Slashdot Mirror


Blizzard CEO Lays Gay Guild Issue To Rest

Edge Online reports that Blizzard CEO Paul Sams has responded to the GLBT Guild issue that flared up in World of Warcraft a while back. From the article: "... he again characterized the earlier decision to prohibit mention of real-world subjects in recruiting for guilds as an 'unfortunate mistake,' which only came about because the initial comments weren't properly analyzed before sending a warning. 'It is expected and accepted that players will discuss a wide variety of topics, based on both the game world and the real world,' Sams says. 'Players are free to discuss personal characteristics if they wish, to include their sexual orientations and gender identities.'

296 comments

  1. Lesbian MC Run by jlavarj · · Score: 1, Funny

    A Fraps of that would be HOT!!!!

  2. Huzzah by jorenko · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I must say that this was pretty much the only possible acceptible thing that Blizzard could have done to resolve the situation while keeping my respect. Cheers to Mr. Sams and everyone else involved in resolving this so well.

    1. Re:Huzzah by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Er... an even -more- acceptible thing would have been if he said this right after the incident happened:
      Not after the accountants/PR people told him.

    2. Re:Huzzah by jorenko · · Score: 1

      Okay, I'll give you that one. Better late than never though.

    3. Re:Huzzah by geekoid · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Even more respectable would ahve been if they applied the EULA instead of cow towed under pressure.

      Now we can look forard to the anti gay guild chatter, anti Jew guild chatter pro Nazi chatter, etc . . .

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Huzzah by bi_boy · · Score: 1

      Ditto. You just can't make some people happy though.

      --
      Chicken fried butter sticks? Do ... do you use a fork? - Black Mage, 8-Bit Theater
    5. Re:Huzzah by dr00g911 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm also glad to see that the issue is put to rest acceptably for all.

      There have been a couple of unforeseen effects that all the media attention has had, though... up until the incident, my main was level 60, alliance on Shadow Moon -- the server and faction that Oz was recruiting from.

      I have the feeling that a ton of people have created characters on that particular server to speak both for and against the issue at hand.

      Since then, the queues have been so long on that particular server, that my wife and I have both leveled up characters on another server as we couldn't get on Shadow Moon often or reliably enough to maintain pvp rank or participate in guild events.

      Here's to hoping that the new hardware upgrades will alleviate some of the queue issues so I can see how different things are back home.

    6. Re:Huzzah by ArtDent · · Score: 1

      The terms of service say that players may not refer to the sexual orientation of others in an "insulting manner."

      They misapplied it in the first place.

    7. Re:Huzzah by Khaotix · · Score: 1

      go post in the 50+page thread in general about Shadow Moon being gimpy :(

      What's your character name/guild?

      Khaotix/Destiny :D

    8. Re:Huzzah by dr00g911 · · Score: 1

      Blackrazor, although he's guildless now -- kicked for missing too many raids :D

      That's what I get for rolling a rogue at launch!

    9. Re:Huzzah by idontgno · · Score: 1
      You just can't make some people happy though.

      Sure you can. Do the right thing, while it's still the right thing, not merely the most expedient or most cost-effective or least litigation-exposing thing.

      Doesn't take much. Just a little integrity.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    10. Re:Huzzah by Mattcelt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Doesn't take much. Just a little integrity.

      Riiiight. You know as well as I do that for most major corporations, a "little" integrity isn't much in the same way that a "little" neutron star isn't heavy.

    11. Re:Huzzah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      That's the most moronic thing I've read on /. for a while. Thanks for showing your stupidity and those that mod'd you up need to lay off the beer and pot before they kill ALL their brain cells. "giving in" to a gay guild does not open up the world or even condone anti-anything chatter or behaviour! Anti-Jew, Anti-Gay, etc. chatter can and should be squashed in this type of forum. Just because they allow people to discuss their own sexual orientation doesn't mean the company will/should allow derogatory discussions about other groups. Pro-Nazi should be allowed -- but when it turns to hate-talk, it should be banned. See the difference?

      There's a large difference between discriminatory censorship and protective censorship (yes, the two are types of censorship, and as a privately owned venture, are allowed). I'm starting to ramble, but I think my point is still clear. A slippery-slope is a fallacy -- basic logic.

  3. Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Blizzard CEO lays Gay Guild"?!? Now that's customer service!

    1. Re:Wow by Kingrames · · Score: 2, Funny

      Better than "Blizzard CEO Lays Gay Guild to Rest," that's for sure.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  4. Eh... by Kyokugenryu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree with Blizz's previous statement of not having real world issues present in the game, such as a gay guild. I don't know what server they play on, but the amount of gay bashing and whatnot I see in barrens chats, I can only imagine how much arguing and whatnot would be caused by them boldly proclaiming they're gay in their guild title.

    1. Re:Eh... by funpet · · Score: 0, Insightful

      They already have the real-world issue of gender present in the game. It would be inconsistent to allow players to discuss their character's gender (and even make gender a required in-game aspect of every character) without allowing players to discuss their character's sexual orientation.

    2. Re:Eh... by Eric+S.+Smith · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I don't know what server they play on, but the amount of gay bashing and whatnot I see in barrens chats [...]

      If Blizzard will allow anti-gay sentiments to fly freely, surely they must allow pro-gay expressions as well.

      [...] I can only imagine how much arguing and whatnot would be caused by them boldly proclaiming they're gay in their guild title.

      But forbidding it is saying, "Stay in your closet, the bigots were here first," or something similarly silly. It amounts to choosing a side, in any case, and that's something that Blizzard seems to have decided against doing.

    3. Re:Eh... by Kyokugenryu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's totally fine if you're discussing your character's sexual orientation, but when you're discussing your real world sexual orientation, that's beyond what the WoW world is supposed to be about, and from what I understand, they were doing this based on if you were gay in real life or not. If I made a gay Tauren, but wasn't gay in real life, would they deny me membership?

    4. Re:Eh... by zxnos · · Score: 1, Funny

      so, are straight guys using female avatars considered lesbians? :P

      --
      always mosh clockwise
    5. Re:Eh... by ADRA · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dude, seriously. Have you ever mentioned gender,age,work,family,personal angsts,etc..

      I don't know how you play, bug the guild I'm with is pretty tight on our own personal lives. None of this is 'in-game' appropriate by your standards because its not in character. The only place that should enforce in-game character is in RP realms that ironicly was the 'safe' place to talk about GBLT guilds when bliz first responded.

      It is inevitable that you will talk about your personal lives in game and as long as there is a chat function in game, you HAVE to expect a human being to talk about their real selves at least to some extent.

      About your own gandparent post about more discrimination, you're missing the point completely.
      1. I don't know of a single gay person that hates all straight people (they may exist, but are by far a minority), so if someone starts a 'gay' guild they're actually starting a gay-friendly guild. That means that they only allow in people that can accept their lifestyle.

      2. Being 'outed' in the game doesn't mean much considering there is a harrasment policy thats enforced. If you call a gay person a ---, whatever they can report you. If you know they're gay and you don't want to group with them, thats your right. Its an easy policy to appease.

      3. The ability to distinguish gay-tolerant vs. gay-bashers is the key to this whole issue from the get-go. If I was gay, I'd like to associate with people that don't think I'm going to burn in sinful hell. If you don't allow for channels of dialog to allow people to communicate, you could have a guy join a guild and become perfectly happy with it until one night, some drunk player starts spweing hate with the rest of your group joining in, then you realize, "Oh crap, these people hate -me-", so the common ground you thought you were forging with these people was an illusion. So, what do you do? Quit the guild and search for another one, hoping that they're more tolerant?

      I don't want to change people, though I wish they'd grow up. I want people to be given the opportunity to find a group of people that are tolerant to them, and the pre-article state of affairs left that ability to find that group unnecessarily restricting.

      --
      Bye!
    6. Re:Eh... by babydaddy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The argument that all mention of real life "issues" in-game should be forbidden strikes me as the argument of a hard-core role-player. If you're saying, "I don't want to hear about anything that happens on your side of the keyboard, ever," that's fine, that's just role-playing. It would be nice if you stated you're an RPer, but we'll forgive you that omission.

      But if you're saying "I don't want to hear about things I personnaly find icky on your side of the keyboard," then you're probably a hypocrite if you've mentioned - even once - that your wife has dinner ready, that your homework is due, or that you have to work in two hours and still haven't slept.

      Why? Some people don't want to know you have a wife because they think wives emasculate their husbands. Some people don't like young players. And some people look down on those who have to work for a living.

      If you don't want some players to tell you about some aspects of their lives, you're a hypocrite if you divulge any aspects of yours.

    7. Re:Eh... by Amouth · · Score: 3, Funny

      it is a f*cking game.. who cares.. i am not for either side here..

      i don't think it should have been an issue to begin with..

      reminds me of a friend that tried to get me to play EverCrack by saying "it's soo cool you can even sit and watch a sun set" i then promptly pointed out the window and told him to go outside

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    8. Re:Eh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 1. I don't know of a single gay person that hates all
      > straight people

      You do now, ya' breeder. ;)

    9. Re:Eh... by Lummoxx · · Score: 1

      No, just failures who cannot relate to women in real life and use the "I'd sooner look at a woman's ass when playing" excuse to mask their own deep-seated inadequacy.

      Wow...no issues there, eh?

      Mainly, because I'd rather look at the ass of a female avatar for the number of hours I will spend playing this game. When the only difference is the shape of the polygons, why not use the shape that is more appealing? Give me a real reason why this is bad?

      I'm happily married, have a daughter, and have matured enough to realize that choice of an avatar in a game doesn't necessarily reflect anything real life. You know, because it's a video game. It makes me a minority, but hell, I'm apparently not the one with the problem.

      --

      I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.

    10. Re:Eh... by snuf23 · · Score: 1

      "I'm happily married, have a daughter, and have matured enough to realize that choice of an avatar in a game doesn't necessarily reflect anything real life."

      Same here. I'm not sure why there is this association of having a female avatar = unsuccessful with women in real life.
      I play both male and female avatars. I don't consider either of them a projection of myself into the virtual world. My toons are characters. Just as much as a character in a story I might write.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    11. Re:Eh... by Troutrooper · · Score: 1

      What would be so problematic about discussing RL issues in-game? We're all supposed to stay in character (or IC) all the time? If I join a guild, I want to be friends with the people I hang out with, and thus RL issues will come out. People should take care of their own problems: if someone is offended by another player who admits s/he is gay, they can ask that person to politely not discuss sexual (or political or religious or gender or [insert topic here]) orientation. There's no need to go running off to the GMs every time someone puts their foot in their mouth.

      I think discussing RL issues might be kinda fun. "Hey look! It's those guys who like the Green Bay Packers!" "Grrrr! It's the Minnesota Vikings fans! LET'S RUMBLE!!"

    12. Re:Eh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      out of curiosity, is calling a homosexual gay or a cock sucker an insult? seriously, i can see why this is an insult to others, but is it an insult to homosexuals?

    13. Re:Eh... by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      If you call a gay person a ---,

      Is this some sort of new leet speak? I've never seen anyone get called a "---" before.

      In case you can't tell, self-censorship, when it detracts from meaning, really fucking pisses me off.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    14. Re:Eh... by ExMember · · Score: 1

      I don't know of a single gay person that hates all straight people

      Most homosexuals have at least some heterosexual family members.

    15. Re:Eh... by ebyrob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ---

      What is that really though? Is it self-censorship to avoid saying "fag"? Or is it a meta-cussword representing any nasty thing you could imagine. If it's the latter it's actually a lot more offensive than just spelling something out (like fag). (This is similar to the fact that fear of the unknown is often much worse than fear of something concrete.)

      Of course, maybe it makes sense you'd be offended by the unknown obsenities your mind conjuers in the dark even if no wordly word can achieve such an end. Or, maybe you think the OP just needs to pull a plug out...

    16. Re:Eh... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " Dude, seriously. Have you ever mentioned gender,age,work,family,personal angsts,etc.."

      not in an open channel.

      "I don't know how you play, bug the guild I'm with is pretty tight on our own personal lives. "
      mine to, but again we keep it off open channels.

      "It is inevitable that you will talk about your personal lives in game and as long as there is a chat function in game, you HAVE to expect a human being to talk about their real selves at least to some extent."
      that can, but not in open chennel. I will concede that at time it will be neccessary to do so, but most of the time it is not. an example might by asking about a lag spike, or a video queestion. but even then it pertains to the game.

      "1. I don't know of a single gay person that hates all straight people (they may exist, but are by far a minority), so if someone starts a 'gay' guild they're actually starting a gay-friendly guild. That means that they only allow in people that can accept their lifestyle."

      very few people (per capita) hate gay people. If you want to start a gay friendly guild, explain it to people with /t if they ask to join your guild.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    17. Re:Eh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not an avid WOW player by any means, but they probably could have easily gotten around it by choosing a nonsensical name that had a suggestive tone...

      Flamboyant Lollygaggers, Butchdyke Muffketteers, Male Cheerleaders, Shemalians, etc...

      -@

    18. Re:Eh... by HardCase · · Score: 1

      ...but the amount of gay bashing and whatnot I see in barrens chats...

      Almost anything would be a break from the endless "Chuck Norris" drivel...

      -h-

    19. Re:Eh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not in my family. It's like the turtles, homosexuals all the way down.

    20. Re:Eh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right... well, this is the games section of course, but you're going a little far, don't you think?

    21. Re:Eh... by VON-MAN · · Score: 1
      What kind of sig is that, you f*****g moron?

      "Where islam prevails, society fails."

      Did you think that up yourself, and do you consider it remotely normal to say stuff like that? Does someone need to point out a couple of stable Islam societies to you? No, i didn't think so.

      A sig is handy to make a smart or political or funny remark. A flat out racist sig like this does not show intelligence or a sense of humor.

    22. Re:Eh... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If you don't want some players to tell you about some aspects of their lives, you're a hypocrite if you divulge any aspects of yours.

      No. You are a hyporcrite if you tell people not to bother you with their sex life and keep on bothering them with yours, even after they tell you to shut up. It is not hypocritical to declare some topics off-limits and talk about others; however, it is hypocritical to expect others to respect your declarations and refuse to respect theirs.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    23. Re:Eh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He doesn't sleep. He waits.

  5. This just in: WoW GMs aren't very bright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Film at 11.

  6. wait wait wait wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hold on... Liberals won?! In the United States, in this conservative day and age, with politicans and corporations bending over backwards to appease the religious right, and capitalism trumping everything... ...and you're telling me the liberals won one?!?

    WOO-HOO!!!

    1. Re:wait wait wait wait... by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

      Heh heh. That freeedom thing is a real bitch, ain't it?

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    2. Re:wait wait wait wait... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Heh heh. That freeedom thing is a real bitch, ain't it?

      Na, I think more people are just shocked it still exists in various places in the United States after 4 years of King George. :)

      But hey don't worry, he just established 'anther governement program' for a religious department in the Govt.

      Love the conservative Republican Ideals King George has, which are to 'stick his nose into everyone's lives, even circumventing states rights, and the ability to keep spending and increasing the size of the Government to the biggest in history.'

      Clinton's administration was at least being good Republicans, by reducing the size of government to the lowest it had been since the Kennedy Administration, and keeping their nose out of State's rights.

      I know this is a big sidetrack, and a bit tongue in cheeck, but can anyone define themselves anymore by a party?

      The Repulbicans are spending us to death, sticking their noses into state and persoanl rights, and the recent Democratic leaders did the opposite and are currently fighting the massive pork barrel projects in congress that Bush NEVER vetos. Strange...

