Blizzard CEO Lays Gay Guild Issue To Rest 296
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.'
Eh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Eh... (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Eh... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Blizzard will allow anti-gay sentiments to fly freely, surely they must allow pro-gay expressions as well.
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.
Re:Eh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. (Score:3, Insightful)
thank you (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Very true. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:"Gay Guild"? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Okay. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Huzzah (Score:5, Insightful)
Not after the accountants/PR people told him.
Re:Eh... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Role Playing as gay (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Gay Guild"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Laid to rest? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:wait wait wait wait... (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
There was an alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
What was pissing people off was banning some real-world social preferences but not others.
What Blizzard can and cannot do (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Read Blizzard's Policy (Score:3, Insightful)
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=agm0171
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What Blizzard can and cannot do (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:*sigh* Gotta be Politically Correct in fantasy. (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re:Okay. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Pizza (Score:1, Insightful)
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?
Oddly enough... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Legal liability..... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What Blizzard can and cannot do (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Eh... (Score:3, 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...
Re:Title should read: (Score:3, Insightful)
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."
Re:Legal liability..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, if one looks at the statistics, I'd be much more frightened of leaving my child with straight people than gay.
Re:Laid to rest? PARENT NOT TROLL (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Okay. (Score:3, Insightful)
Except they said it as "GLTB-friendly"
And, god forbid, they made sure people knew this, in public.
The nerve.
Re:Legal liability..... (Score:1, Insightful)
What, you thought Hitler was an aberation? Hitler was a man, and men still today agree with Hitler. Those men are organizing.
Re:Huzzah (Score:3, Insightful)
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.