's decision, myself, but they have full authority and right to enforce whatever policies they want on -private- services.
~ Wizardry Dragon
That interview was about as content-rich as a blank sheet of paper. That corporate speech is nothing but disappointing, indicative of an attempt to avoid committment and responsibility, to avoid offense, not by being considerate, but by being nothing.
As far as it goes, it doesn't go very far.
I have the right to refuse service to anyone whom I deem, so long as the service is considered a private and not a public service. WoW is not a school board, it is a gaming community, and Blizzard can refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason it sees fit. I'm sure that's part of the Terms of Service you're *supposed* to read before installing the thing. Now, I'm a Canadain, so I'm no expert on the matter, but I'm 99% sure the U.S. Constitution does not gaurantee you the right to play on a WoW server of your choice. ~ Wizardry Dragon
FFS guys - it's a friggin' game, or should I start applying for social security being a 55th level toon with no money ?
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
Exactly. I think if one wants to truly be "tolerant" then one must also tolerate other people's intolerance. The fact is that everyone is intolerant of something; the people who make "tolerance" their biggest issue are often the very same people who seek to suppress those who don't agree with their idea of tolerance.
Green Lettuce, Bacon, and Tomatoes?
Girls Love Bacon and Tomatoes?
Greek Love Behind the Tabard?
So they can setup a policy that every avatar has to look like a naked 11 year old and it is perfectly legal?
Of course not. They have to abide by laws, if they are behind closed doors or not. And the fact that they are a private service doesn't affect that. They can't say no women are allowed to play. They can't discriminate on the basis of religion. And they can't say you are not allowed to say a guild is GLBT friendly because it might offend people when the game's chat has the word "fag" show up more then any other single word.
In fact, based on some things I've read, Blizzard might even be in violation of their own agreement by restricting a GLBT friendly guild when other religious guilds actively promote themselves as such. Both could easily attract people wanting to cause problems, yet only one is warned.
And if they set up a restaurant on their private property, they'd be able to refuse service to blacks?
Think your arguments through before you post them.
What, kind of like enforcing a Blacks only section on a private bus service? I don't think so.
Final Fantasy XI has full in-game marriage, complete with wedding dress, rings, and a ceremony. However, Final Fantasy XI refuses to allow gay couples to get married.
And yet, there's been no complaint about this. No one cared. "It's just a fantasy game."
I guess it's only because WoW is so popular that we're hearing about this in the first place. It's just people purposely trying to raise trouble to get "their issue" into the press. Unfortunately, it's working.
So if Blizzard were to decide tomorrow that from now on, only white males that can confirm they're not of Jewish descent were allowed in the game anymore, you'd agree with that, too?
Obviously, Blizzard has the right to make some rules, but obviously, they can't do just *anything* they want to, either; in particular, it may well be they can't legally discriminate against certain groups (I'm not familiar enough with anti-discrimination laws to say whether that's the case, but I'd be surprised if they could).
What's more, people who play WoW have a *contract* with Blizzard and pay *money* to them - both for the game and for the monthly subscription, so they do have a *right* to access the game, too, simply because they paid for it. That doesn't mean they can do just anything, either, of course, but opening a GLBT-friendly guild is not reasonable grounds to suspend or even warn anyone.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
And since when does one have the right to play LBBT characters in a role playing game for heaven's sake? If you don't like the rules, then leave. Not liking the rules is not an excuse for demanding that anyone else has to change to meet your own standards. Blizzard was at least trying to create a conflict -- make that harassment -- free area for everyone to play in. Some people just have to go push things wherever they are, and then we get a big mess for everyone else.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I am not MMORGing to drag this crap into my fantasy world. Why do people need to drag real life into fantasy relaxation? There are no ways in which to have "straight" relationships in the game unless it's role-played. So role-play the relationships... if a younger player or an insensitive player bashes you, go after the player through the abuse channel or game masters... Even as a "straight" person, if I were to see "Prince Valliant" and "Prince Charming" getting married on my server, I wouldn't really care, except to ask if they need anything tailored like their Tux's or cooked for the reception but after that what they do with each other is their own business. Same for "Snow White" and "Cinderella" doing the social interaction thing. Now for guilds that are restrictive based on real world associations, I am the Guild Leader for a Guild in WoW and it's based "primarily" on IRL friends that are all Bouncers in the various Detroit night clubs. We have other members but it was started based on location and profession. I don't agree with groups that include color, creed, religion, sex, sexual preference... think about all the things that are violations of the harassment policies at your work. I don't want to be exposed to all that while trying to relax and slaughter things. I wanna be brain dead and happy. Please leave real life issues at the door with your street clothes. I wanna don my armour and wreak havoc on the Murlock population without wondering what kind of socio/economic/racial overtones may be interpreted in the aftermath.
I think the letter sent by Lambda Legal was a reasonable and measured response to Blizzard's actions. I'm glad that Blizzard has reversed its warning of the player.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
You have a right to be able to move state-to-state and within the state.
You do *not* have a right to play on the WoW server fo your choice.
~ Wizardry Dragon
That does not compute. Blizzard isn't banning gay players. Think your own arguments through.
There is no 'private property' unless you form your own country. Otherwise all land is the soveriegn territory of the country that your in, regardless of whether you 'purchased' it or not.
~ Wizardry Dragon
Since the same time they had the right to play straight characters. Those rights are equal.
I've already noticed things getting better. Keep in mind that I can only speak for my server and not the game as a whole.
Sundays used to have massive lag, 1-2 reboots. Mondays were pretty much unplayable with 4-5 reboots a day. People in Ironforge disappearing, mobs not respawning, infinite loot lag, instances in limbo, etc, etc.
Over the past couple weeks Sundays have usually had one reboot, Mondays are fairly solid albeit a bit laggy. Gives me hope as far as their tech teams are concerned. Hopefully people who aren't seeing changes yet will see some soon.
As I stated before, I do not *personally* agree with Blizzard's policy - but it's their service, and if you disagree so strongly with their policies, then vote with your dollars and hit Blizzard where it hurts - their wallet.
Also, IANAL, but your right to freely associate does not gaurantee you the right to freely associate on someone's private service.
~ Wizardry Dragon
I've never seen a parade of fundies strolling down the street of my town demanding "political equality NOW!", but I've seen it three separate times from The gay lobby.
And I'm not saying it doesn't happen, so don't try that crap.
Both side politicize the issue, why you thought you could get away with claiming otherwise I don't know.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
IANAL, but by refusing to take your money, they can refuse your service. That just seems commonsense to me.
As well, as I stated in another comment, IANAL, but I'm fairly sure your right to freely associate does not extend to a right to freely associate on someone's private gaming service.
~ Wizardry Dragon
Tolerant. It was a guild for people who were tolerant of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. No requirement to be a member of one of those three groups. You just had to stop using OMG F4G!!!!11!!one when someone ganked you.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
1. It's public. Once they open it to the public, they can no longer discriminate based on racem gender sexual preference.
2. Even if they do have the legal right to enforce this policy, that doesn't give them the right, and I damn well expect the publis to give them hell over it.
O:
An understanding Slashdotter. *rubs eyes* *pinches self*
~ Wizardry Dragon
So you woulod think that a McDonald's that refuses to serve black people would be ok?
quote:
"I have the right to refuse service to anyone whom I deem, so long as the service is considered a private and not a public service."
A McDonald's is not a public service.
IANAL, but the definition of public is something around the lines of 'an open and freely available service provided by state or federal autorities and protected by law.' (Not free as in beer, folks)
Now AFAIK, a MMORPG service is not offered by state or federal authorities, nor is it freely available, nor is it open.
~ Wizardry Dragon
They weren't denying service. They were telling someone "you can't advertise a guild that does not allow bigotry."
However, this particular policy decision was very harsh, and to actually enforce it would require a massive effort on Blizzard's part, and generate a lot of bad will. While they originally tried to stick by their staff, I think we'll see them slowly moving away from that position, albiet in a way which gives them lots of angles to avoid looking like they backed down.
Yes, it would be legal, technically. I think the law that would make it illegal was repealed a few years back (because it made the movie "American Pie" illegal, amongst other things.)
Look, one guy got a warning for advertising a GBLT-friendly guild in general chat. Blizzard has since apologized, and said that their no-sex-talk rule shouldn't have applied in that case. Don't hyperventilate.
And, by the way, there are no religion-based guilds in WoW. The very idea of religous guilds is a practical joke that spread around the internet, with some people taking it seriously.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
What players do in their own private areas (houses, guild halls, whatever) is their own business, but in public areas, Blizzard has the full authority to define their own rules; it is, after all their own sandbox.
Technically, the entire gamespace, whether it's a house, guild hall or the middle of town, is private. It's a virtual world that exists on Blizzard's servers, with access rented out to subscribers. Being such, the usual rights people seem to think they are entitled to don't apply. Until such time that virtual worlds are defined as public spaces (and I doubt that is going to happen anytime soon), Blizzard can do pretty much whatever it wants, subject to the terms of the subscription agreement.
Excuse me, wtf r u doin?
You said
"The Religious Right has made this a political issue, when in fact it is not even an issue."
I refuted you, and I think you knew when you posted it that your statement was wrong.
"You're missing the point of the argument; I don't think Homosexuals would be parading up and down the streets asking for the same rights as everyone else if they wheren't having their rights infringed upon for no apparent reason."
I didn't miss the point, you never made it. However, if you'd like to show me where you made that point in your previous post, I'll reasess what I've said.
Finally, YOU missed MY point. The gay lobby is JUST LIKE any other political organization, and your blind assumption that they are "asking for the same rights as everyone else" betrays your ignorance. They are a POLITICAL LOBBY, and like ALL the other political lobbies, they are about self interest. Make no mistake, if they could get what they wanted by trampling your rights, it would happen in a second.