      When I hear that the democrats don't have clear vision, I realize the republicans don't either, but they are more loyal to just walk in line with the party leaders for the sake of the party instead of having real internal debate. Both parties are screwed up right now, but it seems the Repulicans don't realize it or just go with the top down direction of the party to at least appear cohesive.

      I have people on both sides in congress I love, but they never reflect what their party tries to say they are.

    3. Re:wait wait wait wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need to identify the degenerates before we start gassing.

    4. Re:wait wait wait wait... by DistantShadow · · Score: 1
      with politicans and corporations bending over backwards to appease the religious right...and you're telling me the liberals won one?!?

      so, does that mean the politicians and corporations should start bending over forwards?
      -ds
    5. Re:wait wait wait wait... by tarkas · · Score: 1

      ...and capitalism trumping everything... ...and you're telling me the liberals won one?!?

      Actually, capitalism did win one - this was certainly in the best interest of the corporate brand. Good will is nice to have and hard to get - this balanced decision will certainly help. I sort of doubt there are many folks on WoW with an undead necromancer of a Druid (pagan scum!)who would describe themselves as "Religous Right". I hastily add that I do indeed have a necro and a druid on EQ and that IANARRWJ(1)...

      Had this been a Liberal win, all newbs would complete a sensitivty quest.

      1. I Am Not A Religous Right Wack Job

    6. Re:wait wait wait wait... by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 2, Funny
      and you're telling me the liberals won one?!?

      Only because it wasn't put to a vote. j/k

    7. Re:wait wait wait wait... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      6 years...6 long, long years.
      these days, my staunch republican friends can't even look me in the eye when the attempt to defend him.

      Sad really.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:wait wait wait wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Liberals win stuff all the time you damned hippie! Its a good reason for social decline too.

  7. and the wow forums ring with... by FunnyLookinHat · · Score: 2, Funny

    /sign

  8. "Gay Guild"? by gorbachev · · Score: 2, Informative

    It wasn't a gay guild, it was gay-FRIENDLY guild.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
    1. Re:"Gay Guild"? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      God this PC nonsense has gone too far.

      I guess they aren't "gay bars" anymore, they are "gay-friendly bars"?

      Is anal sex "gay-friendly sex"?

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    2. Re:"Gay Guild"? by AoT · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not gay and I would join a gay-friendly guild.

      You know why?

      Because I would be more comfortable in a guild that is accepting of gays.

      Why is this shit so hard for people to understand?

    3. Re:"Gay Guild"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like slashdot is gnaa friendly?

    4. Re:"Gay Guild"? by jorenko · · Score: 1

      A GLBT-friendly guild is a guild in which the members can be assured that they aren't going to have to listen to people say, "thats so gay lol," every time they get ganked. Really, it doesn't amount to a whole lot more than that.

    5. Re:"Gay Guild"? by aesiamun · · Score: 1

      Yeah but do they advertise about being Suburban white boy friendly guilds? No? Shouldn't it be assumed that they are friendly first...and possibly advertise that they aren't?

      I can see it now:

      Knights of Authoritative Ruling is Gender, race, gay, lesbian, puppy, kitten, gold fish, furry, vegan, vegetarian, republican, democratic, green, socialist, communist, nazi, jewish, christian, ...ad nauseum, friendly guild looking to recruit. We'll give you 10G just for signing up!

    6. Re:"Gay Guild"? by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Agreed, I have a level 60 undead rogue with half an epic set and one of the things that got me to stop paying the monthly fee was the constant immature banter in public chats. They need to make a 25 year old+ server or something.

    7. Re:"Gay Guild"? by AoT · · Score: 1

      Do they really need a guild that is inclusive of at least half the current userbase?

    8. Re:"Gay Guild"? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      'I guess they aren't "gay bars" anymore, they are "gay-friendly bars"? '

      My girlfriend and I used to hang around with a bunch of mates, the majority of whom were gay, and we would often head out towards what were certainly best described as gay-friendly bars. Fortunately they were straight-friendly too, but I expected no different. I don't object to the term "gay bars", and would happily apply it to the places we went to, but to pretend that by default they would be exclusive would be a sign of ignorance. (Amusingly, we both could have pulled on a few occasions, had we been so inclined!)

      Of course, we never went to the Blue Oyster Bar...

      FP.
      (Not hanging around with the same bunch of mates only because we moved country, before you ask. Quite missing them - they were a scream!)

      P.S. UK-ish 'mates' = US-ish chums/pals. Nothing to do with 'mating'! :-P

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    9. Re:"Gay Guild"? by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I perfer a guild that doesn't even care enough for sexual orientation to come into it at all.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:"Gay Guild"? by CkB_Cowboy · · Score: 0

      The guild you join doesn't have to advertise themselves as "gay friendly" to actually be gay-friendly.

      And besides.. you should join a guild such that when you want to play the game, you can do so with a bunch of people who don't suck. Sexual orientation doesn't help me kill monsters any faster (unless I'm beating them over the head with my staff of infinite sodomy, I suppose)

      --
      what, what?
    11. Re:"Gay Guild"? by Jugalator · · Score: 0

      Because I would be more comfortable in a guild that is accepting of gays.

      Unfortunately for you then, I believe the guild in question isn't accepting heterosexuals.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    12. Re:"Gay Guild"? by Dunbal · · Score: 1


            "KY, the gay-friendly solution to all your lubrication needs."

            Hmm, it has a certain ring to it. Can we copyright this?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    13. Re:"Gay Guild"? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      they aren't going to have to listen to people say, "thats so gay lol," every time they get ganked.

            No, they'll just have to listen to

            "DIE FAGGOT!" before they get ganked...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    14. Re:"Gay Guild"? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      you can do so with a bunch of people who don't suck. (Emphasis mine)

            But isn't that the whole point? uhh nevermind.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    15. Re:"Gay Guild"? by oneils · · Score: 1

      I have anal sex with my girlfriend. I am not gay. So, no - anal sex is not gay friendly...it is simply..."gosh" anal sex.

    16. Re:"Gay Guild"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'd prefer not to join a guild at all. That doesn't mean I'm going to run around whining about the people who do.

    17. Re:"Gay Guild"? by fufubag · · Score: 1

      I would have just mod'd it up, (have never seen mod points to give out), so I'll just type it. This is the best post on here. Thank you for stating it. Be specific-friendly if you want, but come on.... Bigotry will probably never go away (for some losers) and people will probably always kill each other over some books written while on acid 2000 years ago, but lets all just kill some dragons for craps sake.

    18. Re:"Gay Guild"? by Otonotachibana · · Score: 1

      We should act on this immediately. All references to marriage and relationships in World of Warcraft should be abolished. Tyrande and Malfurion's past infatuation will be erased. Removing the Thrall/Jaina subtext may be a little harder but I have faith in the writers. Children won't have "parents" rather they will be dropped by "Feathered White Hyppogryphs of Spontaneous Life Creation".

      Oh! I'm sorry, that isn't what you meant? Next time try to have less ambiguity in your intolerance.

    19. Re:"Gay Guild"? by ADRA · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I mean really, we're talking about people that play WoW here! How can you talk about it if you've never been laid!

      --
      Bye!
    20. Re:"Gay Guild"? by gorbachev · · Score: 1

      "God this PC nonsense has gone too far."

      Obviously you haven't read the background story on this particular incident, and you're just spewing your own nonsense right now.

      Let me try and educate you, since you're too lazy to look it up on your own. I'm sure I will fail, but that's beside the point.

      The guild recruitment message that started all this nonsense was trying to recruit people, straight or gay, to join a GBLT-friendly guild, not so that they could converse about anal sex and the like, but so that they could steer clear of the "that's gay", "you're a homo" and other derogatory remarks thrown at the general WoW population at a very high frequency.

      There's nothing "PC" or "un-PC" about it. It's just the way for members of that particular guild to reduce incidents of griefing as they see it.

      If you can't appreciate that, you really have no clue.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
    21. Re:"Gay Guild"? by gorbachev · · Score: 1

      "Unfortunately for you then, I believe the guild in question isn't accepting heterosexuals."

      If you belived that, you'd be pretty much 100% wrong.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
    22. Re:"Gay Guild"? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      There's nothing "PC" or "un-PC" about it. It's just the way for members of that particular guild to reduce incidents of griefing as they see it.

      Well, that's gay.

      Seriously though, I did read the other stories. I'm well aware of the situation. And if I made a guild with "neo-nazis welcome" in the title, I wouldn't mind people calling it "a neo-nazi guild", even though I wasn't exclusive.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    23. Re:"Gay Guild"? by Pasc · · Score: 1

      The guild I'm in has a few gay guildies, some of them are very open about, and everybody gets along great. But I wouldn't advertise our guild as "gay-friendly", "black-friendly", "loser-friendly", "small-penis-friendly", "girl-friendly", etc.... because it is just stupid. Any guild that focuses on being "gay-friendly" and advertises that fact has a strange sense of priorities, IMHO.

    24. Re:"Gay Guild"? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I was , of course, refering to what I* want in my guild. Which is not really about sexuality as it is about minimizing the non game chit chat, regardless of what that chit chat is, and I don't wan't to see it at all outside of guild chat from anyone.
      The examples you cite are within the context of the game I am playing.
      Before you come back with what you mistaken believe to be 'wit', I will state to you now, that no, I wouldn't care if the relationship between two of the characters in WoW were gay. I stated that becasue I doubt even now you understand that my comment had less to do with 'gay' and more to do with keeping the chit chat about the game.
      I know this will surprise someone with your intellect, but I chose to play the game for tha game. I know, shocker.

      My statement was not intolerant, nor did it contain ambiguities.

      I apologize if my original single sentence post was to acute for someone as obtuse as you.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    25. Re:"Gay Guild"? by MS-06FZ · · Score: 1

      Is anal sex "gay-friendly sex"?

      If you do it right...

      --
      ---GEC
      I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
    26. Re:"Gay Guild"? by AoT · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And that would be the point of a gay-friendly guild. People not talking about fag and ghey all the time. Because most of the time when people say they don't want sexual orientation to enter into the picture it means that they would like to assume everyone is straight. Not knowing you i can't say that this applies to you specifically, but the vast majority of the time this is the case.

    27. Re:"Gay Guild"? by babydaddy · · Score: 1

      Both the gay guilds I play in have several heterosexuals as members. At first, I just wished they didn't have to constantly throw their sexuality in my face, ya know? They're always like, "My wife this, my girlfriend that." Ugh.

      But after a while, I realized it's kinda cool to have a straight person in your guild. You can learn a lot about straight life from them. And they're not all boring, either. Some of them are really bright, funny, and creative. In the end, you find out they're not so bad, after all. In a lot of ways, they're just like we are!

    28. Re:"Gay Guild"? by Sigma+7 · · Score: 1
      I'm not gay and I would join a gay-friendly guild.

      You know why?

      Because I would be more comfortable in a guild that is accepting of gays.

      Why is this shit so hard for people to understand?


      Mainly because these "gay-friendly" guilds miss the point entirely.

      You really should be looking for an anti-bigot guild. Until then, you are saying it is not okay to discriminate based on sexual preference but is still valid to discriminate based on race, sex, religion, etc.

    29. Re:"Gay Guild"? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Because most of the time when people say they don't want sexual orientation to enter into the picture it means that they would like to assume everyone is straight."

      no, most of the time it is because they don't care.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    30. Re:"Gay Guild"? by glorpy · · Score: 1

      Okay then. Here's a little exercise to test that theory, compliments of a local gay rights organization. For 24 hours, provide no gender or sexuality cues in any conversation anywhere. No gendered pronouns, no names that could possibly communicate a gender, no terms of endearment, no pictures of loved ones, no talking about watching sports with your buds. Or with Budweiser for that matter (after all, beer is assumed to be a masculine, heterosexual beverage). No wedding rings. At the end of this little exercise, you'll be glad to go back to normal speech, behavior and appearance. And you'll appreciate that GLBT-friendly actually means commiserating with a male friend/associate/whatever when he gripes about his husband or boyfriend.

    31. Re:"Gay Guild"? by AoT · · Score: 1

      With rare exception, Gay-friendly organizations will also be non-bigoted.

      Except maybe the religion part, but thats only when they are asshole bigoted religions.

    32. Re:"Gay Guild"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The staff of infinite sodomy? What kind of stats does that have? I couldn't find that on thottbot!!
      ZOMG!!
      Learn2benice!

  9. Okay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you say something like that.

    You are basically telling any gay people reading that they are "real world issues", and that you don't want to have to deal with them in your game.

    Do you have any idea how that comes across? You are basically saying that persons who are gay need to just plain shut off that part of their personality when playing WoW, because WoW is a fantasy world where "issues" like gay people don't exist. Okay, so let's say you get your way, and we're rid of all those pesky "issues". Straight people don't have to be bothered by the reminder gay people exist anymore. Yay.

    Except that this suddenly makes WoW a place both very hostile and very very "real" for the gay people-- because they suddenly find themselves in the very real-world, and very archaic, situation that they are gay, they just can't talk about it or bring it up in public. Does this sound like a step forward to you? Do you think it would sound like a step forward to the people it would be happening to?

    1. Re:Okay. by Kyokugenryu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a HUGE difference between bringing it up in an appropriate situation and saying "WE'RE HERE! WE'RE QUEER!". If they were a guild with a standard name with members who all happened to be gay, I wouldn't care at ALL. NO ONE would. But if someone made a guild named the Ku Klux Klan and only recruited white supremacists now, would they have the same protection? I'd have to undoubtedly say yes, because if Blizzard is going to say the expression of your real world sexuality is fine, and naming a guild after a real-world advocacy group, then they can't say other groups can't do it as well.

    2. Re:Okay. by babydaddy · · Score: 1

      Don't be an idiot. No one's saying "we're here, we're queer" and the guilds in question are still not allowed to discriminate based on those type of criteria. Furthermore, guild names of the type you're proposing violate the terms of use. It's just like character names.

      You might actually try to learn something about the issue before you start screaming that the sky is falling. It just makes you look like a fool.

    3. Re:Okay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the poster said was IF...

    4. Re:Okay. by fufubag · · Score: 1

      Exactly. On another note, I'm starting a guild for the balding. Not the bald, but the baldING. If you make fun of us in any way, I'm gonna get all huffy.

    5. Re:Okay. by quantax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd have to undoubtedly say yes, because if Blizzard is going to say the expression of your real world sexuality is fine, and naming a guild after a real-world advocacy group, then they can't say other groups can't do it as well.

      I find it interesting that you draw a link between an advocacy group such as the KKK whom actively goes out and tries to persuade others of their own beliefs and a gay-friendly guild (note that gay-friendly != gay-only) whom actively play a video game; just because a minority group of individuals meets up does not mean they are advocating anything. Where as the KKK is an establish advocacy group who makes no secret of their views and as such, if someone were to start a real KKK guild on WoW, clearly they would be an extension of that advocacy group and thus inappropriate.

      Now if the National GLBT Organization were to start a WoW guild, yes, this would be an gay-rights advocacy group, but note how this is not the case with the guild in question. I rather doubt this group goes around shouting pro-gay slogans on public channels; no, they probably talk to each other within their gay-friendly group about life, the universe and everything with little concern for promoting anything beyond civility to each other. No agendas, no secret meetings, its a friggen guild on WoW who's members are not hostile towards gays. If this is advocacy at work, then clearly all real-life related guilds on WoW, ranging from Christian to Muslim to Furries to Koreans are all advocacy groups by their very existence and should be immediately banned under the same rules.

