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.'
Huzzah (Score:5, Interesting)
yay real world! (Score:2, Interesting)
I think this is the last straw. No more wow for me. Its not a fantasy wolrd to escape to anymore
Re:Eh... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Legal liability..... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:"Gay Guild"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Being frusterated with Christianity (Score:3, Interesting)
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.