In the future, replace every instance of "gay" with "fundie" in your argument, and reconsider how you feel about it then.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
This is wrong, as a matter of fact. I realize that you are Canadian; but in the US, there are statutory limitations on the absolute freedom of private contracts, in addition to the common law exclusion of contracts contrary to public policy.[1] There are, for example, Federal laws prohibiting employment or housing discrimination on the basis of race; and state and local laws that also prohibit various forms of class-based discrimination. Some of these apply specifically to sexual orientation. At least some of these laws apply to business conducted with the public, not just that of public entities, like school boards.
The courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of these laws, on the basis that there is a compelling public interest in having a fair society. In fact, Colorado tried to amend its state constitution to prohibit any legislation protecting civil rights on the basis of sexual orientation. The US Supreme Court ruled that the state amendment violated the US Constitution.
[1] The common-law exclusion means, for example, that a contract to commit a crime is unenforcable. I would be very surprised if this does not apply in Canada also.
Fine, but Religion is also a choice and it is a protected class as far as discrimination goes.
Like it or not, homosexuals CHOOSE to practice homosexuality.
False. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to justify such an outlandish statement. Did you "choose" to be straight when you turned 12? I didn't. I just was. It was already ingrained in me. Likewise with homosexuals. Think about it: why would anyone CHOOSE to be gay, knowing the sorts of abuse and prejudices they'd face?
It's not a choice. So your whole argument is shot to hell. Prejudice against homosexuality is exactly like prejudice based on race, gender, eye color, or any other arbitrary trait over which one has no control.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
...the issue at hand is for most of the people in question as much a fantasy and escape from reality as slaughtering orcs.
I have the odd suspicion that this is really about virtual LGBT issues, i.e. the orientation of the virtual character in the game, not the actual human player sitting at his computer. Just like virtual violence, there is nothing real to it; it's just imaginary.
I think that only Trolls should stfu. So please abide.
Irrelevant. Blizzard operates a business, and the Californian courts have already ruled that discrimination laws apply to online gamespaces. TFA quotes some of the most relevant cases.
It sounds to me like Blizzard is trying to keep sexuality out of the game as much as possible. The article said the rule wasn't "no saying I'm gay" it was "no saying I'm a guy" and "no saying I'm gay."
I could understand anger over an anti-gay thing. I could understand them being mad that the game allows straight sex talk and not gay sex talk.
But the fact that the game seems to be anti-sex in general and they want to bring their fudge packing bull into it is disgusting and vile.
Shutup you useless freedom hating scumbags and keep your private life to yourself. People play games to escape your crap, not have it come into their life!
I imagine Blizzard wants to keep the game _somewhat_ family friendly. Meaning 15 year olds whose parents are uncomfortable with sex but love Rambo will be able to convince said parents to pay the $13 a month extortion (err, I mean fee).
In Canada, that sort of behaviour is illegal. A business cannot refuse service to someone soley based on gender, race, religion, sexuality, etc.
(google "CGLA Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archive printer lawsuit")
That refusing service to someone 'cause their skin's funny looking, or they might take-it-up-the-bum-and-God-told-me-that's-wrong is wrong just seems commonsense.
I'm fairly sure your right to freely associate does not extend to a right to freely associate on someone's private gaming service.
It's not a freedom to associate thing, rather it's providing a service to the public. And as such, there's some laws Blizzard must adhere to.
From TFA:
So, there you go.
hooked up funny
You might consider reading TFA which answers the inane question posed in your subject line.
"The attorneys explain how an online world can be considered a place of business and how current anti-discrimination laws would apply."
One doesn't, and this isn't what these players sought. They sought a group of players who don't spew sexuality invective like it's punctuation. Which, I have to say, seems entirely reasonable to me.
If this were so, a privately-owned lunch counter could refuse to serve African-Americans. Obviously, this is illegal. As soon as you open your private accomodations to the public, you have entered the stream of commerce and that gives the government the right to enforce civil rights legislation.
At no time did I ever prospose that homosexuals weren't born with a predisposition to being homosexual. My post stated that PRACTICING homosexuality is a choice whereas blacks or asians or latinos or whomever have no such choice. Big difference.
There's one advantage to being "out of the closet" in a MMORPG. If you're smited by some god, at least you know you might have had it coming, right?
Protagoras: Truth is relative. It is only a matter of opinion.
Socrates: You mean that truth is mere subjective opinion?
Protagoras: Exactly. What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me is true for me. Truth is subjective.
Socrates: Do you really mean that? That my opinion is true by virtue of its being my opinion?
Protagoras: Indeed I do.
Socrates: My opinion is: Truth is absolute, not opinion, and that you, Mr. Protagoras, are absolutely in error. Since this is my opinion, you must grant that it is true according to your philosophy.
Protagoras: You are quite correct, Socrates.
Any restaurant can retain the right to refuse service to anyone. Usually it is posted in big bold letters in the entrance. However, YOUR comment takes the argument way out of context. Blizzard doesn't refuse anything to homosexuals. They do require that guilds not post Political/sexual/non-game/etc issues for recruitment on their general forums pages or in game spam in general chat.
Honestly how god damned hard is this to understand. Blizzard won't allow you to recruit in general chat based on being a republican, stripper, democrat, straight guys only, ETC. Their opinion has been if it is non game related keep it inside your guild halls aka your own forum. Blizzard has even stated it is fine for guilds to recruit based off of previous things on Blizzards RECRUITMENT forum but not on the general forum.
Personally I think it was a group of disgruntled homosexual gamers that wanted attention so they broke the rules and then claimed it was blizzard's fault. It wasn't the only reason this is still in the news is because it is easier to blame blizzard than it is the minority. Sure they are a minority but they still broke the rules. I personally hope blizzard bans the people who posted the recruitment based off of sexual orientation in the general forum. It is out of place an unwanted. If I want to find a guild I can go to the recruitment forum.
Depends on the use of public. Shops and restarants, for example tend to be public places because the public have access. They are not public property because they are not owned by the public. Public means people. Not government.
A MMORPG is a service offered to the public.
And, by the way, there are no religion-based guilds in WoW. The very idea of religous guilds is a practical joke that spread around the internet, with some people taking it seriously.
That's incorrect. Maybe there's none on the server you play on, but there's a few Christian guilds on Suramar. Heck, the proof is in the pudding. From Thottbot:
Christian Brotherhood
Christian Crusaders
Christian Fayth
Christians in Alliance
Christian Knights
Followers of Christ
etc.. etc... etc...
It's better to burn out than to fade away
Well if you tried to set up a restaurant in the United States and refused to serve black people, you'd be in for a big and costly legal surprise, so your statement isn't quite accurate.
And I have no idea if Canada is this enlightened, but remember that Blizzard is beholden to U.S. laws when it serves citizens of the U.S.
And if they set up a restaurant on their private property, they'd be able to refuse service to blacks?
Uhh... no one is trying to refuse service to anyone that's gay here, so this analogy is just plain terrible.
If you want an analogy, I'd compare it to an organized group of people walking around a mall carrying banners for (insert controversial subject here). WoW really has nothing to do with homosexuality. Blizzard just doesn't want to start up that kind of controversy in the game, probbably because they think it detracts from the game. Why shouldn't blizzard be able to protect the game experience from things they feel detract from it?
AccountKiller
In the few short years since the advent of multi-user dungeons
Multi-user dungeons have been around for more than a few short years. Sheesh.
-
Somewhere between GPA and MUD lies obsession.
Today gay life style is considered as hot at some religious devotion. Often they also confront.
How would Blizzard behave with guilds that are limiting to real world religions ?
=> The answer would help know what we really expect Blizzard to manage the G&L guilds. In fact Blizzards answered that.
Specifically how behave with muslims trends that are activists (like some christians are activists), not speaking illegal or terror activism.
=> today in occident, muslim religion put people at unease, like homosexual way of life. Promoting mind openess must tackle all subjects. And I expect this to be problematic.
My personnal question is, why would people want to gather in a gay and lesbian guild (in a MMO) ? Probably not to be harrassed. Then why would people be harrassed ? If they talk about the sexual orientaion. Why would I speak of my sexual orientation in a MMO ? What relation between sexual orientation and a game ?
The world belongs to those who get up early. - I'm far from being the king of Earth then
I wanna don my armour and wreak havoc on the Murlock population without wondering what kind of socio/economic/racial overtones may be interpreted in the aftermath.
You insensitive genocidial monster! Merlocks are fish-people too! Have you ever though about their feelings? Have you ever tried to talk to them, rather than just wipe out their villages and roll to see who gets the chest loot? Of course not. Why, it just makes me seeth, I-RRRRRRRAALLLAARALALLALALALALALLALALA!
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
One thing to be aware of though, is that a lot of discrimination law covers race and gender, but not explicitly sexuality.
If it's a regular restaurant, in that people you've never met can wander in and get a table, then it counts as a public space and racial discrimination is illegal. If it's by invitation only (e.g. your family's dinner table) you're welcome to not invite any blacks/gays/minorities or majorities you want.
The GP wasn't talking about a privately owned public space, but a closed private space.
Personally I would like Blizzard to silence all groups and make people actually play the game and a role they don't play in life. Like another poster said, I play to escape reality (I don't play WoW anymore, but still). I don't want some turd on his soapbox shouting about the return of The J Man. Why do people have to drag their lives into everything. I don't want to associate with crusaders in the game, I want to be involved in a different reality. Kick them all out is what I say.
No sig for you!!
since back in the 80s.
It's time to wake up and smell the new century.
Man, I remember lots of discussion of this back around the 1970s and 1980s - but the bizarre thing is that some people - like say people who find cartoons about their favorite cat being mocked and want to set everything on fire - have nothing better to do and are so insecure about their own gender preferences.
I always subscribed to the "less competition for me for the babes" crowd.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Similarly there's no law that says that a company has to charge the same price to everyone. They can charge twice as much to woman than to men. It's legal. It would be commercial suicide
Actually, there are a whole bunch of businuess that use gender based pricing. Many bars have 'ladies nights' where cover charges are waved for women. Of course their motivation isn't to descriminate against men, it is to get more woment to come to their establishment.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
You have a right to be able to move state-to-state and within the state.