      That is the crux of the issue at heart: disparate responses to different real-life groups. The rules that Blizzard applied to this gay-friendly guild also apply to religious guilds but you don't see them banning those. So, if you want to take your position, then be sure whos getting thrown out with the bath water.

      That banning all these guilds would be retarded from a business & PR perspective is another story altogether.

      --
      "What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
    6. Re:Okay. by ADRA · · Score: 1

      In addition to the other replies made against the parent,

      No gay based organizations are 'hate' based groups who's primary message is suppressing others.

      If I create an American Guild, I say thats fine, you're american and prowd. Even if you're not american, you may really like america and join the guild anyways. But, if I create a Europe, asia, australia sucks guild, it not based on loving who you are, its based on hating others. Its a fine line in some cases through. I could say "Manifest Destiny" (Guild on my server) is an offensive name to many, and could arguably be concidered a hate name against first nations people. If I called myself the patriots, you could arguably be hateful against imperialists, but in reality, most people accept the fact that the names aren't made for hateful purposes; That is also demonstrated by their behaviour to the rest of the player community.

      --
      Bye!
    7. Re:Okay. by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      There is a rather large difference between a gay-friendly organization and an anti-anything-but-white-christian-male organization.

      One of them is inclusive, the other is exclusive. I'll leave it to you to figure out which is which.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    8. Re:Okay. by ebyrob · · Score: 1

      I rather doubt this group goes around shouting pro-gay slogans on public channels; no, they probably talk to each other within their gay-friendly group about life, the universe and everything with little concern for promoting anything beyond civility to each other. No agendas, no secret meetings, its a friggen guild on WoW who's members are not hostile towards gays.

      If this is true, how come we're here talking about it. Did a GM snoop in on their private meetings and then post a story to Slashdot or something?

      Well the information got out somehow, and this whole argument appears to boil down to how tight the closet door should be from that point onward...

    9. Re:Okay. by ebyrob · · Score: 1

      You know what I hate? Watching rules and laws created and enforced based on someone's determination of who is and isn't "hateful" while ignoring the actual actions of those involved.

      If you kill someone, it's murder.

      If you kill someone because they're gay, black, white, Muslim, Christian, fat, stupid, bigoted, or politically correct, it's still murder.

      Same goes for slander, stealing, assault, verbal abuse, and every other detrimental thing one person can do to another.

      Realities:
      Humans beings often hate various things and groups as well as each other.
      Humans play World of Warcraft.
      The worst thing you can do to someone *inside* World of Warcraft is harass them.

      My point? Shit's gonna happen. I'm glad the CEO pulled his head out long enough to realize they made a mistake categorizing some speech, but I doubt he'll figure out these are bordering on determinations that we may never be able to usefully make as a species.

      Note: I really hope they don't start putting the word hate in their terms of use in more places. (2 is more than enough thought-crime mentality thank you!)

    10. Re:Okay. by AoT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We're talking about it because they went and said something along the lines of "hey, we don't mind gay people in our guild and won't be assholes to them."

      Except they said it as "GLTB-friendly"

      And, god forbid, they made sure people knew this, in public.

      The nerve.

    11. Re:Okay. by ebyrob · · Score: 1

      And, god forbid, they made sure people knew this, in public.

      I'm just saying if you've got an agenda, you might as well own up to that fact. (Nothing wrong with pushing GLTB friendliness in a reasonable way, but the OP was claiming there was no agenda, which just doesn't ring true to me.)

      Heck, even I've got an agenda here, which is to get people to quit lying about their agendas (to themselves and others).

  10. I can't resist by kid_oliva · · Score: 0

    Hmm... a Gay Troll Guild... wouldn't that be most of us on /.

    --
    I eat Karma for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That's why I don't have any.
  11. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by rabel · · Score: 5, Informative

    *sigh* Care to explain what's so offensive about GLBT chatter on the public airwaves? If it's over-the-line sexual discussion, it should be banned outright regardless of the orientation. Isn't that what you really meant to say?

  12. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by Rei · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And for that matter, they should be forbidden to discuss their race or their religion. Everyone should appear in the game as a straight, white Christian male. We need a pure WoW environment! Warcraft uber alles!!

    --
    By a scallop's forelocks!
  13. thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Stay in your closet, the bigots were here first,"

    In less than 10 words you summed up the original problem. Maybe it was easy for you to write, but it expresses EXACTLY what the problem is and what people have spent hours trying to get their brains around.

    It's the bigots who are the problem here, and they should not be appeased. Maybe they shouldn't have done to them what I'd personally like to do to them, but they definitely should not be catered to.

    1. Re:thank you by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's the bigots who are the problem here,

            No no no, calling you a faggot is a compliment. Why do you get so upset? Sheesh some people are so touchy.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  14. Very true. by WidescreenFreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Definite agreement here. There must be responsibility on the part of any guild who would do such a thing. Honestly, how would any guild advertise something that goes against many people's societal norms and NOT expect to be targeted for it? I personally don't care as long as they don't pull an "in your face" attitude about their guild; but we all know, whether from experience or reading of others' experiences, that there are people out there who will cause problems anyway. Just being realistic here, folks.

    Blizzard did the right thing by backtracking the way they did, but that doesn't mean that guilds should go advertising thier "differences" given this Blizzard reversal. They'll just be trouble magnets for less scrupulous people, particularly those that can now hide behind the anonymity of the Internet. Sadly, I would not be surprised if there are guilds in formation now with the sole purpose of targeting any openly gay guild.

    What a wonderful world. :/

    --
    The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
    1. Re:Very true. by vitaflo · · Score: 1

      Honestly, how would any guild advertise something that goes against many people's societal norms and NOT expect to be targeted for it? I personally don't care as long as they don't pull an "in your face" attitude about their guild;

      Read what you wrote again and tell me how this is any different from the normal trash talking that goes on between guilds on a daily basis in WoW. There are guilds with reputations, both good and bad, on every server, for a variety of reasons. Some even brag about them, and are very "in your face". Do you not think those guilds get targetted? There are several guilds on my server that we have a Kill On Sight rule against for various reasons. This has existed in WoW since day 1.

      To say that a guild can't define itself in some way is ludicrous. Guilds have been doing it all the time whether they like it or not just by their actions. If people want to give that guild crap about it, hey, that's part of the game! I'm sure any gay guild that advertises as such is willing to accept the backlash, same as any other guild who may piss someone off in some way.

    2. Re:Very true. by WidescreenFreak · · Score: 1

      I never said or implied that they couldn't defend themselves. They just better be prepared for attacks because of their guild and not act surprised or demand special treatment because of their guild code. Political history is loaded with people getting "in your face" then turning around when there's a backlash against their attitude and claiming that they're being persecuted because of some kind of "-ism" (racism, sexism) or "-phobia".

      All I'm saying is that if they're going to get in people's faces, they need to be prepared for the consequences and responsibilities of doing such. As long as they don't get in people's faces, no big deal as far as I'm concerned.

      So, you can lower your defense shields now. I wasn't attacking. Sheesh.

      --
      The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
  15. Perspective by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog Unless, of course, you join a dog-friendly guild.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Perspective by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is on the internet, no one knows someone's a fat slob... it's just assumed. People only know what you tell them--they can't see your rainbow earings, so who's to know? So they don't know to descriminate against you unless you tell them that you're . If you join a specific GLBT guild, which by the way, really sounds like a tasty sandwich, so I'm not sure what the big deal about it is, then they'll know to make fun of you--for liking tasty sandwhiches.

      Sure you'll come across a lot of assholes on the net that like to openly discriminated against certain people. Assholes are made, not born, and it took them a long time to get to the point at which they offend people so efficiently, so you should applaud them for their effort. Ok, so applauding them may not be right, but their actions do make it easier to determine whom to avoid.

      I guess where I'm going with this is that banning certain speech isn't going to solve the problem of over-abundant assholes, it's just going to mask it and make things appear better, when they're really not--but hey, ignorance is bliss, right?

      -- gid

  16. Accept reponsibility rather then punt. by Halloran · · Score: 1

    which only came about because the initial comments weren't properly analyzed before sending a warning

    Right... like the GM's in World of Warcraft have everything they state to players reviewed constantly to ensure accuracy. "GM's for GM's?"

    This looks to me like another example where the corporation (Blizzard) has screwed up, and rather then accept responsibility for its mistakes has decided to place the blame on the front-end, and thus easily replaceable, customer service team.

    1. Re:Accept reponsibility rather then punt. by Pearson · · Score: 1

      Even better, the initial warning was appealed by the player and the appeal was reviewed by a GM higher up the chain and rejected, upholding the warning. Didn't review it enough, my ass.

      What he's really saying is, "The lawyers got involved and are forcing me to publish the following statement..."

      --
      I...I'm attacking the darkness!
  17. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "I don't want to be exposed to GLBT chatter over PUBLIC CHANNELS. If they want to do it in the privacy of their guild, that's cool! But it should NOT be allowed in public channels."

    If you were referring to discussion about GLBT issues and discussion topics...that would be one thing...but what the hell is wrong with advertising that something is friendly to those people. Its the same as having an advert for any other type of guild. This wasn't "chatter"...it was a fairly succinct advert.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  18. yay real world! by minus_273 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    yay! now my fantasy world is firmly grounded in reality! we can now also have republican guilds fighting democratic guilds, nazi guilds killing jewish guilds (on sight)! Lets not forget the Al-queda horde of saudi players! this will make exciting stuff! how far will blizzard allow this to go? are we going to allow all types of special interest groups? is it limited to sexuality or can we include politics and religion?

    I think this is the last straw. No more wow for me. Its not a fantasy wolrd to escape to anymore

    --
    The war with islam is a war on the beast
    The war on terror is a war for peace
    1. Re:yay real world! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      emacs guilds doing constant battle with vi guilds!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:yay real world! by smokes2345 · · Score: 1

      /sign ridiculous indeed, its a game, leave politics in its place.

    3. Re:yay real world! by babydaddy · · Score: 1

      Can I have your stuff?

    4. Re:yay real world! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      no it's not, and what he is speculating will happen.
      OTOH, if the next generation of fighting in the mid-easy happens in a computer game, that I am all for it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:yay real world! by Kesch · · Score: 2

      Bah, not even an issue. It is obvious that vi will win as they will find all variations of their enemies much faster. The emacs users will not have time to activate all their features. They better hope that they can C-x C-s fast enough to avoid total anihilation.

      P.S. Btw, where do I sign up for these guilds?

      --
      If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
    6. Re:yay real world! by Castar · · Score: 0

      I think it's a little disturbing that your fantasy world apparently means a place without any homosexuals.

      --
      I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
    7. Re:yay real world! by kindbud · · Score: 1

      Three words for you: single player game

      Look into it.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    8. Re:yay real world! by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1
      What you fail to realize is that all of the emacs features are already activated. After all, considering WoW's performance when I am in Ironforge on Cenarion Circle, the server side software is already running as an elisp macro.

      On a Coleco Adam.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    9. Re:yay real world! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I think it's a little disturbing that your fantasy world apparently means a place without any homosexuals."

      Why? almost eveyone one earth is straight. most players on wow are straight and male. I seriously doubt straight males care for gay stuff and why should they thats why they are straight. That is like sayong it is disturbing that a democratic fantasy world has no republicns.

    10. Re:yay real world! by theMisleader · · Score: 1

      Im sorry maybe you forgot to read the title of the game: WORLD of warcraft. According to wikipedia, the word world is defined like this: "In English, world is rooted in a compound of the obsolete words were, man, and eld, age; thus, its oldest meaning is "Age of Man." Its primary modern meaning is the planet Earth, especially when capitalized: the World. In this sense, a world map is a map of the surface of the Earth. World can also refer to human population in general or to a distinct group of people."[Wikipedia], in this case those who play WoW; oh and no where in the definition of game (Wikipedia) does it say anything about them never being real. In my own opinion WoW often seems to confront more issues than the real world(which is a good thing). I agree with some of the other posters: if you want to escape to some fantasy place, play a single player game so that no one has to hear you complain about games being too real, though you might want to steer clear of any game not made by disney because most games do try to be somewhat real. Also, fantasy is not in the name of the game; it may be assumed but it was never implied by wizards to mean that "everything that goes on here is fake, all the players reacted to their specific situations based on made up motives and never their own true experience", I would be more convinced that they wanted people to do those things the following statement declares shouldnt happen. Blizzard created a world and that is what it is: living, breathing, electronic, but none the less still real in a sense of the people who play it.

    11. Re:yay real world! by HardCase · · Score: 1

      I think it's a little disturbing that your fantasy world apparently means a place without any homosexuals.

      Maybe it would be a little disturbing if your fantasy world meant a place without any homosexuals.

      -h-

    12. Re:yay real world! by Castar · · Score: 1

      Why? Well, what would you think if I said "I don't see why I have to deal with black people in games. In my ideal world, there wouldn't be any black people!"

      That sort of thinking leads down a terrible road.

      --
      I yearn for you tragically. A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.
    13. Re:yay real world! by Cyno · · Score: 1

      Whatever, emulating real life in VR is so unimaginative. Any intelligent child would think you're stupid. Only the lame kids that listen to their parents would fall for your tired old racial-religious stereotypes. Who cares if Nazi's exist? Deal with it. You can't kill them for existing, and you can't shut them up, they are free to speak. In a virtual world even you can explore what it is like to be a Nazi, if you choose. This is not a recommendation, however, as Nazi's are general rather unpleasant people. Not entirely unlike fundamentalists of all walks of life. When we impose our POV on anyone else, no matter what it is, its annoying. Best advice is let people be people and learn to deal with them individually. Freaks.

  19. WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If you read the clarification, the website says the rule refers to comments that

    Insultingly refers to any aspect of sexual orientation pertaining to themselves or other players
    (http://www.blizzard.com/support/wowgm/?id=agm0131 5p#sexualorientation


    I fail to see how advertising a GLBT Guild insultingly refers to anyone's sexual orientation.
    1. Re:WTF? by irablum · · Score: 1

      does this mean I can't start a guild for men with small penises and women with small breasts? I could call it the "Teenie Weenies and titties"....

      on another issue, I recently saw a female night elf who was in the guild Knee High Knights. that offends me (as a Gnome Warrior).

      Ira

  20. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I don't want to be exposed to GLBT chatter over PUBLIC CHANNELS. If they want to do it in the privacy of their guild, that's cool! But it should NOT be allowed in public channels.


    The simply solution to this is add them to your ignore list, its there for a reason. If you don't want to listen to it then it is your choice not to. I don't see how this is any different than any of the other spammers out there that people ignore on a regular basis.
  21. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by Silent+sound · · Score: 2, Informative
    Here is what the terms of service say:
    Language which falls under the following categories is deemed to be highly inappropriate. Clarification on what constitutes each category can be found by clicking on the links below.
    ...
    Sexual Orientation
    This category includes both clear and masked language which:

            * Insultingly refers to any aspect of sexual orientation pertaining to themselves or other players

    If a player is found to have used such language, he/she may:

            * Be temporarily suspended from the game
    There is a category in the table of contents of your link named "sexual orientation", but the actual text of that part of the terms of service refers only to insulting speech, not any speech having to do with sexual orientation at all.

    Basically you're wrong-- you're either lying, or you didn't read your own link before pasting it-- you're misquoting the harassment policy, and no, this rule does not at all cover the GLBT chat used by the guild.

