Which is why it was there in the first place, obviously.

Nope. The definition of "inclusion" in the current context is something like:
"the act or practice of including and accommodating people who have historically been excluded (as because of their race, gender, sexuality, or ability)"
https://www.merriam-webster.co...

Note the lack of exceptions, or any rationalization to exclude.

You are mistaken. The truly tolerant do not prevent speech. They actually defend speech they hate. The truly tolerant only act when there is an imminent threat of actual violence. Which is why many of the "faux tolerant" have had to define speech as violence, to rationalize their actions, their intolerance, their suppression of speech, of opposing voices. The truly tolerant invite opposing voices so they can publicly debunk the opposing ideology, to persuade others that the opposing voices are incorrect.

You are mistaken. You offer nothing more than one philosophers opinion. You are rationalizing, pretexting, your intolerance.

In reality, the truly tolerant do not prevent speech. They actually defend speech they hate. The truly tolerant only act when there is an imminent threat of actual violence. Which is why many of the "faux tolerant" have had to define speech as violence, to rationalize their actions, their intolerance, their suppression of speech, of opposing voices. The truly tolerant invite opposing voices so they can publicly debunk the opposing ideology, to persuade others that the opposing voices are incorrect.

Wrong. The definition of "inclusion" in the current context is something like:
"the act or practice of including and accommodating people who have historically been excluded (as because of their race, gender, sexuality, or ability)"
https://www.merriam-webster.co...

Note the lack of exceptions, or any rationalization to exclude.

There are Muslims in the Israeli government.
There are Muslim who are judges in Israeli courts.
There are Muslim who are police officers in Israeli.
There are Muslim who are police officers in the Israeli army.
Etc

And the same will be true for the player running a standalone server at home if the game is still client-server. Their server and their game client will be networking directly over the same local subnet and not have to route over the internet.

That's very binary thinking for someone who claims to champion inclusion. :-)

The problem with that those servers would have to distribute copyrighted materials, various downloadable artwork and in game content.

Note that "Classic" WoW is actually a Blizzard product. Homebrew WoW servers ran into legal problems as suggested above.

Largely unworkable. The old and current versions of the client (and servers) most likely share code and trade secrets. It is an extremely high legal hurdle for a court to order (allow) forced disclosure.

I'm familiar with that scheme too, again, 20% for A sounds inflated. Look at your example, doesn't 60% represent D, 70% C, 80% B, 90% A? Less than 60% F?

Nope. I'm actually an independent, sometimes leaning left, sometimes leaning right, it depends on the issue. I merely reject the far left misinformation and hate you offer. That does not make a person right wing nor extreme.

I did provide an example. I pointed out your misinformation and hateful speech.

Now you seem to be projecting. Your misinformation and hateful speech is based on your misunderstanding, the low information of your information silo.

Your hate is embedded in your false portrayal of recent events. It's pure regurgitation of political propaganda, propaganda designed to manufacture hate. Reality is quite different.

That was more for peer-to-peer games, and smaller scale client-server games where a peer would host a server, where the publisher didn't need to deploy any additional resources. However with the larger scale client-server games the publisher did need to invest heavily in server infrastructure.

Publishers should be able to comply with such laws by offering either peer-to-peer or peer-hosted, which are kind of similar. The latter requiring two computers, one running the server side and the other the client side. The former picking one peer to run both client and server software on the same machine.

For a client-server based game all they need to do is patch the game to add peer-to-peer networking support over TCP/IP. One peer system will act as the game server for this LAN-style game.

...if only our legal system was that stringent?

Ban on practicing law for a year if your submission to the court includes AI slop, how about that?
A second offense, disbarment.

(Personally I think disbarment should be a first-offense result for an ostensibly high-competence field like law, but our society has gotten away from "consequences" for "easily predictable results of ones actions" in general...)

Where you waited (usually) until after 7pm to make a "long distance" phone call. And when you received a long distance call from the operator, who would call you and tell you that you had a long distance call, you knew it was pretty bad if they "called long distance". Funny that you could make a "local" call in your neighborhood, but someone several miles away was considered "long" distance.