Nobody ever restricted Rosa Parks' right to do so. Simply her right to sit in a certain part of the bus while doing so.
Like it or not, homosexuals choose to PRACTICE homosexuality.
The poster is not saying that homosexuals choose to be homosexuals. The poster is saying that homosexuals choose to display their homosexuality and to make it an issue.
Black people have no choice but to display the color of their skin, so discrimination is more rampant. If a redneck is hiring for a job and hates homosexuals and blacks, the homosexual has a large advantage as he is not obliged to expose his sexual preference. A black person, on the other hand, doesn't stand a chance. This was the point of the original poster.
my commentary deals more with the act of *practicing* homosexuality vs. their orientation/preference. And we all know there are limits to how religion may be practiced.
I may *choose* to be a member of a "religion" that advocates group suicide. We might all want to stand in a circle, point and gun at the head of the person on your right and when the "preacher" says, "Go!". We all pull the trigger (so we all get to go to heaven and get 70 philly-cheesesteak sandwiches or some such foolishness).
I know it's a ridiculous example, however my point is there *are* limits placed on how one practices something they believe in.
And since when does one have the right to play LBBT characters in a role playing game for heaven's sake? If you don't like the rules, then leave.
I abhor this line of reasoning whenever I see because it is nothing more than abject cowardice. How about if instead of quietly acquiescing whenever we see injustices occur we fight to get them righted? The only effects of the "If you don't like it, leave" mentality are to leave justice stranded, forgotten and denigrated.
Now... Maybe I'm missing something here but isn't WoW playing in a *medieval* world where the whole environment isn't as modern as our current standards? Fighting with swords is sure a nice indication pointing that way. NOW the real question, what exactly did people do and think concerning the rights of gay people ? Isn't that exactly what is happening in the game? So why not practice those things in secret like a *real* secret order? So once again: is it these people about the game or to once again spread their religion into new places and force it upon people like they always seem to do ?
I started an account in my online game with a female char. I usually do, although I'm male. My girlfriend got an account, and she normally playes female. Sometime into the game we found that there was a quest to get married, but we could not because of "no X sex marriges". Stupid. We both had to start alts's to get married for the quest.
What about things such as country clubs?
And since when does one have the right to play LBBT characters in a role playing game for heaven's sake?
Why would you not have the right to play a LGBT character? My husband and I played DaoC for a while, and he played a female character, as did I. We also played our characters as lovers. By your logic that would not be allowed at all. It's a game that reflects reality. In reality the gay and lesbian population hovers around 11% to 14% in every culture. It exists as a normal part of the range of human behavior, always has and always will no matter who dislikes it.
Just because they set up an arbitrary rule, that is only inforced haphazardly, does not mean it's just. There used to be rules about race, that your argument was used to defend. "Why can't they just sit on the back of the bus. It's the way the rules are." "Women just are not able to vote, they don't have the sense. That's just the way the rules are."
I would be upset if I were to enter a game like this, and couldn't play with my husband, just because someone didn't like that we were opposite genders. Where I couldn't even reference we were in a committed relationship, and everyone around me used invectives that demeaned my sexual orientation.
It costs nothing to be tolerant of another person. If they aren't harming you, or themselves, people should be allowed to pursue their happiness in any way they want. It won't hurt 'the children!' to see and be exposed to different things. (As the 'for the children' argument is always next up.) That is a teaching oppurtunity for good parents to explain the families values.
Nothing hides evidence like a stew. -Gus Pratt
What's next in the World of Warcraft? The Orgy Club? The Guild for Multiple Wives? I honestly don't play World of Warcraft but to me it seems that someone is trying to put into the game an element that does not belong into it. It is a fantasy world, a world which focuses on elements of RPG and character development, a world where you fight Orcs and practice magic. It is not a world created to further the rights of homosexuals. It is not a world created so people can set up orgy parties. It is not a place created so people can have sex with animals. It is simply an RPG world, a world for strong warriors, powerful magicians, fair princesses, and evil Orcs. I applaud Blizzard for protecting their original vision for the world. Shame on people for making this non-issue into an issue.
Its a game and I dont want to hear if you gay, strait or other... It dont really matter what you are, as long as your not a jerk.
So they can setup a policy that every avatar has to look like a naked 11 year old and it is perfectly legal? Of course not. They have to abide by laws, if they are behind closed doors or not
well... you've gotta look at it from Blizzard's angle. They're trying to keep a friendly environment. They're not trying to silence GLBTs because they're GLBTs. I'm sure that any clan that's based on personal qualities that may cause friction with other players would be shot down in WoW's play world.
Hell, starting a white-only klan is perfectly within my rights. it's perfectly legal. but Blizzard would silence me, and I'd be hated by the world if I threatened them with legal action.
I hate how certain groups (feminists, GLBTs, minorities, etc) scream that they want equal rights, yet complain loudly when they're not given greater rights than the majority. Look at Oprah with that whole racism thing. Look at how women were complaining in the military when they are forced to do the same things (carry heavy objects, etc) as the male soldiers.
The whole thing is stupid. Everyone should have equal rights to do things (however, everyone is not created equal).
People need common sense.
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
Blizzard has not said Homosexuals can't play their game. On the contrary, they want everyone playing their game. What they've said is you can't make a blatantly homosexual guild, as in the name, and you can't recruit on the general board based on that. They impose similar restrictions on religions, politics, straight sex, etc. The idea is that it's a role playing game, and real life factions are supposed to stay out of it to a degree. They don't want a "republicans only" guild any more than a "gays only" guild, though they want both groups playing the game.
Of course people don't usually take that into account when their concerned about _their_ feelings.
This is why private clubs have bouncers.. they are allowed to restrict membership to whomever they please. You don't have a "right" to enter a private nightclub. Nondiscrimination laws simply don't apply. There are plenty of racially or otherwise exclusive country clubs. They're not illegal. But the PGA doesn't have to patronize them if they choose not to. This is called liberty, folks. We still have some in this country. People have the right to be bigots. We know they're idiots, but they've got a right to exist, too. Get used to it!
Here I go, waiting for the intolerant 'tolerants' to down-mod me:
WOWC is a game, not a platform. This doesn't come down to 'equal rights', it comes down to using the game as a means to push an agenda. (Yup, I said it, go ahead and reach for that troll mod - but isn't someone being sued over an in-game policy?) Blizzard doesn't have a checkbox when you are signing up that says "are you gay?". They aren't restricting people from playing if they adhere to a certain behavior pattern, it really doesn't matter to them what you do outside of the game world.
What they are trying to do IMHO is keep their game from becoming a platform for this group or that group to advertise something that is, whether you like it or not, highly controversial. It's supposed to be a game, not a soapbox.
Now, those of you who seething right now, would you be as upset if this whole thing were about religious groups?
Hey, check it out. Its a game! If you don't want to play by its rules play something else.
Why do people continually place real-life weight on games and the things that happen in them? It's a pretend fucking place, why don't they just pretend that in this place, GLBT doesn't exist. But this leads to another question, why...WHY WHY do people INSIST on dragging what they do with their penises and vaginas into a GAME? Are people that sick and depraved of actual human contact that they need to flex their sexual muscles in a game? Fuck man, get a girlfriend / boyfriend / he-she friend and let the rest of us play the game.
Windows has more viruses because linux has more virus coders.
Black is a benign physical characteristic, not a form of voluntary behavior. They are two completly different things. You should think your arguements before you post them! Banning homosexual behavior in game is the same as prohibiting cell phone conversations at a movie, or prohibiting dancing at a private resteraunt, or prohibiting eating at a private art gallery. There is nothing wrong with cell phones, there is nothing wrong with dancing, and there is nothing wrong with eating - yet any rational person realizes that cell-phone-users, or dancers, or whoever don't have a "civil-right" to do that behavior in other people's private property. Your civil rights are not being violated if you are not allowed to talk on your phone during a movie. "Hungry Snackers" are not an oppressed minority being violated because they can't eat in an art gallery.
While I think it is unfortunate that Blizzard isn't allowing homosexuals to express themselves in the game, and certainly I would not choose to give money to any company that restricts harmless sexual behavior and expression, Blizzard is well within their rights to restrict any sort of behavior they want, period.
If the government is going to micromanage the subtlties and minutia of every buisness to make sure that no artificially created "minority" such as "homosexuals", or "snowboarders", or "smokers", or "geeks" feels in any way uncomfortable or inconviencied - then lets give up the pretense of freedom of choice, and just have the government nationalize all property and have all decisions made by some supreme central authority.
fantasy relaxation
That's an oxy-moron. If you're actively fantasizing, you're not relaxing.
brain dead and happy
That's another one. If you're brain dead, checked out, not present, how can you be experiencing happiness? You have to remain mindful in order to be happy.
I know this is off-topic, but the increasing equating of "relaxing" with game-playing or TV-watching irks me a bit. These things engage your mind or allow you to check out entirely. They are distractions and drugs, but not true relaxation.
that it's others' responsibility to make sure your feelings don't get hurt.
Same goes for earlier periods. Look at old Viking law.
Even in the new world, though deviant relations were tolerated, when the village was overrun by enemies, the deviants were slaughtered and not made captive or slave.
So today, it's not allowed to cull. But instead of small communities and staying put, you have travel and large cities where they can aggregate. And on top of that you have a communications medium which allows which ever sick one, no matter how off beat, to find other sick ones somewhere else in the world and egg each other on. Then on top of that you have lots of enviromental contaminants which mimic hormones, throwing some individuals further out of whack.
Wouldn't be a problem? So they're supposed to just sit there and ignore it when "gay", "faggot", "homo", and "dyke" are thrown around as derogatory terms? When people get beat up or killed for holding hands with the people they love?
The truth is that there is a problem, and sitting around thinking "I hope no one finds out I'm gay." is not a viable solution.