    It's funny how you're basically saying that in order for World of Warcraft to not be "politically correct", in your way of defining things, World of Warcraft would have to purposefully censor speech which you find objectionable. Funny, sounds to me like you are the one demanding the gay people be "politically correct", by conforming their speech to your politics.
  22. Doesn't matter if it's offensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't matter if it offends people or not, it has nothing to do with the game. /1 LFG MC poo jabbers only

    No thanks. Keep non-game related talk out of public channels.

  23. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by darkhitman · · Score: 1

    If the GBLT guilds wish to advertise on local chat, that's fine with me.

    "[. . .] but it is[sic] SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED over the public channels."
    I would assume you don't mind the occasional spam, so I'm confused about what additional chat would be/would not be allowed over local chat. Discussions about the best gay sex positions? Barrens chat about the hottest gay actors? I don't really think any of the GBLT (sounds like a sandwich) WoW players really want to discuss that stuff with all of The Barrens as audience, anyway.

    Hence, I must ask for clarification of what local chat you think the average WoW player's sensibilities might be offended by.

    --
    Tell me something...it's still "We, the people"... right?
  24. Laid to rest? by xtieburn · · Score: 0, Troll

    So Blizzard has backed down on its policy, and this is somehow more free now? I wonder.

    Can someone now start a guild that excludes GLBT? Can someone discuss, without being threatening, there dislike of GLBT people without being reported?

    Id take a guess and say doubtful. After all GLBT people may find it offensive and thats what the rules are there to stop. Oh but hang on. How is that different to people being offended by GLBT discussion and guilds?

    I dislike defending biggots and the intolerant but freedom in these things should be universal else it is nothing but a damaging double standard and a dangerous one at that. As I said in a previous post (One that I got marked as a troll for so im not expecting happy joy joy feelings at this rant.) this is a double edged sword and Blizzard have seen fit to blunt one side of it by saying people cant be offended by GLBT but can be offended by those against GLBT. That is unless they are perfectly fine with anti GLBT sentiments but that opens the flood gates in an entirely different set of arguments.

    The rule was simple and ment no one no matter what there thoughts on the issue would have to get bogged down with views on sexuality. I.e. they were perfectly reasonable. Now whether it was Blizzard or this Lambda group handling it badly really doesnt matter. Backing down and then claiming its case closed isnt going to work. I wouldnt be surprised if there was a backlash to this. After all maybe me refering to something bad as gay could be considered offensive enough to report now. While perhaps someone of GLBT persuasion could make lewd sex act refrences but be impossible to report because that would be crippling there freedom. I dont know because we no long have simple universal rules anymore.

    Itll probably all be fine. Theyve probably reached a happy balance, but lets just say Im glad Blizzard are only determining freedoms within an online game and nothing more. The biggest problem with this whole debate was that it had to take place at all.

    1. Re:Laid to rest? by babydaddy · · Score: 1
      After all maybe me refering to something bad as gay could be considered offensive enough to report now. While perhaps someone of GLBT persuasion could make lewd sex act refrences but be impossible to report because that would be crippling there freedom. I dont know because we no long have simple universal rules anymore.
      All your woe and dispare is kinda foolish because what the COO (not CEO, as the title says) said is that the rule never changed, and still hasn't. He's saying punishing someone for saying "GLBT" in game was not an appropriate response. And yes, saying "gay" when you mean "bad" was always punishable, and should continue to be. But if you actually read the Blizzard policies on harrassment, you'd know that descriptions of sexual acts are, and continue to be, forbidden. I can't tell if you're a troll, or just not very intelligent. Either way, you seem to be reacting based on bias rather than reason or logic, and that doesn't speak very well of you, either.
    2. Re:Laid to rest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      this is a double edged sword and Blizzard have seen fit to blunt one side of it by saying people cant be offended by GLBT but can be offended by those against GLBT. That is unless they are perfectly fine with anti GLBT sentiments but that opens the flood gates in an entirely different set of arguments.

      People shouldn't be offended by the EXISTENCE of other people. Think about a guild that has a lot of black people in it. Your logic would say that it should then be fine to have anti-black guilds also.

    3. Re:Laid to rest? by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

      People shouldn't be offended by the EXISTENCE of other people.

            You've obviously never been to 0.0 space in Eve...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    4. Re:Laid to rest? by xtieburn · · Score: 1

      'People shouldn't be offended by the EXISTENCE of other people.'

      Your right they shouldnt be. Doesnt change the fact that they are though, and people cant and shouldnt be allowed to choose what others are or are not offended by.

      'Think about a guild that has a lot of black people in it. Your logic would say that it should then be fine to have anti-black guilds also.'

      Not quite. The first sentance implies a guild simply has a lot of black people in it by chance. Your second implies the anti-black guild would be recruiting only white people. Thats a huge difference.

      If a guild can not advertise for a specific colour of skin then that should apply to all guilds and if some end up predominantly white or black or whatever colour you can imagine then so be it.

      If a guild can advertise for a specific colour of skin that that should... apply to all guilds and if some guild decides only black people can enter it then there shouldnt be a rule denying a white person to create a guild with only other white people in it.

      Applied to what I posted its a case of allowing GLBT promotion while I am uncertain of groups that promote only non GLBT people. If that is allowed then, as I said before, thats going to cause upset on either side and I should think there will be more complaints to come. If that isnt allowed then you have a rather large double standard. Or from your example the right for black people to exist in black only groups while white people are not allowed to do the same.

      Either way it isnt exactly laying the issue to rest. The only way that was possible was if they had maintained the original interpretation of the rule and banned getting bogged down in sexuality from the whole thing.

    5. Re:Laid to rest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the rules are equal here already, it's only your interpretation of them that are biased.

      I can create a WOW guild and advertise a "gay friendly" or a "heterosexual friendly" guild. In both cases I am not supposed to be allowed to deny membership to anyone based on their sexual orientation.

      Likewise, if someone said something anti-gay they could be reported. So could someone who said something anti-straight. (e.g., I'm sure if someone said in open chat "All breeders should be killed! Straight sex is sick and perverted!" they could be reported.)

      Neither group has complete "freedom of expression" in this particular situation. Neither group is supposed to be free to lambast or harrass the other. You can debate whether or not that particular rule is a good one or not, but the rule is not being applied unequally. You have assumed that it will be applied unequally, but there is no evidence that it will be. Come back and complain when some well mannered group of players advertised a "straight friendly guild" and were banned/warned although they said nothing denigrating about homosexuals. At that point, you'll have an argument to make.

    6. Re:Laid to rest? by xtieburn · · Score: 1

      Im hardly feeling woe and dispair... more mild irritation.

      'He's saying punishing someone for saying "GLBT" in game was not an appropriate response.'

      The case was someone recruiting GLBT in to a guild not saying GLBT. Theres a bit of a difference.
      and what are you trying to say? That someone recruiting GLBT in prefrence to others is better than someone who would recruit non-GLBT people in prefrence to others? If you are saying that then isnt that a fairly obvious double standard. If your not then I assume, seeing as you have no problem with people promoting GLBT, that you wont have any problem with people being derogatory about GLBT people either.

      'And yes, saying "gay" when you mean "bad" was always punishable, and should continue to be.'

      Oh... I guess it was the double standard option then.

      'I can't tell if you're a troll, or just not very intelligent.'

      Thanks for the choices...

      'you seem to be reacting based on bias rather than reason or logic'

      Quite the opposite if I was biased id be saying either. 'Damn gays shouldnt have any right to say anything ever.' or 'Homosexuals should be allowed to say whatever they like about anything to do with there sexuality at any time.' Or something along those lines but probably not quite so blatent.

      Instead what im saying is that if you have rules that allow people to promote GLBT friendly guilds then unless you want a huge double standard you shouldnt stop people from promoting guilds that dont allow GLBT. Cant really get more reasonable or logical than that.

      Now im not even sure if Blizzard do restrict nonGLBT groups but if they dont I could imagine this will be deemed offensive* which is what the rules restricting these things were supposed to stop in the first place. Which is why the rules, in my opinion, should continue to be interpreted that you dont mention sexuality in these ways. (because you're technically right the rules didnt change. The way they were utilised, however, has.) It was a simple, blanket ruling, that probably should have been enforced with a little more tact, but that they have now backed down on. (Which was due to an attack on Blizzard I wasnt entirely comfortable with in the first place.)

      *This is a large key to the problem right here. Discussing GLBT shouldnt be offensive. I know this, most reasonable people know this but in the real world where it takes all kinds this just isnt so. People take offense at GLBT heck I used to work with a gay guy who would take offense at people announcing there sexuality because 'I dont see any straight people mouthing off about the fact they like women.' Saying its okay to announce you are GLBT friendly while banning people from announcing they are GLBT unfriendly doesnt seem right to me, no matter what I believe to be the correct way of thinking.

    7. Re:Laid to rest? by babydaddy · · Score: 1
      The case was someone recruiting GLBT in to a guild not saying GLBT. Theres a bit of a difference. and what are you trying to say? That someone recruiting GLBT in prefrence to others is better than someone who would recruit non-GLBT people in prefrence to others? If you are saying that then isnt that a fairly obvious double standard. If your not then I assume, seeing as you have no problem with people promoting GLBT, that you wont have any problem with people being derogatory about GLBT people either.
      It appears you think that the guild in question was GLBT exclusive, when that was not the case. Ms Andrews actually said, "we're not glbt-only, but we're glbt-friendly." She was recruiting and everyone was welcome, but she made a point to say that GLBT people should feel free to be themselves in that guild. Her warning was issued because glbt issues were not - in the interpretation of one poorly trained employee - to be mentioned at all in general chat.

      Given that, it's kinda hard to make a sound argument that Blizzard is now allowing guilds to pick and choose who may and may not join based on things like race, sexuality, etc. On the contrary, they're quite insistent that you're not permitted to do that.

      As such, promoting guilds that discriminate is still a violation. Promoting special interest guilds that are inclusive is not. It's a subtle difference, but it's also significant. It's significant because at least in theory, you should be able to announce a heterosexual white-male friendly guild, just so long as it's inclusive. And that means permitting members who happen to be homosexual black females.

      And yes, saying "gay" when you mean "bad" was always punishable, and should continue to be.'

      Oh... I guess it was the double standard option then.
      I don't see how that's a double-standard. You could also be warned for saying "digusting heterosexuals." Both are a violation of the policy against insulting people's sexuality. I don't see how that's a double-standard. Math is hard. This isn't.
    8. Re:Laid to rest? by xtieburn · · Score: 1

      I take your point it has made me rethink my stance on things somewhat.

      I guess im a troll after all.

    9. Re:Laid to rest? by xtieburn · · Score: 1

      'Math is hard. This isn't.'

      If its the choice between a maths problem and a making the rules for peoples rights ill choose the maths problem.

      That said I do take the point and this whole thing has been caused by a badly made assumption on my part.

  25. Link to Original Story by Covetous+Knight · · Score: 1

    Found here.

    I think this is awesome, even if it is only the result of legal pressure applied from Lambda Legal and probably not done because it was the 'right' thing to do.

  26. Role Playing as gay by Cy+Sperling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Many arguments keep bringing up the idea of keeping 'real world' issues out of the fantasy game. So, what if the character you are playing is gay? If one were to open a gay themed guild, requiring members to stay in character, is that then still a problem? I don't see how a fantasy game precludes any sense of character's sexual identity. It is patently ridiculous to think that all characters in a fantasy game must be straight and any deivation from this means people have slipped into 'real world' identity. How many straight guys play female characters and would jump at he chance to cyber with another female player? Role-playing is about assuming a character. I can see people being upset about players talking about 'real world' things in such a way that it breaks the game's illusion- but in that context you can't pick and choose which 'real-world' topics offend- they ALL should. But, if the character is played as gay wholly within the context of the game world, how is that a problem?

    1. Re:Role Playing as gay by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      The characters in question are incapable of having any kind of sex at all, rendering the roleplay aspect pretty much moot. The races in question appear to reproduce by pan-dimensional soul recruitment, and may seem to share the same soul to boot.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:Role Playing as gay by Silent+sound · · Score: 1

      The characters in question are incapable of having any kind of sex at all, rendering the roleplay aspect pretty much moot.

      Then why can they already marry?

    3. Re:Role Playing as gay by Mancat · · Score: 1

      What if I want to role-play a character named "Bob Jones" that is a time traveller from the future who has left his job as a Mr. Goodwrench mechanic to invent a time machine and travel to the ancient world to help win the war against orcs? And also, when I meet new players, I will tell them about all the wonderful inventions of the future, such as microwaves, aeroplanes, and reality television.

      Blizzard probably wouldn't buy that either.-

      --
      hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
    4. Re:Role Playing as gay by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      They cannot. If a marriage is not consummated, is just an extravagent fancy-dress cake-eating party.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  27. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by Covetous+Knight · · Score: 1

    They were bringing up sexual orientation in a public chat channel. By the rules they agreed to when signing up for the game, their account would be suspended for 72 hours. There's nothing wrong with that! It's a FANTASY GAME! GLBT chat is fine in a private guild, but it is SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED over the public channels.

    A common sentiment, but unfortunately it doesn't work in this case whatsoever. It would be nice if you could play a game where no real life chatter goes on, but it's simply not the case. In fact, on the servers I have seen - there is more non-game related chatter than game-related chatter. I'm not exaggerating.

    If you're really that offended by people discussing their sexuality or gender identities, you might consider ignoring them. Or maybe search for a game that prohibits all non-game chatter.

  28. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by Manitcor · · Score: 1

    The instructions SPECIFICALLY SAID......."DO NOT TAUNT HAPPY FUN BALL"!!!!!!!!!

    Your just a nacy boy, the happy fun ball must be taunted.

    --
    "Don't mess with him, he taunts the happy fun ball."
  29. mid-easy..haha by geekoid · · Score: 1

    mid-easy

    That is both a typo and an ironic statement.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:mid-easy..haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My first thought was, 'How did New Orleans come up?'

  30. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by d_strand · · Score: 1, Informative

    No. They said they where gay/lesbian-friendly. Cracking down on that is the same thing as cracking down on a guild being rp-friendly or danish-friendly or whatever. It's so ridiculous it's not even funny.

    I actually canceled my wow-subscription over this. To be honest I was looking for a reason to cancel but whatever.

  31. People are celebrating already by elrous0 · · Score: 1
    Just the other night, when I was lagging, I had someone in my raiding party call me a useless fag. At first I thought he was insulting me, but now I relaize that he was just celebrating Blizzard's new policy of openess to discussions regarding sexual orientation. Good for him!

    -Eric

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  32. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by geekoid · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    it is irrelevent to the game.
    And, no matter what you want to think, the majority of people are offend by homosexuality. yes it is sad, but there you are.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  33. However by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "public chat channels" aren't really public. They are owned by Blizzard. They run on Blizzard's hardware and are only accessible to Blizzard's customers on Blizzard's terms. They are private channels.

    Now, as you correctly pointed out, Blizzard's policy stated that GLBT chat is not ok, and Blizzard would have been within their rights to silence it, since the channels are privately owned. However, Blizzard chose not to. They can do that too, since its theirs.

    What was their motivation? My guess is that it had something to do with keeping the greater percentage of their customers happy. Blizzard is a business, and making money will always take priority over political correctness (though it will happen in some cases that the most politically correct thing to do is also the most potentially profitable thing to do, which is what they did).

    Now, lastly, you said that you don't want to be subjected to it. You have several options. You can turn off the channels. You can put people on your ignore list. You can go play on a server that does not have such guilds. You can go play a different game entirely. This last option is the most significant, in fact. If you want Blizzard to see things your way, your final option is to stop giving them your money until they do. If you want to keep playing anyway, well, you will just have to put up with a little freedom of speech.

    1. Re:However by babydaddy · · Score: 1

      You have your facts wrong.

      Blizzards online realms, while privately owned, are considered a public accomodation under California law, and they are therefore forbidden from discriminating against any persons defined in state anti-discrimination statutes.

      Blizzard's policy was not to forbid GLBT chat. It was to forbid insulting references to sexuality.

      The implication that they were going to change their policy to forbid GLBT chat is what started this whole controversy, but in the end, they said that their policy is not changing.

      Get that? Nothing's changed.

      Finally, anyone who doesn't want to be subjected to certain things and objects so strongly should probably read all of Blizzards terms of use and policies before they click "I Accept" and pay their money.

      But what really makes me laugh is that people like those in the thread parent are freaking out over a policy that has always been in place, and has never changed.

  34. Eh... by bamzam229 · · Score: 1

    What happened to just having fun? I'd rather belong to a casual group that doesn't specify any ideological belief, but still has a guild chat that is comfortable for all who is in that group. It's more loose. It's just generally not a problem. There's rarely a problem. Things get said, but are taken care of by a case-by-case basis. In any ideology based guild, there's a no-tolerance thing, and it just brings a less friendly atmosphere. Friendly to me isn't an enforcment of feel good stuff, but a place where things can be talked about without fear of being labeled something.

  35. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    "..guild being rp-friendly "
    that is a game references.

    beready for the danish-hatefull* guilds advertising.

    *alright, no one could hate the danes, but you get my point.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  36. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by babydaddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That just means the majority of people are bigots, right? So if bigots are the majority, that makes it OK?

  37. Re:Cancelled Account by Kingrames · · Score: 1

    but they were playing the game before, it's just now that they can join a like-minded guild.

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  38. Legal liability..... by katorga · · Score: 1, Interesting

    8 year old gets recruited to gay guild, recieves inappropirate chat/tells in game, parents take a screenshot and hand over to a lawyer. Blizz gets sued for enabling child molestation. Parents and child walk away with millions.

    1. Re:Legal liability..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woot all faggots ares child molesters.....

    2. Re:Legal liability..... by Yosho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What does the fact that the guild is gay have anything to do with that? Do you think straight people never molest children?

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    3. Re:Legal liability..... by vp0ng · · Score: 2, Insightful

      --> 8 year old gets recruited to STRAIGHT guild, recieves inappropirate chat/tells in game, parents take a screenshot and hand over to a lawyer. Blizz gets sued for enabling child molestation. Parents and child walk away with millions. Your argument doesn't stand up.

      --
      (Futurama) Fry: "My folks were always on me to groom myself and wear underpants. What am I, the pope?"
    4. Re:Legal liability..... by Onan · · Score: 1

      And... why exactly would gay people be any more likely to say something sexually explicit to an eight-year-old than straight people?

      (And why exactly would an eight-year-old be playing a game rated "Teen" that features constant murder and dismemberment?)

    5. Re:Legal liability..... by Whyte+Panther · · Score: 1

      Blizzard would stand by their Teen rating (8 year olds should not be playing WoW, I'd be surprised if an average 8 year old could even figure out how to fight things in WoW), and the ESRB notice that Online Gameplay may change blah blah.

      But more on the topic, this has never been about making a WoW guild as a forum to have Gay/Lesbian cyber-sex, it's about advertising a guild that would be friendly to people of the GLBT persuasions. About the worst I can imagine happening in the channel is a guy talking about how is boyfriend was being a dick in chat, just like you might see a straight person say about their significant other.

    6. Re:Legal liability..... by thesandtiger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering that homosexuals make up a disproportionately small percentage of child molesters, I'd say that an 8-year old is safer in a "gay friendly" guild than in a straight one.

      Honestly, if one looks at the statistics, I'd be much more frightened of leaving my child with straight people than gay.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    7. Re:Legal liability..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    8. Re:Legal liability..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, sir, is _the_ objective, completely unbiased source we've been all looking for. Thank you _so_ much for enlightening us.

    9. Re:Legal liability..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      THE AGENDA describes how homosexual activists plan on recruiting your children into the lifestyle; how they're undermining traditional marriage; and how they will eventually criminalize any public criticism of homosexual conduct. (It's already happening in Canada where the gay agenda is well advanced.)

      Isn't that the same argument Hitler used against the Jews in Mein Kampf?

    10. Re:Legal liability..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On that factual point, you are spot on.

      However the outrage if it was a gay guild would sell so many more newspapers. You know it, I know it, editors and reporters know it. We live in a sick sad world (tm) where viciousness sells, and it's more acceptable to be vicious about some people than others.

    11. Re:Legal liability..... by Senzei · · Score: 1
      (And why exactly would an eight-year-old be playing a game rated "Teen" that features constant murder and dismemberment?)

      What, you want me to watch that little bastard myself?

      --
      Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence
    12. Re:Legal liability..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes.

      What, you thought Hitler was an aberation? Hitler was a man, and men still today agree with Hitler. Those men are organizing.

    13. Re:Legal liability..... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      way to miss his point.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:Legal liability..... by Yosho · · Score: 1

      Ok, so. This is an article about how gay-friendly guilds are ok. The original poster came up with a hypothetical situation in which a kid gets molested because he joined a gay guild, implying that you're more likely to get molested by a "gay" guild than any other kind. As far as I can tell, his post's purpose was to come up with a wildly fallacious strawman argument. Care to explain further, or are you just randomly flaming people today?

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    15. Re:Legal liability..... by rseuhs · · Score: 1

      Well, at least they include quotes with several specific sources while the politically correct never back up their claims.

    16. Re:Legal liability..... by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 1

      His original point being that he's a dumb-fark homophobe who thinks gays are child molesters? I'll miss that thanks.

      --
      Freedom: "I won't!"
    17. Re:Legal liability..... by tsanth · · Score: 1
      implying that you're more likely to get molested by a "gay" guild than any other kind.
      Given the widespread misinformation and badly-baked statistics about this sort of thing (i.e. molestation as a function of "deviant" lifestyles, etc.), that's exactly the kind of argument a jury would fall for. So yes, this could be a reason why Blizzard would be hesitant about endorsing LGBT guilds. People don't believe in facts; they believe what they're conditioned to believe.
  39. Opportunity!!!! by rewinn · · Score: 0, Troll

    1. Set up server where gay and anti-gay guilds can fight it out 2. Recruit all those jerks protesting at funerals 3. ??? 4. Profit!!!! ---- (At the least, it might move some of those jerks out of real space onto WoW, where they can get their butts well and truly kicked!)

  40. Look For My New Guild! by Cranky+Weasel · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm gonna start a new guild. "WomenBangers". And you just know we're gonna talk about it a LOT.

  41. There was an alternative by metamatic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hey, Blizzard could have chosen to ban all the real-world stuff and ban all the Christian guilds. That would have been just as acceptable. Sounds like that's what you would have preferred, so why not lobby them?

    What was pissing people off was banning some real-world social preferences but not others.

    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    1. Re:There was an alternative by at_slashdot · · Score: 2, Funny

      Where do you see a connection between Christians and real-world?

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    2. Re:There was an alternative by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      or how about (since this is a fantasy world anyway) having the following "races"
      Doll/Toy = races that at adult look like human/elf children
      Drone/Golem = non or bisexual beings (aka a Gay race)
      Terraine/Vegan = Plant based Beings (match the plants of home city)

      and add in the current set of races and have some sort of heavy advantages like
      Doll = levels up at 4X speed and draws minerals from ground (but could be attacked because of this)
      Drone= recovers hit points at 8X speed
      Terraine = nearly infinite hit point if in or near water or plants (but of course -#large near fire)

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  42. Title should read: by VickiM · · Score: 1

    Blizzard CEO Brings up Gay Guild Issue Again

    BTW, I highly doubt the purpose of such a guild is to sit around and talk about how gay they are. I'm sure they focus more on instances and the like. I imagine it's nice to know before hand whether or not a guy's going to be treated like a freak if he comments that his boyfriend is making dinner so it's not a good time to join a raid. And a "mature" guild wouldn't really promise that.
    This was never about cutting real life out of a game (after all, most of the characters are controlled by real people). It was about people making targets of themselves, and Blizzard having to deal with the constant harrassment that I'm sure has already started.

    1. Re:Title should read: by C10H14N2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "It was about people making targets of themselves."

      Methinks it was more about people targeting them.

      I mean, if a raging horde of violent heterosexual male rapists burst through the doors of the local YWCA, I doubt it would fly to say "well, honestly, if they didn't so blatantly advertise that there was nothing but women in there. I mean, that's just inciting this kind of thing."

  43. New Guild by infinii · · Score: 1, Troll

    Applications are now being accepted for the Brokeback Guild.

    1. Re:New Guild by onetwentyone · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh WoW, why can't I quit you?

  44. What Blizzard can and cannot do by meadandale · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Lambda writes:

    Although Blizzard is well within its rights to insist that players avoid referring to other gamers in an "insulting manner," Blizzard cannot issue a blanket ban on any mention of sexual orientation or gender identity.


    I find it funny that Lambda thinks that they can tell Blizzard what it's own terms of service may be. Last time I checked, Blizzard was providing a subscription service. You don't like the terms? Stop paying them and go somewhere else. That's your right and your choice. They can be as discriminatory as they want and while it may piss some people off, that's their perogative.
    1. Re:What Blizzard can and cannot do by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You don't like the terms? Stop paying them and go somewhere else. That's your right and your choice. They can be as discriminatory as they want and while it may piss some people off, that's their perogative.

      Yeah! Right on! And the same goes for Alabama bus services, right? If you don't like the seating arrangements, then go take a cab!

      Fuckwit.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:What Blizzard can and cannot do by meadandale · · Score: 1

      Obviously name calling is a ruse to disguise the fact that you can't grasp the concept that public transportation is just that [b]public[/b]. Blizzard is a private service. Nothing was preventing gays from 'riding the bus' anyways on Blizzard. Oh, and comparing sexual orientation to race is one of the lamest arguments being used by the GLBT community. There is NO comparison. And, and BTW, I'm not the least bit homophobic. However, I have to disagree with many of the tactics that the GLBT community are using in the name of equality and tolerance.

    3. Re:What Blizzard can and cannot do by oneils · · Score: 1

      Depending on the state you reside in, the general chat channels are considered "public" accomodations. You have to pay to sit in a restaurant right? Yet, they can't discriminate against you.

    4. Re:What Blizzard can and cannot do by ArtDent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I find it funny that you think that California law can't tell Blizzard what it's terms of service may be.

      According to Lambda's letter to Blizzard, "Discrimination against LGBT individuals in the provision of public accommodations is clearly prohibited by California law. Id., see also, Cal. Civ. Code 51 et seq. It has been so for more than fifty years. Stouman v. Reilly, 234 P.2d 969 (Cal. 1951)."

      It would appear that Blizzard's lawyers didn't find this particularly funny.

    5. Re:What Blizzard can and cannot do by guhknew · · Score: 1

      No, it's EXACTLY the same thing, unless you've deluded yourself into believing that sexual orientation is a choice. Bigotry is bigotry regardless.

    6. Re:What Blizzard can and cannot do by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      Bus transportation is privately owned in most cities that I know of. It's called 'public transportation' but it's not really 'public'. It's not like a city park where the citizens own it together.

      There are alternate transportation methods rather than busses, so that excuse obviously didn't work back then. You can't advertise your service to the public unless you actually intend to let the public access it fairly.

      If this had been a race issue it would have been much clearer. (And louder, I'm sure.)

      Am I gay? No.
      Do I like gay people? Actually, I find them to be quite pleasant for the most part.
      Would I join a gay guild? Oh heck no.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    7. Re:What Blizzard can and cannot do by MMaestro · · Score: 1
      Actually its called 'public transportation' because it IS paid for and financed by the public. Its just 'public' in the sense that schools or colleges are 'public'. YOUR tax dollars pay for your local schools, but YOU as an adult cannot just walk in and demand free admission to those classes.

      There are alternate transportation methods rather than busses, so that excuse obviously didn't work back then.

      No offense but, name one thats cost and time effective. And subways don't count since those only apply in major cities.

    8. Re:What Blizzard can and cannot do by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      So?

      Blizzard wasn't banning people from the game because they were gay. So that law has nothing to do with this.

    9. Re:What Blizzard can and cannot do by syberanarchy · · Score: 1

      It's not public accommodations. It's a private subscription based service for a video game. This isn't like being told to get off the bus because you like buttsex.

  45. sensitivity quest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't about imposing beliefs on anybody else. This is about having the right to say who you are.

    I know there's a lot of perceived hypocrisy involved when gays are allowed to announce their beliefs and when anti-gays aren't, but here's the thing... the gays only want control over their own lives. It's the anti-gays who are going all fascist.

  46. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by 0racle · · Score: 0, Troll

    Welcome to the real world, just like making disparaging remarks about people believing in a god is currently ok, welcome and even illustrates that you must be one of the intelligent enlightened in current society. On top of that, you do not have to be a bigot to not want to hear about being gay, peoples political opinions, religious beliefs or whatever when you play a game.

    It's a game and people play it for entertainment and relaxation. Leave your problems in the real world where they are your problems, not mine.

    --
    "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
  47. Straights-Only Guild? by alexgieg · · Score: 1, Troll

    Does this mean I can create a guild for straights and sympathizer only and advertise it on public chat?

    This whole subject is completely ridiculous, and Blizzard is making it even more ridiculous. What's next? A Blacks Only guild? Or should we be PC and say African-Americans Only guild, never minding this would exclude non-American blacks from joining it? Maybe that could be followed by a Whites Only guild too. Or would this one be too un-PC?

    The whole problem, actually, is GLBTs using their "GLBTness" as a defining characteristic of their personalities. This is as much absurd as a straight proclaiming his straightness as being the important aspect of himself. Sex is just a like/dislike thing, one among many. It's not worth this central role people, specially GLBTs, see in it.

    --
    Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    1. Re:Straights-Only Guild? by babydaddy · · Score: 1

      You're uninformed about the controversy. No one has created a GLBT-only guild, and if they had, they would most likely have been disbanded by Blizzard. That's discrimination based on sexuality. However, you're welcome to join those guilds with the understanding that GLBTs are in the majority. Similarly, an African-American-Friendly guild would be fine, as long as whites are welcome with the understanding that Blacks will comprise the majority of players within the guild. A Blacks-only guild should be disbanded as race is a criteria of membership. Many things are a reaction to something else. You see GLBT identity as the core problem, but you don't propose a solution. How do you propose to eradicate the societal pressures that created GLBT identity in the first place?

    2. Re:Straights-Only Guild? by Otonotachibana · · Score: 1

      Well, you see gay-friendly is inclusive, black-friendly is inclusive, European friendly is inclusive. What you are suggesting is exclusive. I would urge you revisit your opinion but I think I saw your knee push logic out of the way while it was jerking.

    3. Re:Straights-Only Guild? by gorbachev · · Score: 1

      "Does this mean I can create a guild for straights and sympathizer only and advertise it on public chat?"

      I don't know, but since this wasn't a "gays only" guild, your point is kinda moot.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
    4. Re:Straights-Only Guild? by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming you're straight.