Being homosexual, I'm well aware of whether it's a voluntary form of behaviour or not, and, regardless of your bigotry, I don't believe it is.
(I a male adult of the bisexual persuasion, who recently began playing WoW with my boyfriend, who is gay himself.)
The virtual world offered (for a fee) to Blizzard's customer base, however removed from reality, is very much populated by real players, (script farmers notwithstanding,) which have a given sexual orientation, whether or not this fact is relevant to the actual game play. In this game, individuals will find all sorts of reasons to relate to each other and/or form guilds, possibly based on real-world geographical proximity, shared/anecdotal game history, stereotypical familiarity or whatever they might see as relevant criteria.
While playing the game, it didn't take long before I learned about fun things like the "/kiss", "/hug" and other such commands, and I also quickly confirmed that these actions were possible between any players, regardless of perceived gender or race. On the other hand, MSN Messenger's original emoticons assumed that a hug was given by a boy, and returned by a girl.
Which of these two services may be adding some restrictions of expression, knowingly or not, to its users?
Now, let us imagine that the next time I play this game, I should decide to form a new guild, or join an existing one, based on a common interest in photography. Which means that as we all wait endless minutes while everyone gets ready for the next raid, we can all chat about something we have in common, photography, something that others around us might be at least mildly interested in, and might even have something to share with the other guild members as well.
Obviously, if I simply lacked any interest in photography, I'd join some other group, or simply keep marching on my way, because in the end, I am playing this particular game in order to have a little fun, period.
I wasn't implying anything about limits to belief or wrongness/rightness of homosexuality or whether or not breeding an elf and an Easter bunny would give you a jack'o'lantern.
My point was simply that just because a person *believes* in something (such as religion) and just because certain aspects of that religious belief are Constitutionally protected does NOT mean that ALL aspects of practicing the teachings of a certain belief would be, or should be protected.
I was replying to the parent of my post and their comments. Not on the entire thread.
And for all you wankers moderating this thread as flamebait or troll, thank you for demonstrating TRUE intolerance for an opinion with which you disagree.
Look blizzard clearly has this in their Terms of use:
"Rules Related to User Names."
In particular, you may not use any name:
.
.
.
'8. Related to drugs, sex, alcohol, or criminal activity;'
So homosexuality is a sexual activity. One can argue that it's also a life style, but what does/can a homosexual do that a straight person can't do, besides for having a desire to have sexual relations with the same sex.
This is how this whole thing started, if that group didn't name their guild what they named it in the first place then they would have been fine to talk about anything they wanted to. This has all stemmed from just the name they made.
Frankly, it's just simply easier to treat people as people.
Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
Whoa. Minorities need to shut up about their differences? "They cry when they are discriminated against, yet flaunt their differences constantly?"
Countless people died during the civil rights movement just so that we (as minorities) COULD show our differences and not have to be just like everyone else. No offense kid but you are a moron and when it comes to minorities you need to STFU because it's obvious you don't know what it took to get equality into this country in the first place.
www.unofficiall.com
Well? WELL?
Right. I said something you disagree with, and you're not smart enough to refute it, so you censor it.
How sad.
And the worst part is, you're probably one of those "free speech" hypocrites who blather on about your rights while ignoring those of others.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
Bad moderators bad!
Troll it was certainly not. Flamebait? Maybe. Insightful more likely. Guess it tweaked some moderator where it hurt.
Go get'em meta-mods!
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Why is this modded troll? It's an obvious response to an incorrect assumption.
The answer to your question is no, but the answer to the issues of gay rights are not as clear. The civil rights act of 1964 prohibits "discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."
You'll notice that sexual orientation is not constitutionally protected, and that complicates the legal environment in this case.
"And they can't say you are not allowed to say a guild is GLBT friendly because it might offend people when the game's chat has the word "fag" show up more then any other single word."
If you report a person for using any sort of sexual slur, they WILL be banned for at LEAST three days. It goes on their record, and if they keep using it, they can be banned for 1+ weeks, or even permabanned. The key here is that you have to report them.
"In fact, based on some things I've read, Blizzard might even be in violation of their own agreement by restricting a GLBT friendly guild when other religious guilds actively promote themselves as such."
In general, the onus is on players to report the people in question. WoW is a big world to police.
Gays can play WoW, religious people can play WoW, political partisans can play WoW, but they can't bring real-world issues into WoW.
Occasionally one of the girls would forget to /tell and my cover would be blown in a party, and some male players that were shamefully hitting on me earlier would become enraged and ask for their (quite expensive) items back. Then they would regail me, accusing me of being gay... odd, considering they never objected to my 'girlfriend' coming along (who was indeed Brian, my very awesome, very straight roommate)
I hardly think that a change of Blizzard's policy is going to fix the social problem that permiates much of nerdom as thick as it does Alabama. Play who you want. On planet Warcraft, homosexuality is discriminated against. That is a role you choose to play or not.
Speaking of which, would a handsome man like you like to escort me as I try to find my epic?
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.-TJ
if blizzard is concerned about protecting people's sensibilities, they should pursue a policy designed to stop the 12 year olds that are always saying "that's gay" when something shitty happens.
Err, wrong. Blizzard can not refuse people on the basis of being homosexual in the same way golf courses can not refuse people on the basis of being black.
Bigots are allowed to publish newspapers and collect subscription rates for them.
Where does civil rights or gay rights fit in to a legal equation anywhere? It's perfectly acceptable for the public to place pressure against Blizzard or for various interest groups to stage boycots, demonstrations, petitions or what have you. Where are these civil rights being conjured from?
He's a Tech guy. He has nothing to do with that situation, and Blizzard probably has a strict policy at the moment that anyone commenting on it freely could risk there future of employment there.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
This is not flamebait. If a moderator disagrees with the poster, they should rather give up their chance to moderate the discussion and respond instead of abusing the system.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
So... can you confirm that any of those guilds still have their original name or exist at all?
Thottbot and Blizzard have no correspondance so guild names don't get updated in thottbot when a GM forces a name change.
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
Whether you like it or not, there is a difference between "being" homosexual and "practicing" homosexuality. One is a preference or orientation (depending on which camp you are in) and the other is an act.
I was simply saying that, yes, absolutely, homosexuals CHOOSE to practice homosexual behavior. I wasn't trying to offer an alternative to homosexual behavior or imply that homosexual behavior is right or wrong. I was only referring to the obvious fact that blacks or asians, etc... don't have any choice in whether or not they are observed as being black or asian.
A much better analogy would be to compare homosexuals to left or right handed people. Yes, there is evidence to suggest people are born with a predisposition to use either their left or right hand. But by choice, or chance, or nuture those people are CAPABLE of using the other hand.
Don't confuse the issue or my commentary... All I was saying is comparing homosexuals and minorities is illogical at best and insulting at worst.
Look, I play RPGs because I want to escape the stress of the real world. Anything that disturbs my immersion into the fantasy world is a bummer. The last thing I want is to play in a fantasy where real-world factions are fighting their culture wars. What's next--a George Bush fan-guild? A guild for liberal pro-choice Democrats? --Believe me, I would drop any online RPG that tolerated this kind of thing in an instant. And I think that's the line Blizzard should have taken--it's not the particular politics of the proposed guild that was objectionable, but the fact that it was politically controversial at all. The policy should be: anything that breaks game immersion is verboten. Get a clue, Blizzard, or get lost.
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
My Gnome Magic User is still waiting for a settlement from a prejudice bastard in Baldurs Gate II.
Just let Blizzard start up a "Pink Triangle" server - it can have its own set of rules regarding acceptable behavior. After all Blizz has a lot of servers, let the folks from Queer Nation etc have their own server where you can be permabanned for not being properly respectful of alternative lifestyles - or for just admitting that you persoannly favor a hetero lifestyle.
:)
Heck they can even turn the permabanning power over to members of "teh community" like Rosie O'Donnel, Race Bannon, Pat Califia, etc.
And of course they can relax the rules on guild and character names as well. But would they welcome gay Christian guilds?
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
"Blizzard's actions were to allow hatred to go unchecked"
NO, Blizzard's actions were to allow a WORD to go unchecked. That word is not equvalent to hatred.
Add to that the fact that you are allowed to hate anyone you want for any reason, and your point doesn't have much merit.
I've always thought it strange that people can simultaneously crusade for civil rights while condeming others for exercising them.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
That's the poster's original question, and it's one I haven't yet seen or heard answered well.
Last year at the height of pre-election spin there was a Massachusetts legislator, IIRC, who reluctantly proposed removing the state from "marriage" per se and recognizing the equivalent of "civil unions" for everyone instead. Even he hated the idea, and he was proposing it as a sort of scorched earth defense of marriage.
But why is that such a bad idea? Do I need the state's power to tell me someone's married?
You: Marriage is about commitment between two people, and that's all it's about.
Er, no, actually that makes a decent, suitably broad definition of marriage -- but "what it's all about" in terms of the state has a whole lot to do with property. When Ben Franklin took his common law wife, the state cared because there were principles of inheritance and so on under the law that had to be dealt with. Similarly, the state of Minnesota and my employer both care whether I'm married or not for purposes of health insurance, taxes, and so on. (Traditionally, too, the woman involved were more a matter of property anyway.)
The problem comes from the religious christians who view marriage as their deity approving of a union between two people. Christianity is clearly opposed to homosexuality, so (their) deity approving of that is obviously wrong. Thus the major opposition to gay marriage. If the christians can just admit this, we'll have made progress. Until then it's just lie after lie that they tell themselves to hide their own true beliefs.
Amen. Given the current strains of fundamentalism expressing themselves in our body politic, I don't have much more for their redemption in this sense.
"Intelligent Design" is as tortuous a watch-watchmaker argument as can be, constantly moving the goalposts as supposedly irreducible complexities (cilia, whale ancestors) get tackled by science. In order to get it past the constitutional gates, the IDers claim they're not really creationists, and that it's not God they mean, just "a designer." In court this last year the presiding judge blasted them for their essential dishonesty on several levels. They hid money trails, lied about their testimony and their school board meetings, and so on.