      Anyone ever beat the ever-loving shit out of you because they saw you holding hands with a member of the opposite sex? Anyone ever kick you out of a restaurant simply because you "look straight"? Anyone ever run up to you on the street and spit in your face, screaming "DIE, BREEDER!" when they saw you with your opposite-sex partner? Ever been fired from a job because you mentioned your opposiite-sex partner? Ever been raped by the police and then had to watch as your opposite-sex partner was beaten into a pulp because he or she tried to come to your aid? Ever been raped, stabbed over 100 times, thrown out of a window and then set on fire, only to have the police judge your death a suicide, all because you like hetero-sex?

      GLBT's make their GLBT-ness an issue because it is one. The above incidents are rather real, and they (and others like them) happen with alarming frequency. You might wish that people would just, like, shut the fuck *UP* already, but unfortunately that's just not the way it's working out.

      When someone can be gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered without any kind of hassle what-so-ever due to that, then maybe you'll have a point.

      Until then, why not visit www.rememberingourdead.org and let me know if you still think that GLBT people are making a big deal out of things.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    5. Re:Straights-Only Guild? by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm straight, but fon't take me wrong. I'm all for punishing any act of violence and for ostracizing those who commit discrimination. But there's a difference between demanding to be treated like everyone else, which is fair and just, and demanding to be treated better than everyone else, which is turning the whole thing upside down.

      By the way, I know many homosexuals, and none of them suffered any of these things you mention. The most common reaction they tell me they "suffer" is people looking odd at them. The cases you mention are at an extreme of the scale, and if you overemphasize them it's obvious you'll conclude that only an extreme reaction will do, which isn't the case.

      Oh, and just for the sake of clarity, let me add that I don't believe there's something that might be called "normal sexual behaviour". What exists is, AFAIK, a statistical distribution of behaviours. I'm on one bin of the statistical chart, you're on other, other people fill other bins, and that's all.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    6. Re:Straights-Only Guild? by alexgieg · · Score: 1
      Many things are a reaction to something else. You see GLBT identity as the core problem, but you don't propose a solution. How do you propose to eradicate the societal pressures that created GLBT identity in the first place?

      There's no solution, that's the point. What GLBT pressure groups do right is to denounce violence and demand the criminals to be punished. That works because that's an act upon another act. What they do wrong is to demand other people to accept "GLBTness" per se, which is just outright impossible.

      Just take the figures: a straight man who talks to a women is pretty sure she won't reject them simply because he's a man, for 97% of people is straight so chances of "hiting" an homosexual woman are pretty small. Of course she might reject him because he's fat, or ugly, or dumb, and so on, but such rejections operate on a different scale than that of imediate biological crudity. On the other hand, an homosexual gay man who talks to another man has a 97% chance of being rejected simply because he's a man, no matter whether the other guy found him to have a good body, to be smart etc.

      This reject proportion (3:100 vs. 97:100) is an irredutible biological fact. It's coded in basic human instict. There's absolutely no social solution to it. So, the desire for absolutely equal treatment simply cannot be reached. Socially you can go only up to a point, that of "live and let live", but that's all. Trying to trespass it equals imposing your opinion upon others by force, what doesn't work, and there's no avoiding it.

      Unless the GLBT pressure groups, as well as GLBT themselves, recognize the above, there's no end to the strugle. If you fight for something that cannot be reached, but you don't recognize it cannot be reached, you'll just keep fighting a useless fight. To recognize there's some irredutible things in life is the first step for you to start solving the solvable problems, since you'll be able to focus them.
      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    7. Re:Straights-Only Guild? by babydaddy · · Score: 1

      So when it comes right down to it, what gay dudes want is to hook up with straight dudes, and they won't rest until the straight dudes are down with it. Whoa. I thought it more complicated than that.

    8. Re:Straights-Only Guild? by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      Yes, when violent persecution ends, that's what remains. Just observe the usual reaction a lesbian have to a man who shows interest in her. It's the same behavioural rule, only reversed.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    9. Re:Straights-Only Guild? by some+guy+on+slashdot · · Score: 1

      Jesus Christ, did you just cut and paste a previous uninformed post about this topic?

  48. Read Blizzard's Policy by babydaddy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Too many people are responding to this article in hysterics because Blizzard has changed its policy to revoke a ban on gay chat and overt sexual references in guild names and to allow descriptions of homosexual acts in public chat channels.

    That's not the case now, nor has it ever been. Blizzared never banned gay chat in public channels, only insulting references to sexuality. And descriptions of sexual acts always have been, and continue to be, forbidden. The policy has not changed.

    So before you have a freak out, you might want to read the posted policy. It's here:

    http://www.blizzard.com/support/wowgm/?id=agm01719 p

  49. What does GLBT stand for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am serious, I don't know what it stands for. Also what server was this big debate on.

    My only other comment is that it saddens me to see this all happen, Games like WoW for me are a place to go to for get away from all the B@llsh*t of the real world.
    Aside from some of the juvenile acting people you have to ignore its fun to not have to deal with all the social and PC issues for time.

    Just goes to show everyone has to have a banner to wave, where's mine?

    1. Re:What does GLBT stand for by oneils · · Score: 1

      GLBT - Gay/Lesbian/Bi-sexual/Transgendered.

  50. Re:Cancelled Account by meringuoid · · Score: 1
    I will not be exposed to true faggot dark elves

    True Faggot? That's a new one on me. I've seen chaotic good, awful evil, True Neutral... is True Faggot something unique to WoW?

    Everyone knows what dark elves are like anyway. Filthy sods. Hell, elves are all a bit morally questionable. I mean, you never see a half-dwarf. Or a half-hobbit. Unless they're called Quarterlings or something.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  51. Re:Cancelled Account by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, even if you people don't want to admit it, the fact that these people were promoting their guild as GAY, should earn them a ban. Do you see straight guilds advertising, "Hey! We're straight! Join us!" No. You know why? CAUSE NO ONE FRIGGIN CARES ABOUT SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Oh yeah, cept the gays.

    You gay people look for ANY reason to get pissed. It's starting to look childish. If people tell you that they don't want to hear about your lifestyle, what do you do? You go make Brokeback Mountain and ruuuub it in reeeeaaal good.

    In this case, you are playing a goddamn video game. This is not PUBLIC, you have NO FUCKING RIGHTS, so stop bitching because YOU want to be considered more SPECIAL than the rest of us and have these rediculous things allowed. Afterall, you're telling me that you must advertise your guild as gay to get anything done? Pathetic.

    GROW UP AND GET OVER YOURSELVES, YOU HOLYWOOD FUCKS.

  52. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by JofCoRe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they want to do it in the privacy of their guild, that's cool! But it should NOT be allowed in public channels.

    Heh, that sounds like the people that complain about gay pride parades. "I dont' care if they're gay, but why do they have to parade it around all the time?!?!?!?"

    Heh, I'll tell you why: Because these people have been shunned and ousted from society from so long, and they're sick of it. They're proud of who they are, and they want to be able to express themselves and their way of life freely the same way that the rest of the world does...

    Your comment almost sounds like you think that homosexuals should all just stay in the closet...

    --

    Place sig here.
  53. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by fufubag · · Score: 1

    It isn't being bigoted, it is FOLLOWING THE RULES. The rules are CLEARLY stated. Gay folk must follow the rules just like us straight shmo's. No one wants to hear about the 20,000 women I've been with either. I'm sure they aren't hetero-phobes, they are just more interested in playing the freakin game.

  54. Re:Laid to rest? PARENT NOT TROLL by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    You may not like what the Parent has said, but that is not the definition of a Troll. He's right that freedom really is double-edged. And in less Blizzard is truly freeing people for both pro- and anti-GLBT comments then they're not being honest here and their ToS should be revised to read:

    We only tolerate positive statements towards GLBT players, and only actual GLBT players will be allowed to decide what is positive and what is not. Negatvie statements are never to be allowed such freedom because we intend to make you a better person in spite of yourself. So there!

    In actual freedom, it's all statements -- or none -- allowed. Sorry if you don't like that.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  55. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by babydaddy · · Score: 1

    True, dat. You're right. Bigotry is not defined as a preference to not hear about aspects of other people you find distasteful. It is defined by intolerance. I'd say anyone making a fuss about allowing GLBT people to say they're gay in a game is pretty intolerant, I think I'm spot on by calling them bigots.

  56. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    What society accept, and what is correct, is defined by the majority at any given time.
    Of course, individules can effect change which propagates into the majority, and thus redefines the majority.

    So to answer your question, yes. it does make it ok.
    From my experience, most people are not bigots but that is another issue.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  57. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    intolerance, another word being beaten by people who think they know what politically correct means.

    I don't wantr to here about football scores when playing WoW. That makes me intolerant of football score in that setting. There is nothing wrong with that.

    For the record, I don't want to hear about someone sexual preferences, football scores, automobiles, or politics in the game.
    However I don't hate homesexuals, football, or automobiles.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  58. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by babydaddy · · Score: 1

    I don't think you actually read the rules, did you? You should try it. They're pretty clearly spelled out. Be sure to read the whole thing, or you'll miss the point. http://www.blizzard.com/support/wowgm/?id=agm01719 p

  59. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by decepty · · Score: 1

    Your comment of "No one wants to hear about the 20,000 women I've been with either." has nothing to do with the matter at hand. They weren't running around saying "HEY I FUCK A LOT OF OTHER MEN IN THE ASS!!!", they were advertising their guild for like-minded people. It was more along the lines of "Stonewall Champions, a GLBT-fiendly guild is looking for new members! PST for info!"... I don't possibly see how that could be construed as offensive to anyone. (And if you are SOOOOOO offended by what gets said in General chat, /leave General...)

    And yes, I play on the same server as The Stonewall Champions and The Spreading Taint, the two guilds in question.

    --
    Be careful! Bears shouldn't consume large furry dogs.
  60. Mod parent up. Good lord. by einexile · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Website is 90% people cracking idiot jokes, first actual funny post of 2006 gets -1, Offtopic. How depressing.

  61. Sexual Orientation not in Constitution... by ClaudeVMS · · Score: 0

    Thank God!

  62. This is fitting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...considering that the entire game and anyone who plays it is totally gay.

  63. Pizza by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Any of you every go out to eat? You know, something reasonable, not fast food but not too pricey either...

    Imagine two, clearly gay men, enjoying a pepperoni pizza with mushrooms at this restaurant. They are polite and respectful. All of a sudden, and completely out of the blue, a fellow at another table turns and starts screaming hellfire at them, faggot this and homo that; threatens to kill them perhaps? Who do you think that manager is going to ask to leave?

    1. Re:Pizza by u16084 · · Score: 1

      Throw out those who are causing the disturbance, whats sexual preference got to do with that?

      --
      -- I Dont Deserve A Sig I Have Bad Karma
  64. Oddly enough... by voteforkerry78 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...the entire fantasy genre is built upon racism.

    1. Re:Oddly enough... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I would say it is built on spececism.
      Which stems from servival of the species, which I can totally understand.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  65. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by oneils · · Score: 1

    Except your constitution does not allow this. Your founding members wrote it to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. So, in the case of the US of A, you are wrong.

  66. Re:sex and such... walk a mile in my shoes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sex is just a like/dislike thing, one among many. It's not worth this central role people, specially GLBTs, see in it.

    OK, I don't want to troll, but I do want to inform you of something that you probably are not aware of. The Tomato in the GBLT sandwich stands for Transgendered. That also encompases Intersex or what most people like to (incorrectly) refer to hermaphrodites. We get lumped in with the "gays" because we get discriminated against just like them. DOMA? Yep, now we can't marry. Adoption? We'll see.

    Hey, life isn't fair. The big difference is that we get to understand just how unfair that is from a very early age. The rest get to learn during puberty when they usually just decide to hide in the closet. We've already accepted it.

    Let me tell you, when you have a condition such as this that can dominate your social outlook you tend to have it as a "defining characteristic" of your personality whether you like it or not. I'm try not to be political about things; I don't really want to care. Other people care. Other people want to define me by what I am. I'm sure that the other GBLT individuals get defined once they leave the closet. That's just the way things work.

    I think that bringing this into WoW is silly. I don't bring this up because I really don't think it matters. I can, however, understand why people are making this an issue. They have been defined and descriminated and now they are vocal. More power to them, I guess. Maybe they'll change the world. ...or not. It is just a game.

    You know what. You are absolutely right. It really isn't worth this. Maybe people like you can convince the rest of the world that it isn't worth the descrimination. Do that and the vocal GBLT groups might just not have anything to complain about. I'd be just fine with that.

    LFG?

  67. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by oneils · · Score: 1

    Or, should I say Bill of Rights? I'm guessing, if that's the case, your founding fathers did not write this document. I apologise for my ignorance.

  68. The trouble is that WoW is not any ONE's fantasy by Tran · · Score: 1

    world. It is a collective world. And that includes all kinds of different physiological beings.

  69. The problem is with society...not Blizzard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've asked our schools to raise our children. We mandated that the military address gay rights before most companies would openly discuss it. I guess the next logical step was to have a videogame maker try to undo biases that are both reprehensible and mind-numbingly stupid. Creating a row where there was none pushes the topic back in the closet, it doesn't address it. The little garbage mouthed kids spewing hate speak will still be there no matter what Blizzard mandates amongst it's employees in regards to GLBT individuals or groups.

    Grats on getting Blizzard to rubber-stamp an apology to push the issues at the core of this problem under the rug so that they could move on. When I log on this evening nothing will have changed. People will still use "gay" as a pejorative, so yeah...huge victory for all of humanity. o.0

  70. More power to them... Will be modded down I expect by tod_miller · · Score: 0, Troll

    I am personally recruiting for my whites-friendly guilds. Its is just some fun you see, we get to sit on the best seats on the bus and get to use different hair salons to other guilds.

    I am also running up a few straight-friendly guilds, again, innocent fun, straight people welcome of course.

    Then you got you got your KKK friendly clans, your pedo-friendly clans, your necrophilia-friendly clans, your narcotics friendly clans, date-rape clans, horse-sex clans, and my personal favourite, stalker-and-murderer friendly clans.

    Why is sexual orientation different to any other facet of society that gives it some magical pervasive power that now forces you to acknowledge it?

    "You won't let me spend 24 hours a day shouting to everyone and everyone that my guild is gay, you oppressive monsters!"

    I think it is pathetic, and sad that in this world a company can't stand up and say 'no we won't take your plight and pin your banner to our terms of service, and we will not buckle under pervasive embarrassed silence of social grey areas and say that sexual orientation doesn't belong in our game, regardless if you chosen sexual orientation is traditionally discriminated against or not'.

    Yes yes mod me down, maybe I am too liberal for you liberal types. Post a picture of Mohammed, yes no problem, blasphem any western religion? Go for it! Here is a statue of *diety* lets all urinate on it!

    Decide not to pander to some gay pride group on WOW?

    Fuck that! I am putting a 20x82 pixel badge on my website in protest right now! maybe one of those neat 'makepovertyhistory' style banners. And I will like, blog about this, and digg it and maybe it will end up on slashdot!

    What do we want? Gay rights on WOW! When do we want them? Now! Why? I have no fucking clue, maybe because gay people are shit at fighting? I don't know!

    PS: I heard that in counterstrike, there isn't an option to buy special 'gay' mods for your guns, you just get the exact same guns as everyone else, which obviously isn't good enough, so you should complain about that too. Why stop at haveing special rules to advertise your sexuality if you are gay?