Gay marriage is another good example of them just not being willing to own up to their beliefs, even as they try to foist them on us with strangled rationalizations. They also have to put out their own eyes about changes in the institution of marriage in the past, so as to assert its inviolable nature -- which means they lie about history. As you say: until they admit why they're against it, the self-deception only compounds itself.
I just want to know: Why can't we sell people who believe their faith is everything on the idea that their minister, or preacher, or priest should be in charge of "marriage" and the state should concern itself only with the legal ramifications? I have to assume they want the state's power for themselves, essentially -- and that that's the larger lie here. It's not all that well hidden, as lies go.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Yes, you are absoloutely correct. I would take it a step farther though, and point out that there is a strong and vocal group within the gay community that espouses the idea that being gay is a genetic trait. There are many advantages to doing so, it allows gay rights communities a certain moral high ground (not that I am saying they have a low ground otherwise).
This does not, however, make it correct. Being interested in bondage, orgies, or whatever else floats your boat is no different than being interested in same sex relationships. I have zero problems with two or two hundred consenting adults doing whatever they want to with each other sexually, so long as its not within an abusive or controlling context (not the fun kind), but don't try to tell me its hardwired into them.
Saying that it is leads to all manner of ugly behaviour on both sides of the line. From gay propaganda posturing as an abused minority, seeking rights beyond those of other citizens and "discovering" new members (coming out, note the implication of freedom) which I view as another form of brainwashing, to the future tinpot dictators seeking to cleanse the gene pool by wiping out all individuals that practise same sex relations.
I look forward to the day when we can look back and laugh, and have sex with whoever we like (as long as they like us).
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
that this is a game, run on a companies' servers. They are providing you a service for cash. This isn't a public place. They have every right to do with the service as they see fit. Same thing with the no shirt, no shoes, no service clause. It is not public property. Enter a store, and they have the right to refuse service if your conduct is not acceptable. A store will toss you out on your fanny if you start spouting off for just about anything the store owner feels is offensive. That is what the public ROW (Right of Way) line is for. Once you step beyond that line, you are now governed by how the owner of the property wants you to behave. If you don't act that way, you are harassing loitering or etc... I have no sympathy. If you don't like the way you are being treated. LEAVE. YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO PLAY WOW. Harassment laws were enacted to keep people from having to deal with adverse situations in PUBLIC places. NOT PRIVATE.
One Token Ring to Rule them All, One Search Engine to Find Them, One WAN to bring them in, and TCP/IP Bind them...
...that any reference to heterosexuality or, say, steak-eaters would be frowned upon as well?
It's a difficult task to really nail down where the line between "real world" and "fantasy" lies in a heavily anthropomorphized fantasy, that is, most of it drawn from reality--humanoid characters, clothing and weapons, trees, lions and tigers and bears oh my--frankly, pretty piss-poor "fantasy" if all it entails is putting on Elf shoes and tossing glitter. Sure, "the clan of Buffy the Vampire Slayer" should be out because it references a product, but I don't see how, say, goofing on "Bugbears" into making a clan of "Buggery Bears" would be any different than the typically insipid riffs on Wicca and the Ren Faire that are all too nauseatingly recognizable from the local check-out line at Hot Topic. But, people would shreik that "Buggery Bears" are an attempt to inject real-world politics into their fantasy world as if discussions and representations of Wicca aren't equally political--and offensively so to many.
Need more fags, full on lesbians, PST!
> I'm sure that's part of the Terms of Service you're *supposed* to read before installing the thing.
Which of course is irellevant if there is consumer sales laws that doesn't allow you to just "refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason it sees fit", which most countries has.
Even he hated the idea, and he was proposing it as a sort of scorched earth defense of marriage.
But why is that such a bad idea? Do I need the state's power to tell me someone's married?
I never understood the difference between a "civil union" and "marriage" that is apart from they're different words. In other words if it quacks like a duck...
but "what it's all about" in terms of the state has a whole lot to do with property.
I don't dispute this, I just think that commitment and property are inter-related.
AccountKiller
>You'll notice that sexual orientation is not constitutionally protected,
It is in many other countries in which Blizzard do bussiness though.
..is that in a role-playing game, there are players and there are characters. The people at Blizard define the framework for making characters and the players work within that framework to create their character. Just because a player has a certain feature, doesn't mean the character does or should. I mean, if I play a barbarian in D&D, I don't magically get the ability to rage in real life. Playing an elf doesn't give me dark vision just like playing a priestess doesn't make someone a woman. In the same way, being gay doesn't imply that your character needs to be gay, especially since it is not a part of the framework Blizzard has set up. And whether that is morally right or wrong, it is pratical (from Blizzard's point of view) because it prevents harassment that need not be in the game and detracts from the game. I can't blame them for being worried; and even if I wasn't straight, I certainly wouldn't join a gay guild because I wouldn't want to be harassed. It's a game and people need to realize the difference between in-game and real life.
I cant fully check as I'm at work right now, but for people in Christian Crusaders, Thottbot "Last updates" range from 180 days to 70 days. I do remember them advertising their guild (looking for new members) over the xmas holidays. So that guild has been in existance for at least 6 months.
It's better to burn out than to fade away
Homosexual behavior is a form of homosexual behavior, BY DEFINITION. I don't care if you feel you are "born homosexual". Some people are born to be artists. Some people are born to play music. Some people seem to have an almost inate drive towards engineering, or science, or mathmatics. But all those things are voluntary behaviors. All of those are perfectly OK things to do, they are not perfectly OK things to do in all situations.
Playing music instruments is a great thing - but a movie theater is not going to allow you to play instruments during a movie, even if you are a born musician. That is well within their rights.
Even if a policy of behavior makes no sense, or is restrictive, people have a right to make such policy on private property. If I want to declare that my resterant has a "no walking" policy, and everyone must hop (even though humans are born with the urge to walk), that is OK. The policy doesn't have to make sense. That is because it is PRIVATE PROPERTY!!!
In our modern society, dominated by facist and totalitarian ideologies such as you subscribe to, it is hard to imagine that anyone who doesn't share your "ONE TRUE FAITH" is not a bigot. You are taught from a child that you are superior, your views are superior, that you are "tolerant" (without any sort of education on what the word "tolerant" actually means, here is the definition of the word: http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/tolerance.html ), and that anyone who doesn't share your political or moral views should be destroyed or violently suppressed.
It is probably extremly difficult for someone who has been brainwashed to comprehend, there are many people who think homosexuality is fine, that homosexuals should be allowed to marry and participate in all the benifits of public life free from discrimination - but yet still respect that people are free to make their own desisions over what happens on their own private property. It is extremly difficult for people who have grown up with the statist ideal to understand that tolerance means to tolerate those who you disagree with, or who are doing things that you don't like. Many homosexuals agree 100% with what I am saying. They know that a government once allowed to restrict freedom, even in order to promote a homosexual agenda, could also restrict homosexuality once the political winds change. The only way to make any sort of non-violent behavior safe from oppression is to make ALL non-violent behavior safe from oppression.
So your insults (calling me a bigot) means nothing to me. You have no concept of what bigotry is or isn't, other than you vaugly know it is an insult. If you truly want to be free of "oppression", the first thing you need to do is free yourself from your own totalitarian facist ideology.
It costs nothing to be intolerant of another person, either.
You know, your husband only did that because he wants a threesome with you and another woman, and it looks like he did a good job of getting you used to it.
Suppose instead people shouted things like "nigger" when something didn't go their way
I don't know about WoW, but I've been called "nigger" any number of times whilst playing Warcraft III. Funny thing is that I'm not black, nor does my nickname indicate I am. Some people use racial slurs on a regular basis independant of their meaning, mainly because such people are idiots. Unfortunately Blizz seems to do little about the idiots in War3.
One thing I wonder, for such generally used and rather offensive words, why not have a chat-filter that checks them? I know games such as "gunbound" etc use them to make the language more friendly, but wouldn't it be easy enough for blizzard to log and or automate warnings to players that use such words?
I am not arguing for or against Blizzard in this particular case though I do believe, as another poster stated, that Blizzard is in the right here. This type of advertisement for an in game group should be reserved for the forums designed for such activity.
Regardless, my post relates to the quote from the offended's counsel:
Online environments are public accommodations, subject to regulation as such.
According to whom? Just because this lawyer says so does not make it true. I have not been able to Google an answer for this either, however, I find it hard to believe that the term "accomodation" can extend to an online community/forum etc. It would seem that the reasoning behind the anti-discriminatory laws regarding public services and specifically accomodations were put in place because in the real world having a place to stay can be a life or death matter under the right conditions. No such conditions exist for a virtual "accomodation" and I think any lawyer who would argue this would have a long row to hoe.
Just my $0.02
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
...can anyone direct me to any material on the degree of possible supervenience of ethics on MMO worlds?
And can anyone provide the formula by which it is determined that Games Can Be Art but WoW is definitely Just A Game?
The GP is especially funny considering s/he IS Canadian.
Sexual orientation is listed as a "prohibited grounds" for discrimination, just like race, gender, religion, disability, etc. I understand in the US it's not protected to the same degree as up here, but make no mistake: in Canada, it is against the law to discriminate against someone on the basis of who they choose to sleep with. Just as you cannot discriminate against people of other colours. It's spelled out in black and white in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This is one of the main reasons we legalized gay marriages. Well, that and enough Canadians finally realized that enforcing one's moral beliefs on others is a restriction of their freedoms.
Sometimes I think Heinlein got everything right.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Buy a dictionary so you won't look quite so uninformed next time.
To be insulted means that something negative is said about YOU. Someone else saying that he or she is gay, introverted, geeky, blonde, or an IRS agent is not saying anything at all about you.
You can be offended by whatever you like, but saying you're insulted when someone else describes himself or herself in a way that has nothing to do with you is just stupid.
Would the Lambda Legal folks be as supportive of a guild in World of Warcraft that advertised itself a heterosexual only guild? What about a guild that required all members to be white men that hate black people? The problem is that by coming to Blizzard with this complaint, Lambda is asking Blizzard to make an exception for one single group. They want it to be ok if GLBT announce pro-GBLT guilds, but I would venture to guess that they would oppose a guild that was in favor of less politically correct ideas.
To PROTECT everyone, Blizzard made a decision that would address the issue, but it doesn't seem Lambda Legal likes the idea of everyone getting fair treatment by the game policies.
By Blizzard setting a fairly strict policy, they deal with all sides with one simple rule. If a guild wants to be 'pro' anything, they should take the time to put their values on a 3rd party website and direct people there. That way everyone gets equal treatment, and isn't that the main idea anyway?
...they forget that most of the cases there's no side that's right or wrong : one side finds it's being offended by one thing ( for not being allowed to express/advertise its sexual orientation) , while the other side finds it's being offended precisely by the opposite thing (people openly advertising their sexual orientation) . This is not a MMORPG issue, it's a general philosophical issue that has a couple of known fixes, none very satisfactory, so Blizzard is going to be damned whatever hey do, (which is a pity, and I do damn the gay hotheads for actually rasing the issue, although I admit there are justifications for it ):
- do not raise the issue - the "don't ask don't tell" policy. It is what they are trying to do now and the reason why they have you sign that customer agreement that says you will not use that game as a vehicle to promote controversial issues. Obviously they need to re-think that -and many other EULA will follow suite.
- segregation : by age, by sexual orientation, by religion, whatever: gay-only servers, adult-only servers . Extended EULA again.
- purification : completely kill one side or the other (close the accounts in this case). Yeah, they could be asked to make the game 18+ being that it has mature (err, gay-player made ?)content. The under 18+ people are not a recognized minority and they have no rights to complain about not being allowed to play the game eh?
- negotiate an agreement where both sides can meet on middle ground. This is the difficult one, but I would start here: suppose Blizz would actualy actively enforce the rule of closing the accounts of everyone engaging in lewd acts of conduct in the game , verbal or physical, be they homo or hetero. This is long overdue imho - the GM's at Blizz are known as being lazy gits. Won't that pacify both sides? Yeah, prince valiant can still mary prince charming and the merry men of Sherwood's pink trousers guild may still exist but they must exercise caution in displaying certain behaviour same as we all have to do in the real world when kids ae around. I don't think they can pull this,though.
I'm sorry, but I have to follow up on all the comments about this particular point.
You do not get equality by demanding that you are different.
You do not get equality by demanding that someone else owes you something.
You do not get equality by demanding that your culture and heritage receive special promotion, while claiming bigotry in order to prevent the same level of coverage for other backgrounds.
All of these things can change perceptions, but they do not build equality.
Equality means that nobody notices whether you are different or not.
Equality means that you are owed what you earn.
Equality means that your culture and heritage are just part of the common background.
Yes, I am a predominatly caucasion male. I grew up in a rather unique environment, though: US military housing.
Base housing tends to be fairly well integrated, and the kids certinly don't learn any specific prejudices without specific attempts by their parents to teach those prejudices.
I honestly grew up not caring about Johny's race or religion, I cared if Johny could play.
Since I grew up and entered the world with everyone else, however, I've been taught by the media, by the people interested in promoting a particular minority, that not caring about johny's differences isn't enough. In order for Johny to be the same as me, I have to pay for Johny to get advantages that will not be made available to my children. I have to celebrate those things about Johny's family which are different than my own. I have to know more about Johny's background than the public education system teaches about my own.
That ain't equality.
'we are constantly providing content'
No you aren't.
"we provide 24/7 support"
No you don't - the people there seem to take days to reply, and then usually they haven't read what you actually wrote.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
WoW is at its core an instant messaging chat room frequented in large part by children. Blizz walks on very shaky ground allowing any adult player-generated "content". It only takes one solicitation of a minor to have them wracked by a class action suit. Its an orientation-neutral concern.
Since I play WoW, I have to say I really prefer than ALL realworld issues be left at the door. Issue-oriented blowhards really ruin what little immersiveness WoW has left.
I think most people here don't understand how the law works. First, what law is blizzard breaking? 1st amendment? No. 1st amendment prevents the government from discriminating against your speech or religion. 14th amendment? No. Again, that only prevents the government from discriminating against a person. Equal Protection laws? No. Those are applied to educational jobs and public businesses, private businesses and clubs are immune from those laws. That is why Augusta can deny women membership.
The argument about blizzard's service being "interstate commerce" and subject to the same laws that prevent hotels and restaurants from discriminating is not similar to this situation. The Supreme Court held that discrimination in hotels and restaurants was illegal because it affected interstate commerce, e.g., it made it difficult for people to travel between states. Blizzard's rule does not affect a person's ability to travel between the states and it's doubtful a court would hold that it does.
You have no "inalienable rights" to express your sexuality in a fucking online video game run by a private entity. This isn't being discriminated against for a job, or a straight only lunch counter, or whatever. Again, this is an online video game. Period. Instead of sending "strongly worded letters" over this, why doesn't the spokesperson suggest a boycott of the game by any who feel offended or "persecuted," and suggest alternative MMORPGS where the offended can take their business if they feel Blizzard doesn't want it.
Oh, wait, that wouldn't garner these kinds of headlines... my bad.
Gays and lesbians in America have many legitimate concerns and gripes. (Read the previous sentence three times, slashbot mafia, before you mod me down on impulse...) This ain't one of em, and only makes the rest of their cause look cheap by association.
Where they belong.
Like nearly everyone, I'm totaly sick of our governments protecting baby killers (abortionists) and child molesters (queers, homos, faggets).
If we don't start executing these radical homos quickly, they will execute us when they are done comming to power.
-- Safely entrenched at the bottom of 'Bad Karma'.. now I can FINALLY speak my mind.
I will gladly loose all of life's battles.. in order to win the war..
As a Non-government entity, Blizzard has the absolute right to restrict any and all speech in the forum they create. Neither you nor any group have any legal standing in this matter.
Blizzard is not saying "G/L/B/T's cant play WoW". They are saying "we don't like/approve of the discussion of this topic on our privately owned server."
If Blizzard wishes, they may ban political speech, commercial speech, or all words with the letter 'c' in them. If you don't like it, take your business elsewhere.
As has been said many times before, the First Amendment protects you from Government action, not private action.
The lawyers 'taking action' in this matter know this, they are just trying to get attention. They know they will not win any legal action; they are just pushing a political agenda.
If they really want to achieve something, they should organize a boycott, not threaten legal action (which no lawyer will take seriously).
But what people do is their business, be it marrying a chimp or a stone.
Bedrock of society? Raising kids? I think we have failed that a long time ago. If people want to get married in church, it is their business, but why legally? Marriage was supposed to protect the woman that raises the children while the man is out and about working. As I said, that was a long time ago.
Time to move on, I say.
IANAL, but I believe the balance of the judge's decision was either you let her on the bus to sit wheresoever she wants, or you don't let her on at all. You cannot disciminate in the type of service you offer one group. You can, however, chose to refuse to serve a certain group. It works both ways, however, you cannot deny one group a service and then give another a better service.
:P
To summarize my thoughts more clearly: the balance of the matter is that, so long as you're not playing 'favourites', it's alright.
To provide a more extreme example, I have a right not to want to serve a man who comes into my restaurant with a ski mask and AK-47. As long as I refuse that 'customer' service as well as the Italian mafia enforcer with the guns, I'm fine
~ Wizardry Dragon
Looks like Blizzard entertainment is located in Irvine, California, where sexual orientation is a protected class.
Actually in Canada if you refuse service you would otherwise give to someone else on the basis of sexuality you are in for some fun legal trouble. But that's not what Blizzard is doing. They're just asking people to be reasonable about their recruitement so they don't attract too much trouble from intolerant biggots. You are allowed to be a group of any type, just be quiet about it in game when recruiting. You can post on your guild web site that you are gay or christian friendly but you cannot recruit in-game with that as your billboard. I believe the whole story is a storm in a tea cup.
Interesting; all I will add is that being "queer" has its stages, which begin with the need to find other "suffering peers" so that they can relate, feel safe, and get it all out of their system without the threat of being judged or questionned. Many never leave that world, online or otherwise, and thus miss the opportunity to become a complete individual, who's sexual orientation is merely an attribute, and not a fundamental aspect of their person. These persons will seek out a GLBT safe space, so that within that context they can be themselves. Perhaps they have made a habit of this, and merely replicate it when playing online games.
However, I can also see it in another light; which is that I've long ago grown tired of the text-book hetero-centric retorts that never fail to rise from the anxious mouths of many. In such a circomstance, I could understand the advantage of joining a group/guild where such comments would not occur, and thus not require a response.
Also, if I'm sitting in a room filled with people who are all GLBT, I can't possibly think that they are all the same, because the simply never are. You wouldn't believe how many letters there really are under the "queer" umbrella-term; many, many more than G, L, B and T. A scary thought, at least to me, is that all these individuals within the full range of sexual orientations and gender identities simply have very little in common, except that they are marginalized. --I fear that this cannot be the proponent of much lasting love.
It costs nothing to be intolerant of another person, either.
I am not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that it is acceptable to show intolerance to someone because it's easy?
You know, your husband only did that because he wants a threesome with you and another woman, and it looks like he did a good job of getting you used to it.
Or, perhaps, he likes to play female characters because he just really likes dressing in women's clothing. Do you know how hard it is to find nice shoes in a men's size 14?
Nothing hides evidence like a stew. -Gus Pratt
It is being discussed heavily here:
w ow-general&t=7005612&p=1&tmp=1#post7005612
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=
I think the problem is more that sexuality, whether it be homo or not, should not be an issue in a teen rated game. We have friendster and true.com for meeting partners. Sexuality has no place in WoW, and blizzard made the right move, in that case. It's not that you cant be gay and play WoW, it's that you cant have a clan that promotes sexual content in the game.