    Why not have get the better bus seats? Maybe we should all give way to you on roads? Perhaps you should pay less taxes. (very few people look at costs of gay marraiges from a fiscal perspective, laws, benefits etc, versus the original reason for allocating those tax incentives).

    I will shut up now, because it will be too depressing when this gets marks flamebait.

    please type the word in this image: apothegm random letters - if you are visually impaired, please email us at pater@slashdot.org

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  71. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by Mr.+McGibby · · Score: 1

    Then play on an RP server

    --
    Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
  72. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by irablum · · Score: 1

    Yes you are! you are definitely intolerant. If I want to go onto general chat and sell cars, then I should be allowed to!!!!!!

    <tounge planted firmly in cheek>

    Ira

  73. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    not exactly correct.
    It was to put in rules that ensured freedom fron tyranny, for the majority at the time. i.e. White males.
    However is was written like a reed, so it can flex with the people.
    This allowed people, small organization and minorities to enact change. So now we(and I include myself) look at those times and say they were wrong. But we are judging them from now, outside the context of that time.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  74. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by thesandtiger · · Score: 1


    *alright, no one could hate the danes, but you get my point.


    Well, except for a few million people in the muslim world who don't like their cartoons...

    --
    Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
  75. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "And for that matter, they should be forbidden to discuss their race or their religion. Everyone should appear in the game as a straight, white Christian male. We need a pure WoW environment! Warcraft uber alles!!"

    Lol, no that would make them Un-Race, and Un-religion. I think its funny that you would immediatly jump to this conclusion. Stop acting like the world is so "out to get you."
    I have never made an assumption about the color/religion/sex/political views/etc. of someone simply based upon a big green orcish avatar.

    You might look at the fact that you make such assumptions, and realize how racist they make you sound.

  76. Re:Laid to rest? PARENT NOT TROLL by JesusPancakes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What, are you fucking stupid?

    It's protection of players' rights. There is no ban on what you say in private chat (whether guild, party, raid, or whispers) to another friend. In fact, when I play with my roommate, I'll call him a useless nigger faggot in a whisper or while we're questing together.

    But if somebody calls me a dirty sand nigger faggot cunt twat boy in public chat, then that is NOT allowed. I'm not gay, but if I were, I'd expect to be able to play without hearing slurs about people like me and incitements to violence, or any other derogatory comments, in the PUBLIC chat. Because, you know, children play these games too.

    If someone has a GLBT guild, the only thing that could 'offend' a homophobe would be the fact that the guild exists at all. And if you can't stand to see the name of a guild with "GLBT", "Gay", or whatever in it, maybe you should just... get over it. But no one is forcing you to listen to what they have to say.

    But if a gay person sees a guild called "Fag Haters", they're going to feel 1) uncomfortable 2) unaccepted 3) like they don't belong. You might be offended by the word gay, but at least it doesn't imply that the person hates you.

    So really, Blizzard is forbidding players to make other players feel like they're hated.

    It's this bullshit anti-gay right-wing nonsense all over the place. Homophobes are 'offended' by the fact that gay people exist, and they think to make it fair, they should make signs that say "Gays Burn In Hell". They are NOT equal, they are NOT even closely related. One is simply "Look, this is what I am, if you don't like me then go away" whereas the other is "I believe you're going to burn in hell and that you don't deserve the rights I have." There's a HUGE fucking difference.

  77. what-ever... by zoloto · · Score: 0

    karma be damned man, it's going to hell.

    what would have been even BETTER would be for him to just lay out a policy to ban sexuality outright. no marriages, gay or straight. no mock weddings, nothing. don't discuss it, homosexual or heterosexual. there simply isn't a place for it in this game. it wasn't meant for it. it's a game. there are male and female characters - so what. play the game and quit bitching about "my so called rights" being trampled because you (anyone/someone) want to use the game in ways that that go beyond what those who created it intended.

    I'm all for the hacking and using of things in ways they weren't intended (and no this isn't double speak bullshit) - but such a fiery issue that simply obfuscates many of the actual and more important issues of a government that's been lying to use for the past 6 years (oh what the hell... 50 years) shouldn't be a major focus.

    there are MUCH greater problems to be dealt with than an bloody fucking game and a handful of whiny people. take care of our government first and ensure it's not going to collapse under the weight of its own lies and financial problems, make sure we keep the Constitution and Bill of Rights intact then go after some of the other problems.

    our government is such a cluster fuck bureaucracy at the moment it's too big for its britches. lets take care of something that actually matters.... keeping a government so that we actually HAVE those freedoms later instead of the guise where people think they do only to watch our government change everything simply because the executive branch decided it wanted more powers than the other two branches of our government combined. /end rant

    1. Re:what-ever... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      So, you're suggesting a policy of "Don't tell, don't alt?

      Also, that was a pretty good rant. And the underlying idea that this is just a game puts into perspective. You're 100% right that there are more pressing problems than sexual expression in games.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  78. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by fufubag · · Score: 1
    I read the rules, but thanks for taking the time to care. Let's assume I find talking about sexual orientation insulting. Then, according to the rules, that speech will and should be banned. Who is to decide what is insulting to each individual person? For this game, it used to be Blizzard, now it's Lambda. Go figure.

    from bliz originally: 'To promote a positive game environment for everyone and help prevent such harassment from taking place as best we can, we prohibit mention of topics related to sensitive real-world subjects in open chat within the game, and we do our best to take action whenever we see such topics being broadcast. This includes openly advertising a guild friendly to players based on a particular political, sexual, or religious preference, to list a few examples. For guilds that wish to use such topics as part of their recruiting efforts, our Guild Recruitment forum, located at our community Web site, serves as one open avenue for doing so.'

    I don't see anything wrong with that... oh, except not everyone can show how proud they are of their sexual orientation.

    I guess it's just sad that they have to promote it. It should be assumed that guilds are friendly to everyone (realworld) and only against certain gameworld-traits for RP purposes.

  79. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by babydaddy · · Score: 1

    Intolerance of football scores and intolerance of people are two completely different things. That's really quite laughable to compare them. But what I hear you saying is that you're a role player, and you want other people to role play, too. At least in theory, that means you don't mention your child, your injury, your local weather, or anything that exists on your side of the screen. Supposing you're playing such games on role playing servers, it's completely reasonable you'd be making such requests of other players. Of course, if you're not playing on role playing servers or you actually do share details of your real life world - ever - you've got no ground to set those kinds of expectations for other players.

  80. Bet they can't talk about... by Snaller · · Score: 1

    ... pictures of the prophet mohammed.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  81. Fucking Political Correctness by rAiNsT0rm · · Score: 2

    That's right fuck Blizzard, and fuck their CEO and his politically correct bullshit. I'm so tired of everyone being so afraid to make decisions and stick to them because of PC pressure.

    It's a game. I don't give two shits about the nightelf I'm teamed up with prefering to suck cock while I'm killing 50 bunnies to get a patch of fur to craft a new tunic or whatever lame ass quest I'm on. I don't feel compelled to talk about screwing chicks while I play a game. Gay/lesbian people need to ease up on this force-feeding of their views and lifestyle on everyone else. It's a game, just fucking play it. Period.

    --
    http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
  82. I wonder if they would decide the same way by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    if there was a hetrosexual friendly guild in the game that discussed hetrosexuality on public chat channels in the same way that GLBT friendly guild and discussing GLBT sexuality on public chat channels?

    You would think, under equal rights, that one does not need to say X-Friendly in their guild or chats and just accept everyone equally? Doing so is sort of starting a segigation between groups of people, saying one type they are friendly to, but not mentioning what other types they are friendly to. It makes people get the perception that if you are X-Friendly that you are not Y-Friendly because you did not even mention Y. Sort of like having a company of all GLBT people, and not hiring any Hetrosexuals is still discrimination even if you claim to be GLBT Friendly.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:I wonder if they would decide the same way by mcubed · · Score: 1
      if there was a hetrosexual friendly guild in the game that discussed hetrosexuality on public chat channels in the same way that GLBT friendly guild and discussing GLBT sexuality on public chat channels?

      Are you insinuating that there is no heterosexual-oriented chat in WoW? No guy ever mentions his girlfriend, no girl her boyfriend, no mention, ever, of husbands or wives? I don't know what WoW you play, but in the one I've played people mention this kind of stuff all the time.

      Sort of like having a company of all GLBT people, and not hiring any Hetrosexuals is still discrimination even if you claim to be GLBT Friendly.

      And yet, isn't it funny how no one has ever been fired for being heterosexual, whereas plenty of people have been fired for being homosexual? Isn't it funny how "don't ask, don't tell" in the U.S. military applies to homosexuals only? Heterosexuals ask and tell all the time, and face no reprisals for doing so.

      Newsflash, dude: the default is heterosexual-friendly. That's what it means to be a majority.

      Michael

      --
      "No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
    2. Re:I wonder if they would decide the same way by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      Isn't it funny that the phrases "GLBT Friendly" and "GLBT Pride" are actually bigoted and full of hate towards heterosexuals who are not included and called inferior as a result? That they actually try to promote the superiority of GLBT people. Then we have people like you who deny that GLBT discriminate even once against heterosexuals. All I am asking for is equal rights for everyone, not superiority of one group over another just because they are a minority or majority.

      If there are sexual oriented chats in the public chatroom, by all means report it to the administrators because children play these games and everyone has access to public chat. Guild chat is different because it is private to the guild, and the guild monitors guild chat.

      Did you know that there are discriminations against heterosexuals for jobs, promotions, and even they are fired for being so. That heterosexuals can be sexually harassed by GLBT people as well. That is why sexual oritentation discrimination laws are written for GLBTH people and not just GLBT people. Taking the H out of it, means that it is H Hostile when someone says GLBT Friendly.

      Equal rights for everyone, not just selected groups.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    3. Re:I wonder if they would decide the same way by mcubed · · Score: 1
      Isn't it funny that the phrases "GLBT Friendly" and "GLBT Pride" are actually bigoted and full of hate towards heterosexuals who are not included and called inferior as a result? That they actually try to promote the superiority of GLBT people. Then we have people like you who deny that GLBT discriminate even once against heterosexuals. All I am asking for is equal rights for everyone, not superiority of one group over another just because they are a minority or majority.

      No, that's not what you're asking. What you're asking is that GLBT players be prevented from advertising that they are GLBT. How does "GLBT friendly" discriminate against anyone? It doesn't say "GLBT ONLY," it says just that GLBT players are welcome. Why is that necessary? Because there are many guilds where GLBT people are not welcome. There are many guilds where people will casually throw around terms like "fag" as insults. There are many guilds in which, if a person who is gay or lesbian mentions that fact, or mentions a same-sex partner, they will be ostracized by some players. Can you name one guild where heterosexual people are treated that way? Have you ever heard anyone insult another player by calling them a breeder? Has any guy been attacked or criticized because he happened to mention his wife or girlfriend? Has any woman been criticized or attacked because she mentions her husband or boyfriend? A guild that advertizes itself as "GLBT friendly" is not claiming any superiority for GLBT people; it is saying, "here, you are welcome, you don't have to be careful to hide your sexual orientation." Heterosexuals are never careful to hide their sexual orientation because there are never any adverse consequences for revealing that they are heterosexual. In the normal course of events, it is natural to presume that everyone is heterosexual, because the majority of people are. But some people aren't.

      Did you know that there are discriminations against heterosexuals for jobs, promotions, and even they are fired for being so.

      Name one.

      That heterosexuals can be sexually harassed by GLBT people as well.

      Anyone can be sexually harassed by anyone. Sexual harassment is never appropriate or permitted no matter what. "GLBT friendly" does not change that.

      Michael

      --
      "No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
    4. Re:I wonder if they would decide the same way by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      There are people who claim they were discrimanted against by that guild for being straight. They don't want their names used, because of harassment, abuse, and threats against them. They have been bullied into keeping quiet.

      There are many cases of heterosexual discrimination:

      Heterosexual couples who are not married are not given the same rights as homosexual couples who are not married. The couple lived together in a partnership, like a homosexual couple does, but was denied the same rights given to a homosexual couple.

      You will find That laws give all sexial orienations equal rights, even homosexual and heterosexual rights. That is because heterosexuals are discriminated against as well. If you allow Homosexuals to have a civil union/domestic partnership, then you must allow heterosexuals the same right.

      In fact unmarried heterosexual couples face a lot of discrimination.

      Many heterosexual women are discriminated against for having a heterosexual lifestyle that gets them pregnate and they are fired for it or let go. There are many cases of that. Had they been a lesbian, and only had lesbian relations, and adopted a child, they would not have been let go.

      Student is discriminated against for being heterosexual while I admit what he said could be considered offensive and I do not agree with the remarks, he was discriminated against. This led to more discrimination against white male Christian students, even if they do not make comments like that student did. I have found a hostility from some homosexuals towards white male Christians which sometimes leads to discriminations.

      People can be fired for being heterosexual or homosexual legally.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  83. Re:The trouble is that WoW is not any ONE's fantas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    world. It is a collective world. And that includes all kinds of different physiological beings.

    But I can count "all kinds" on two fingers...

  84. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by oneils · · Score: 1

    Fair enough. I see your point. I spoke too quickly. The majority once thought slavery was acceptable, now they don't. If it ever came back in vogue the majority could legalise it. It would be difficult (If I understand correctly, it would take the ratification of the congress, senate and all 50 state legislatures). If the majority wanted it bad enough, they could get it. In that case, the minority wouldn't be protected - thus your point: What society accept, and what is correct, is defined by the majority at any given time.

    I agree partly - what society accepts is defined by the majority. Just not so sure if what "is correct" is defined by the majority. 300 million American's can be wrong. For instance, if they decided that the sun revolved around the earth...they would not be correct. However, in the case of morality - 300 millions dictating what's "right" would suggest that morality is "culturally relative." If that's the case, one could argue that morality can be deduced further - it's all realitive...down to the individual. You could even argue...that it does not exist. In that case...the majority rules anyway, by virtue of the fact that they hold power in their numbers.

    blah blah blah...sorry for the verbal diarrhea. But, I do want to apologise for jumping the gun and calling you out. After thinking it through, you do have a valid point.

  85. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by babydaddy · · Score: 1

    The problem is that silencing "sensitive real-world subjects" punishes minorities. Minorities are always "sensitive." Furthermore, it punishes the victim, not the harasser. It's roughly equivalent to saying that because a woman wears a short skirt, she deserves to be raped. Do women who wear provocative clothing deserve rape? I, at least, would say no. And I don't think that women who wear short skirts should be punished and forced to wear unattractive clothing as a means to protect them from rape. I also think it's wrong to say that because someone mentions that they're gay that they've invited harrassment. And it's no more appropriate to punish gay people who mention their sexuality than it is to force women to wear pants.

  86. Re:Laid to rest? PARENT NOT TROLL by xtieburn · · Score: 1

    No, no, no, this was never an anti-gay statement. (Infact that would be a pretty damn hard thing for me to be.) It was only about positive discrimination.

    The whole point was equal view of what people are offended by. The preference for GLBT is giving the GLBT players a right over the prefrence for a Heterosexual group. As someone has already pointed out my view of the situation has jumped to a possibly incorrect assumption that if someone made a heterosexual friendly group they would get in to trouble.

    That was because the way I thought of it was that the two sides were either for GLBT or against GLBT rather than being for Heterosexual. My mistake, and it justifies the troll rating though thanks to the guy who stood up for me.