> -- Safely entrenched at the bottom of 'Bad Karma'.. now I can FINALLY speak my mind.
Would someone give this fellow some good karma please. He's scaring me...
"I don't understand what the "political lobby" has to do with the discussion."
Um, what do you think "lambda legal" is?
The article is about a gay rights organization pressuring Blizzard.
If you don;t know what that has to do with lobbying organizations, I suspect it's because of that extra chromosome you have.
How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
They can't say no women are allowed to play. They can't discriminate on the basis of religion.
So much for a free country.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
The King Of All Cosmos is not evil. I man, after he accidentally destroyed all stars he sent his son to replace them... with balls of... random stuff... involving houses...
Well...
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
If I were in charge, I would allow gay marriage in the game. Then, when all the teenagers gang up on them and call them fags and dykes and the like, Blizzard can just say "told ya so".
I've never played MMORPGs, but it seems to me that homosexual identity doesn't exist in the game universe, and, thus, would be out of place. I thought the purpose of role playing games was to leave the cares of everyday life (including politics) and enter a new world. Forcing them to allow gay marriage in-game just seems like politics intruding where it's not wanted.
If you can read this sig, you're too close.
I agree with everything you have written Stormin'.
I agree that marriage between gays should be banned, and that marriage should only be allowed between couples that can adequately raise children, which will strengthen society.
I think we need to ban marriages on barren men or women, because they cannot bear children.
In a similar manner, you said that marriage between gays should be banned because they probably can't raise children as well as a straight couple. Psychologically, they need a mother and a father. This is correct. The stress of not having a mother and a father is too much on a poor child, or the stress of being singled out as being different.
All forms of marital arrangements which creates stress for the children should be banned. I think we should also ban marriages between races. These children suffer greatly, and are often called half-breeds, sell outs, etc. Let whites marry whites, let blacks marry blacks, and everything should be okay.
However, if we really want to ensure the sanctity of our society, since it is so threatened by gays and their ridiculous wants of getting married, is to really clean up society. We should sterilize all criminals and poor people, since the world does not need more poor people or criminals running around, since it's well known that children of criminals are often criminals.
Any other things we need to do to clean up society, Stormin?
"Lambda Legal is a national organization committed to achieving full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people and those with HIV through impact litigation, education and public policy work."
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Blizzard is basically saying, "We want gay people to play our game. We just don't want them to be who they are while they give us their money, because there are more intolerant paying customers than their are flaming gay ones and we want the most money possible."
It's that simple. Whatever policy generates the most revenue and is still legal is what they will do. Any other statement like "We want to do right by our players," is a play on your emotions. It is also bullshit.
you play for escape, I play for something to do wtih my friends that live hundreds of miles away. I'm now about to graduate and then will have more of a reason to do it.
/instances/ whatever. And it turns out that one nice way to meet people with whom you would have a good chance of getting along with is to have common interests or hobbies. It's just how a social network works.
Just because you play the game to escape your life doesn't mean everyone does. I play because it's something fun to do with friends and to meet new people(yeah, I mean the real people, not their character). It's an amazing social environment. Sometimes, I just go online to talk with friends and do stupid things like run around rather than go on raids
Blizzard can make it an ultra restrictive game which lacks a large dynamic to personal expression but they don't seem to want to do it. I agree that a lot of this discussion shouldn't occur on public chats in the towns or whatever, but it shouldn't be silenced.
And yet neither you nor the original poster can spell the name of the beloved little xenophobic beastie correctly...
Oh please. Spurious argument at best.
In an environment where "faggot" and 'that's gay' and other wonderfully mature terms are thrown around regularly, it is deceitful to try and claim the environment is a 'level playing field.'
I note that there haven't BEEN any Het-Friendly Guilds created yet. Either straights are too lazy or don't see the need for it. Who are _you_ to tell other people what they should and should not be able to do?
ON that note, let's talk about a few of the more obvious fallacies and intentionally ignored facts that the Straight Nerd Libertarian I'm-ok-with-fags-really-i-know-some brigades seem to always use, and put them to rest for good.
1 - "would you have a problem with a fundamentalist christian guild?"
These guilds already DO exist, on multiple servers, and they see WoW as a chance to minister to the unbelievers and bring people to Christ. So no, they dont' have a problem with it, and neither does Blizzard. Straw man, red herring, you name it, this is it.
2 - "what if someone wanted to make a hets-only guild?"
This is a false premise, as the original guild was not gay-only, but gay-FRIENDLY, where shitty behavior from slope-browed homophobes and teenagers trying to prove they're macho in a videogame would not be tolerated. I'm sorry if people think that "gay friendly" think "only gays can be friendly to gays", but that's the problem of your uniquely bent worldview, and has nothing to do with the facts of the situation or the nature of reality.
3 - "Blizzard can do whatever they want they own it."
Perhaps you missed the sixties and civil rights, where people fought to be able to be treated fairly in restaurants, buses, restrooms, and everywhere else. You can reserve the right to refuse service to any ONE person, but you can't simply bar an entire class of people from your establishment, or create multiple rulesets for different people. This should be obvious, but is simply one more diversion that the Scared Straight folks are using to justify things.
and finally, this gem:
4 - "They're asking Blizzard to make an exception for one single group!!!!!11!!!oheoneone!!"
No, they're pointing out that Blizzard is already making an exception for one group (the GBLT group) while not making exceptions for the christian groups or others. But some real life groups (such as have been listed already) have been declined. If blizzard had played its hand like this with the xtian guilds, I suspect the uprising now would be much less, given that it was a consistent policy.
But as it is NOT a consistent policy, they should be brought to account for their actions and explain why Christianity is a-ok in a game world, but homosexuality is not. After all, christians get bashed all the time as well, so being openly christian just encourages negative behavior.
I hope that this can be useful to people fighting the legions of self-appointed dimwitted "libertarians" and "brilliant nerds" who think they know everything and are above their prejudices, while dropping such gems as, "how can someone look at a hairy guy's ass and find love? that's fucking gross dude! I don't want to see that."
i know where you got your username from and i know who harvey is. i suspect that you must be pretty old or a fan of old movies.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
This same person would, under your terms, not only need to color their hair, but couldn't complain because the majority finds red hair 'morally wrong.'
... think again.
We've all seen them, on the playground, at the store, walking on the streets. They creep us out and make us feel sick to our stomachs. I'm talking, of course, about Ginger Kids. Ginger kids are born with a disease which causes very light skin, red hair, and freckles. This disease is called 'Gingervitus,' and it occurs because Ginger kids have no souls. Kids who have Gingervitus cannot be cured. Because their skin is so light, Ginger kids must avoid the sun, not unlike Vampires. Some people have red hair but not light skin and freckles. These people are called 'Daywalkers.' Like Vampires, the Ginger gene is a curse, and unless we work to rid the earth of that curse, the Gingers could envelop our lives in blackness for all time. It is time that we all admit to ourselves that Gingers are vile and disgusting. In conclusion, I will leave you with this- if you think that the Ginger problem is not a serious one [Carrot-Top Slide]
Straw man argument, anyone?
You're comparing real life to the internet, which is obviously problem at the crux of this whole matter. As I see it, the whole thing comes out of a 'glbt' gamer being unable to disassociate gaming from reality.
~ Wizardry Dragon
Last night, I observed this in Barrens chat: "What does it mean to be well hung?" Now imagine the same question being repeated every 5 minutes, regardless of where conversation had drifted.
An hour later, the same sex-crazed bimbo was shouting that "Christ wants to save you!" The idiot kept "witnessing" and "evangalizing" just to provoke other players to ranting. Mature players (a scant minority) realized the guy wasn't serious, but most of the 12 year were taking the troll comments hook, line, and sinker.
Face it. The GLBT guild may have been started with good intentions. But the net result of such a guild in an immature world like WoW means more trash talking, filthy language, and sexually explicit behavior.
They are constantly banning particular guild names for different reasons. One guild had a leader with a German name, and the guildname was "SS". Blizzard banned that name because people might think it meant Secret Service. The rule-of-thumb they use better be safe then sorry. They are admittantly over-zealous in banning guild names, and all the regular players understand this.
So, we have a guild name that directly references a type of sexual practice. What do you expect Blizzard to do? You may not think that it's as explicit as a guild named "Orgy mania", or a guild who advertised they were tolerant of beastiality, but where do you draw the line?
Clearly, Blizzard shot themselves in the foot with this. HGBT groups tend to be very militant, even though the would "tolerant" is in their name. Clearly, they made this move to prevent bickering, and promote more monster killing. But, the result has been in the opposite direction. I think it's clear that Blizzard doesn't have a Christian bias (summoning deamons, and stealing souls are among the duties of warlocks), they were just trying to do what was most PC. And, it was taken the wrong way.
Free unix account: freeshell.org
So is anyone actually going to discuss TFA, or just talk about whether or not a gnome can put his wingwong in another gnome's migglewosh?
disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
A place that the public has access to does not constitute a 'public' facility. Your definition doesn't agree with law. For example, an airport and airplane are both areas to which the public are granted access, but under screening, no different than Blizzard's screening, the target is simply different: the screening at airports is towards Islamic Extremists, the screening in Blizzard's case is towards a 'glbt' player that could not disassociate reality from the world of the computer, or follow the rules they agreed to by 'signing' the TOS, a requirement to play.
~ Wizardry Dragon
Now, IANAL, but the laws of Canada do not apply in this situation. Blizzard is located in the US, and a clause in their TOS *explicilty* states that any TOS dispute shall be governed by the laws of the United States (although I forgot the specific state).
Also, I can refuse to serve whomsoever I please that breaks any rules or regulations of my establishment. The fact that the member was a member of the 'glbt' community is a straw man argument. They broke the rules, and they paid the price. They advertised for a guild in a public channel where guilds of any political nature are disallowed from recruiting. Whereas this rule is applied somewhat consitently, not just among glbt players, it is not discriminatory and therefore, not illegal.