    The only way that my original post can be relevant is if Blizzard take action against people advertising as heterosexual friendly.

  87. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by oneils · · Score: 1

    It's not a mental disorder, that's why.

  88. Re:Cancelled Account by Senzei · · Score: 1
    Unless they're called Quarterlings or something.

    Nope, those are half-halflings.

    --
    Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence
  89. Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally the forbidden trans-class, interspecies, cross-realm, homosexual love between myself, a Tauren warrior and my partner, a Gnome mage, can blossom into the beautiful....

    What bestiality clause? Dammit, this is a violation of my freedom of spee...

    Your account has been temporarily suspended for violations of the terms and conditions, thank you for playing World of Warcraft (TM).

  90. Re:sex and such... walk a mile in my shoes. by alexgieg · · Score: 1

    I have nothing to disagree with what you said. I'd like to add only that what people should understand is that what you are shouldn't be more important that what you do. What you are is a given, and as such is neither something for you to be ashamed off nor for you to have pride about. What you do upon what you are is what to base any shame or pride in, nothing else.

    For instance, if the GLBT guild does better than mine in WoW-PvP, that's something for which to have pride! After all, other than that, what's the matter? ;)

    --
    Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  91. What About Beastiality Friendly Guilds? by MCTFB · · Score: 1

    I mean, if you are going to let in guilds based on sexual orientation why not allow guilds for epople who just want to engage in a little farmplay?

    Plus, beastiality friendly guilds would actually have more real world to WoW world value than gay guilds because several of the races are animal races to begin with.

    I mean, just imagine a level male Dwarven Paladin mounting a female Tauren Shaman.

    Can you say "MOO"?

  92. Re:The trouble is that WoW is not any ONE's fantas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "physiological beings." did you pull that out of your ass?? what the fuck is that?

  93. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
    What are you...my /. soulmate or something?

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  94. Appropriate tagging: by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

    wow, blizzard, gay

    ...my thoughts precisely.

    --
    Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
  95. Re:Pizza (trick question) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    None of them... The poison was in the ice!

  96. Re:Cancelled Account by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

    Wow, you can't even be bothered to read EVEN ONE OF THE ARTICLES about this stuff, or even the article summaries. It wasn't a gay guild, just a "gay-friendly" guild, which basically meant no gays-are-going-to-hell types. And people do care about sexual orientation, not just the gays, look at anything from Fred Phelps, and look at one of the Constitutional amendments(which I would like to kill some people for--the only other time the Constitution has gotten rid of rights was Prohibition, which was repealed) to ban gay marriage? And of course, if gay people want THE SAME RIGHTS AS EVERYONE ELSE, people like you bitch at them and claim they want something special, just because a movie was made about gay cowboys(How many movies about straight cowboys are there?)

    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  97. wha-? by Josh+teh+Jenius · · Score: 1

    Forgive my ignorance: I haven't played WarCraft since back in the Win '95 days.

    Back then, the premise of this (most excellent) game was to raise an army of ugly trolls in order to lay siege to an opponent's defenses.

    Please explain this to me: after spending 9 hours pretending to be trolls burning down human villages, players were offended by people who enjoy company with similar genitals?

    Yikes. I'd move to Canada, but they are just as crazy...

    --
    Math is math. Regular expression is regular expression. The tools are there. The future is now.
  98. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Your well thought out reply is apology enough!

    When I was talking about correct, I was meaning socially/morally correct.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  99. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heh, that sounds like the people that complain about gay pride parades. "I dont' care if they're gay, but why do they have to parade it around all the time?!?!?!?"

    Heh, I'll tell you why: Because these people have been shunned and ousted from society from so long, and they're sick of it. They're proud of who they are, and they want to be able to express themselves and their way of life freely the same way that the rest of the world does...

    Your comment almost sounds like you think that homosexuals should all just stay in the closet...


    You just don't get it do you? You, and everyone else has a right to be gay, you also have a right not to be harassed, there are political and legal channels for you to assert those rights. What heterosexuals are sick of is public displays of homosexuality. We don't have a "Hooray boobies!" or a "I stick my dick in vaginas!" parades. Why? Because it is a private matter and is not appropriate for public. What you do with your cock, where you stick it, and who you stick it in is your business and your partners, no one elses.

    I'm glad you're proud that you can take it up the ass. I'm proud I can fuck women too, I suppose, in a weird kind of way, but I don't feel the need to have a parade about it or walk down the street saying "I stick my penis in vaginas!" That is best saved for you and your partner, or your buddies over a few beers.

    No one wants you to stay in the closet, but being out of the closet doesn't mean wearing a shirt saying "I like teh buttsex!". It means being open, but knowing when not to talk about sexual situations. I have many friends at work who don't have spouses or significant others. I don't know what any of their sexual orientations are, and I will never ask. Why? Because it's so fucking rude. It would be rude of them to shove it my face too. I don't want to know that shit! Now if they have a boyfriend and bring him to a party, s'all cool. That's a healthy way to say "I'm gay", show up with your partner. People will figure it out. You don't have to point at his ass and say "I'm plunging Mr. Winky in there tonight! Rump riders away!" It's unnessecary.

    Tons of people have been oppressed, murdered, and killed all over the world. Most of them don't feel the need to have parades.

    Learn what is appropriate, and what is not, for public conversation and display.

  100. For an intelligent, well-thought-out opinion... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...consult ANY post on this article but the parent's.

  101. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by Rei · · Score: 1

    Oh, I'm sorry, my bad. So, different genders should be allowed. Different races should be allowed. Different religions should be allowed. But different sexualities shouldn't. We only want part of who players are to be expressable; the rest is forbidden and taboo.

    --
    By a scallop's forelocks!
  102. Slashdot Tags by abscissa · · Score: 1

    Currently the "tags" that I see on the mainpage read:

    WOW Blizzard gay

  103. Let's not use the term gay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's use the term homosexual. Using the word "gay" ruins a perfectly good word (happy, carefree) and affirms the wretched lifestyle of homosexuality by using a word that the homosexuals co-opted.

  104. Blizzard was affected by California code by typical · · Score: 1

    So?

    Blizzard wasn't banning people from the game because they were gay. So that law has nothing to do with this.


    I do not think that you are correct. Consider the code:

    All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind whatsoever.

    Whether or not the service is provided or not is not the issue -- I think that you are making an incorrect assumption here. It is whether or not "full and equal" service is provided.

    It's hardly a far stretch to consider that banning a guild that states that it is LGBT-friendly is not exactly providing "full and equal" service.

    On the other hand, transsexuals specifically are *not* covered by this. A straight transsexual *can*, as my understanding goes, be discriminated against.

    --
    Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    1. Re:Blizzard was affected by California code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you define a "straight" transexual?

    2. Re:Blizzard was affected by California code by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's as clear cut. After all, the TOS do have some weight, and as I said, gay people are not necessarily discriminated. Blizzard is simply saying you cannot make a guild that advertises a sexual preference; if you tried to make an "all-hetero" guild, you'd probably get rejected too.

      In other words, gays are "entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services". Only those privileges do not include the right to make guilds with sexually explicit names.

      If things were so clear, then I could start a guild called "The Anti-Nigger Faction" and Blizzard couldn't touch me. Or the "Kill All Ragheads Guild". I find it hard to believe that those would fly in a court of law.

  105. Excellent Post by typical · · Score: 1

    Thank you. A good post or chunk of text makes you look at the world differently. This did that.

    --
    Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
  106. What? by VON-MAN · · Score: 1
    Would you put this group of gay people is the same categories as anti gay people? or anti Jew? or pro Nazi?

    Are your out of your friggin' head?

  107. Being frusterated with Christianity by typical · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Welcome to the real world, just like making disparaging remarks about people believing in a god is currently ok, welcome and even illustrates that you must be one of the intelligent enlightened in current society.

    Ever made a comment about "Kool-Aid drinkers" or cult members otherwise?

    That is how a lot of us feel about the Christian right. Except said Kool-Aid drinkers don't hurt anyone but themselves, but the Christian right is out pushing anti-gay marriage amendments, trying to have the adopted children of gay couples taken away from them, trying to keep people (including non-Christians) from having the option of seeking abortion, harassing gays, trying to censor media (I think many on here are familiar with Jack Thompson's antics), keeping condoms out of the effort to stop the spread of AIDS, pushing creationism over evolution, and so forth.

    I think it's less of a social requirement and more of a backlash. Christianity is well-organized as a political power -- it has hierarchy (well, a number of hierarchies), funding systems, lobbyists, media, and so forth. It has an effective system for organizing voting blocs. As a result, it does a good job of pushing political influence. The problem is that the less-organized people that are getting increasingly irritated with Christianity don't have much of a rallying flag (well, there's the Flying Spaghetti Monster) or much of an organization to speak for them. So you see a groundswell of irritation at places like public forums, where anyone can express their feelings and things are rather more democratic. Slashdot, which is composed disproportionately of well-educated and well-to-do individuals, leans even more away from Christianity.

    I'd say that expressing irritation about Christianity is not done to win social approval. If this sort of thing were the case, person on Slashdot would vocally love Apple, love Linux, love anime, love Babylon 5, love perl, etc. And while each group has its adherents, nobody seems to be simply doing the social equivalent of karma whoring in all categories. That indicates to me that it probably isn't being done to win social approval.

    --
    Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
  108. Re:More power to them... Will be modded down I exp by Bluetick · · Score: 1

    Oh man you are batshit crazy and all over the goddamn map! I love it! They should've modded this funny though, not troll. This stuff is pure genius. You've conjured the essence of James Dobson and Mike Tyson.

  109. Lose Lose Situation by Lewis+Daggart · · Score: 1

    No matter what Blizzard does here, they're screwed. The ban on Gay guilds wasn't intended, I dont think, as a biggoted decision. Rather, it was to keep guilds open. Because they made that call, they were getting busted on, so they reversed the decision. This isn't 'caving into pressure'. It's simply changing policies to conform with what the current social situation seems to require of them. So, yes, it could be seen as caving. But it's also part of the process a company has to go through to create a product that is acceptable to the most of their fanbase. If they ban the guilds, they're seen as biggots. If they reverse that decision, they're seen as caving and condoning devisive behavior. Personally though, I'm glad they 'caved' as it were. Other devisive behavior is allowed and really, the whole point of an MMO over an offline game is devisiveness - forming communities with whatever traits, from the superficial to the profound life choices, that you wish to spend the time with. Unlike in the real world where excluding groups prevents others access to equal opportunities, in WOW it allows everyone to tailor the game to their particular requirements. So, go Blizzard for choosing, what I believe to be, the best option in a difficult situation. And revisiting a choice isnt always caving to pressure. Sometimes its learning from experience.

  110. In other news by ultranova · · Score: 1

    Gay guild issue rises from its grave as a zombie. When interviewed, the zombie said: "Braaaaiinnnsssss...." and left for Europe to get some.

    A 40-men raid group, dressed in thights and called the Merry Men of Sherwood, went after the zombie. The leader, a guy carrying longbow with the handle "Robin", commented shortly: "Well, we've been grinding by raiding the sheriff of Notthingham for the last thousand years every day, so it's time to try something new. Besides, the bastards stole our idea." The sheriff, along with his employer, prince John, took the entire English Army with him and went after Robin, to challenge him to a player-versus-army deathmatch.

    The ghost of Richard the Lion-hearted declined to comment the matter.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  111. GBLT recruiting by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

    They literally try to suck you in.

    Next time I'm in a coffee shop, I'm going to order a GBLT on wheat. Do I want fries or onion rings with that? I dunno. Which is gayer?

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  112. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mental Disorder: a disorder of the brain that results in a disruption in a person's thinking, feeling, moods, and ability to relate to others and to work

    Normal people are sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex. It's evolutionarily important for it to be this way. Homosexuality clearly falls into the category of "mental disorder" and should be treated like one.

    In fact, it was classified a mental disorder for much of the 20th century. It's only relatively recently that the gay agenda managed to declassify it as a mental disorder for scientifically dubious reasons.

  113. A slackdork speaks. by Eric+S.+Smith · · Score: 1
    out of curiosity, is calling a homosexual gay or a cock sucker an insult?

    Of course it is, you stupid slashdork.

    [pause]

    Well, you are!

  114. Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. by some+guy+on+slashdot · · Score: 1

    I might point out that, a hundred years ago, a woman might be committed to a mental institution for trying to open her own bank account. Things that were completely unclassified in psychology as little as 30 years ago are now officially recognized disorders (such as eating disorders), and things that were common disorders in the old days have been dropped and discarded as bunk (hysteria, anyone?). Psychology is as much zeitgeist as it is hard science.

    As for homosexuality as a disorder, I think it highly, highly likely that many symptoms of this "disorder" which showed signs of strain on the "sufferer" were actually the effects of stress caused by being gay in a highly heterosexual-centered society. I think it takes only five minutes talking to a gay person to figure out that they aren't crazy, although in some cases I have seen people "turn gay" as a result of already being crazy. I've also seen people switch religions to the same effect.

    As for your simplistic view of the evolutionary role of sex, I'd like to point out that reproduction is not always necessary or desirable for members of a species, especially when population growth increases drastically. However, all mammals have a sex drive no matter the desirability of offspring. I'm sure you can see a natural cause for homosexual behavior there. And we have observed homosexual behavior and sex-specific behaviors crossing sexes in many animals for a variety of purposes - everything from ensuring females gestate properly to raising abandoned offspring, to creating the illusion of sex balance when one sex becomes scarce. The "unnatural" label just doesn't stick any more.

  115. I have to agree with Blizz's original decision... by Shiva42 · · Score: 1

    It's a fantasy world, not real life. I like that I can log into WoW and not have to talk about issues like gay marriage, George Bush, the price of gas, NASDAQ, or spring training. Not that I don't have opinions or wouldn't want to discuss those topics in real life, but I enjoy that it's something I don't need to think about that when I'm trying to get into a ZF run to pick up a new staff.

    It's kind of sad that people want to fit themselves into little narrow definitions of who they are. I don't spam "Looking to join guild of 27 year old, straight, white females with no children PST." When I log in, that's not who I am. I'm a 60 rogue, who will ambush you if you give me the chance. I'm a 40-something priest, who can heal a party like there's no tomorrow even though I'm shadow spec'ed...

    I accept that the people I'm playing with are of all different ages, genders, races, locations, sexual orientations, religions, etc in real life. I just hope they can hold the aggro off me so I don't die before I can heal them. Apparently, that's just me.

  116. Heywood Jablome speaks out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to sound too restrictive, but its about time those cartoons of the profit made theyre presents known!
      CAn ANYONE here claim to have never indulgling in cross-dressing? Or cross-chatting?
        Let he who has the glass house cast the first stone!

  117. Not a Troll, unless the Article ITSELF is a Troll by rewinn · · Score: 1

    A troll is an outrageous comment posted with the intent to arouse arguement.

    In contrast, the posting uses a time-honored style of /. humor to comment on the content of the article in a humorous way. It refers to tabu subjects such as gayness and people who hate gays, but that's because the article is about those subjects.

    If this posting is a troll, then the entire article is a troll and should be modded accordingly.

  118. Re:I have to agree with Blizz's original decision. by leoPetr · · Score: 1

    A 'gay-friendly' guild is one that bans the use of 'ghey', 'faggot', and 'homo' as terms of general disparagement in its chats and enforces the ban. So, the situation is quite the opposite of what you think -- it could be described as an effort to stay in character by limiting the use of contemporary slurs.

    Bah.

    --
    My other body is also not wearing any.