~ Wizardry Dragon
Indeed, you are not gauranteed protection against discrimination by sexual orientation, and even merital status.
The Naval Forces here in Canada, given a single applicant and a married applciant of the same status, has almsot always taken the single one.
~ Wizardry Dragon
back in the days of yore there was an "Orcs & Humans" minigame insert meant for tabletop play. Warcraft is an exact implementation of this game, so I suspect that the tabletop game's creators work at Blizzard, though some quick googling turned up nothing on the magazine insert I remember. Perhaps a bigger geek than I knows what I'm referring to?
Somebody send them some tampons, a thing of vasoline and a box of chocolates and tell them to shut the hell up and stop crying like the immature people that they are. Don't like the game's EULA, then don't play. That damn simple. Hell, make your own game. World of People-who-cant-deal-with-the-consequences-of-thei r-decisions.
Oh wait, that's what we're in already.
Is it? What a lot of people here don't seem to realize is that you *can* sign away your rights in a contract, and a Terms of Service agreement *is* a contract.
~ Wizardry Dragon
Amazingly, TFA did not mention what Blizzard are really doing to "solve" the problem both in Europe and the US:
They're closing the doors on servers.
Some older servers have had new character creation locked indefinately.
On Friday, Blizzard announced they would re-open about 36 of the closed servers - yesterday, they unlocked two or three then announced they would keep the rest locked!
This is typical of Blizzard customer service - on a near constant basis they make commitments to the paying customer base, then they blow right past them.
What is even more incomprehensible about the lockout is that it doesn't address lag issues, network congestion issues, or do anything about the servers that are already full beyond the capacity of the hardware to support.
For people who aren't sure of what issues they're trying to fix, these are the crunchers:
1) Queue times - the servers can't handle the number of people trying to log on during peak times, so they queue for half an hour.
2) Character retrieval lag - Once you've logged in, you get a screen prompting you to choose which of your characters to play. This has been known to take up to an hour to come up.
3) In game loot lag - While playing, most things run smoothly - but if you're in combat, doing mail or auction house stuff, moving items around can take over 60 seconds for each item.
Blizzards solution to the problem? Prevent new characters from being made.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
And yet neither you nor the original poster can spell the name of the beloved little xenophobic beastie correctly...
:-P
That's OK, you can't post a working link properly, but we aren't holding that aginst you...
RRRRRRRRRRRRLLLALALALALALLALLALALLALLAL!
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
but you know, it is so much easier to not fight something when it doesn't directly effect you. people do it all the time. and whether it is by that line or by not doing anything, it is the same.
what I hate even more is when people talk about injustices they see and then won't do anything about it.
I thought you HAD to be gay to play WOW...
Blush.
A.C.
It's not GLBT-only clans -- it's GLBT-friendly clan. Straights are allowed to join, as long as they are bashing other people's sexuality. You know, the whole "ghey homo faggot teh winn4h 1337" crap that's popular among the online 13-year-olds of this day. You'd get kicked out for that. You would not get kicked out for being straight. Simple as that.
My other body is also not wearing any.
They can't say no women are allowed to play. They can't discriminate on the basis of religion. And they can't say you are not allowed to say a guild is GLBT friendly because it might offend people when the game's chat has the word "fag" show up more then any other single word.
Actually, they can ALL of those things. They're not a government institution and they don't get federal dollars.
No, the first oppression I have to deal with is being pelted with half bricks and otherwise abused by the local kids, simply because they saw me kiss my girlfriend as I wished her a good commute to work. Then, after a whole host of other, similar, acts of oppression that have to be over come, there's being unable to marry, unable to have anyone I care about be my next of kin, being unable to adopt, etc. Then, of course, there's one more form of oppression I have to overcome become I deal with before I deal with my own fascist tendencies. That's oppression from overbearing fuckwits who think their right to be a cunt to all and sundry over rides anyone elses right to have the opportunity of a happy and quiet life.
I have a very good idea of what bigotry is, thank you very much. When your idea of what oppression means has extended beyond merely an arm chair theory, maybe you'll be able to free yourself from the "oppression" of being a blithering idiot.
I'm saying that saying "It costs nothing" is a ridiculous pointless reason for anything.
A place that the public has access to does not constitute a 'public' facility.
Never said it did.
Your definition doesn't agree with law.
Which law is that?
. For example, an airport and airplane are both areas to which the public are granted access, but under screening, no different than Blizzard's screening, the target is simply different: the screening at airports is towards Islamic Extremists
An airline is allowed to discriminate against people who represent a genuine threat to safety. They are not allowed to discriminate based on race or sexual preference either.
, the screening in Blizzard's case is towards a 'glbt' player that could not disassociate reality from the world of the computer, or follow the rules they agreed to by 'signing' the TOS, a requirement to play.
Being Gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender does not create any threat to other users. The TOS do not ban people from being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. If they did, it would potentially be in breach of anti-discrimination legislation since putting an illegal clause into an agreement does not make it legal. The TOS do bar people from harrasment based on these sexuality. The players were not harrasing people based on their sexuality. In fact, were doing the exact opposite. The difference between reality and the world of the computer and alleged inability to distinguish between these is irrelevant.
Lets try again, if a law says something is not allowed, then it is not allowed no matter how many contracts you sign that says otherwsie if the law doesn't allow that. The whole point of many such consumer laws is the prevent exactly situations like that and are thus NOT possible to sign away thorugh sales contracts.
A common content in consumer sales related laws is that what you sell should work and that the seller has to provinde whatever service was sold and so on. Hence they can't just "refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason it sees fit" since that is not allowed by the law, there need to be a valid (by the law's point of view) reason for it. Just one example of many things it doesn't matter if you put into a contract (and even agree to it) since the laws voids such provisions.
Now, IANAL, but the laws of Canada do not apply in this situation. Blizzard is located in the US, and a clause in their TOS *explicilty* states that any TOS dispute shall be governed by the laws of the United States (although I forgot the specific state).
My bad - didn't mean to conflate Canada vs US.. the first part of my post was just illustrating a difference between the two. (and what differing opinions on commensense are)
The second bit (the various US laws cited by Lambda) are what's relevant here, re: the right to freely associate on someone's private gaming service. I still contend that it's not about the right to freely associate, rather a business providing a service to the public - all of it.
They advertised for a guild in a public channel where guilds of any political nature are disallowed from recruiting.
I strongly disagree with this - advertising a GLBT-friendly guild itself is not a political act. It would be if I wanted to advertise a Log Cabin Republican friendly guild (A GLBT Republician organization).
That it has become a politicized issue is due to Blizzard's mishandling and bungling..
hooked up funny
I have no problems with any group, don't get me wrong. What I have a problem with is people who FLAUNT that difference as if it's so fucking important, and then bitch when someone tells them to stfu about it or just gets sick of hearing about it and tells them that. How can people preach for equal rights, then constantly flaunt the fact that they are different so everyone HAS to know about it, even if we don't care?
WoW stops gay weddings? Hahahahahah. You can find pics of female night-elf on night-elf action all over the net, and I was actually in attendance of a gay wedding cerimony a few months back. It was mildly entertaining, and I was surprised how many other people were also in attendance.
Computers are useless. They can only give answers. --Pablo Picasso
Let him into your life.
Supposedly.
If you can read this sig, you're too close.
No, it's a politicized issue as soon as they put 'rights' in the title, after all, 'rights' are something granted by a political and legal document that the American forefathers crafted, and it's interpretation is something controlled by politicians and lawmakers.
~ Wizardry Dragon
It is possible to have homosexuality without politics or sex. I don't know this history of this one, but on the face of it you are pulling the classic false association of saying that a GLBT guild is sexual.
It isn't, necessarily.
-josh
No I am just saying guilds should be built around common interests from in game. If your guild wants to be about non-gaming issues I doubt anyone would care. As long as you didn't advertise what criteria you are using to decided your members. Sort of like the guild I belong to doesn't recruit. If you want to join you go to our Guild website and post on our recruitment forum.
I guess what it comes down to is how you do things not what things you do. You screen your recruits after they show interest no one cares. You spam general (forums/chat) people get pissed off. It is just one of those gaming things. My personal opinion is that the guild in question had a leader that wanted attention, and instead of building a guild that could take down the toughest content started a ruckus on the forums and in general chat.
Okay so, I agree that guild spamming seems dumb. And that spamming the general channel seems dumb. And that recruiting for guilds seems dumb.
Where I think you're absolutely wrong is if guild spamming is going on that the people who guild spam advertise for the "gay guild" shouldn't because it "might offend someone". You believe this person wanted to create a ruckus. That's your highly arguable view. That they shouldn't be allowed to talk because it's a topic that might cause a ruckus when it matches other activities is just an unimpressive argument for (partially) silencing a minority.
Blizzard's ultimate response of moving all guild advertising off the general channel and allowing any guild advertising in the guild advertising channel seems efficacious, although a system of searching for guilds that want to list themselves (optional) would seem superior.
-josh
I think you are still missing my overall point. NO ONE cares if they are a GLBT friendly guild except maybe some ultra conservative jackasses. However, Blizzard was exactly correct in putting a muzzle on a guild that was recruiting in their fashon. If they let 1 guild get away with spaming about guild recruitment based off of non game issues on the improper forums and chat channels then it opens the door to allow any other moron to do the same thing.
I realize they are a minority and probably expect special exemption from the rules everyone has to follow but I am glad they didn't recieve it. Granted you might say the rule isn't consistently applied but that is hard to say. You can file a GM report about anyone violating the CoC for the game and usually the GM will squash whatever the issue is real quick.
I think the real issue is no one cares if your guild recruits based off of any ingame issue. Such as, if your guild was just starting Molten Core or Blackwing Lair. GLBT is not content from inside the game so it is exactly the same as recruiting for say "Straight White man Guild". Please also remember that MMORPG's are supposed to basically be a fantasy world that is not concerned with real life.