WOW warns gay-lesbian guild

http://news.com.com/Online+game+warns+gay-lesbian+guild/2100-1043_3-6033112.html?tag=nefd.top

nvrsbr

2006-02-01 14:29:19 UTC

Sucks to be them....

There is NO reason to bring your RL preferences into WoW. Most people
could care less what you are into in RL. You dont see people making
Straight only Guilds, could you imagine the uproar if people did :P

Go get em Blizzard !!

s***@gmail.com

2006-02-01 14:44:27 UTC

Well... it wasn't a gay-only guild, but a gay-*friendly* guild. It's a
very slim distinction, and I'm not entirely convinced about this one. I
think Blizzard would be justified in sticking to the letter of their
policy, except for the fact that they seem to have ignored it in the
case of Christian guilds.

Phil Hibbs.

BombayMix

2006-02-01 15:02:26 UTC

Post by nvrsbr
There is NO reason to bring your RL preferences into WoW. Most people
could care less what you are into in RL. You dont see people making
Straight only Guilds, could you imagine the uproar if people did :P

Oh please they're loads of homophobes playing WoW who wouldn't think
twice about having a straight only guild and laying into anyone in game
they knew was gay.

Lehi

2006-02-01 18:28:27 UTC

Oh please they're loads of homophobes playing WoW who wouldn't think
twice about having a straight only guild and laying into anyone in game
they knew was gay.

Homophobe. A misnomer that has become the PC way to refer to somebody
who doesn't like homosexuals. Very few will admit to actually being
afraid of homosexuals, as I'm sure is the case - they aren't afraid of
homosexuals.

On the other hand I don't see many messages of, "LFG Baron Strat,
straight only."

Bronzebeard PVE:
Lehi - 60 Human Paladin
Bathsheba - 60 Human Rogue
Avocat - 57 Gnome Warlock

Frostmane PVP:
Laban - 60 Troll Rogue

JFlexer

2006-02-03 20:44:41 UTC

Post by Lehi

Oh please they're loads of homophobes playing WoW who wouldn't think
twice about having a straight only guild and laying into anyone in game
they knew was gay.

On Khaz'goroth there's ton's of language in public chat that is defamatory -
I can't count the number of times some numb-skull is hollering "fag this" or
"gay that" in general channel. I often confront them and after a few
minutes, they back down.

The funny part, I typically get a handful of tells from gay folk supporting
me.

Blizzard has opened a can of worms with this... we won't hear the last of
it...

-Gnostic
Khaz'goroth

ScratchMonkey

2006-02-03 22:34:35 UTC

Post by JFlexer
The funny part, I typically get a handful of tells from gay folk
supporting me.

Commendable.

Note that gay/straight is a spectrum, not either/or. And there are other
dimensions to the space, as well. Those tells are probably coming from
throughout the space.

JFlexer

2006-02-03 22:42:40 UTC

Post by JFlexer
The funny part, I typically get a handful of tells from gay folk
supporting me.

Commendable.
Note that gay/straight is a spectrum, not either/or. And there are other
dimensions to the space, as well. Those tells are probably coming from
throughout the space.

some, but most are self-identified...

(btw - sorry about getting carried away with the apostrophes there...
sometimes my little finger has its own opinion about grammar and
spelling...)

-Gnostic
Khaz'goroth

Adam Corolla

2006-02-20 22:48:01 UTC

Post by Lehi

Oh please they're loads of homophobes playing WoW who wouldn't think
twice about having a straight only guild and laying into anyone in game
they knew was gay.

It's not really a misnomer. They may not admit it, but homosexuality scares
them. Most bigotry is based on ignorance that gives rise to fear of the
unknown. They rationalize their bigotry, can come up with all sorts of
reasons for it, but it pretty much all comes down to fear.

Adam Corolla

2006-02-20 23:05:03 UTC

Post by Adam Corolla

Post by Lehi

Oh please they're loads of homophobes playing WoW who wouldn't think
twice about having a straight only guild and laying into anyone in game
they knew was gay.

It's not really a misnomer. They may not admit it, but homosexuality
scares them. Most bigotry is based on ignorance that gives rise to fear
of the unknown. They rationalize their bigotry, can come up with all
sorts of reasons for it, but it pretty much all comes down to fear.

P.S., allow me to clarify my statement. It is one thing to dislike
*homosexuality* or believe it is wrong for whatever reason. That's not what
I am referring to when I address the term 'homophobe'. I'm referring to
people who dislike *people who are homosexual*, for no reason other than
that they are homosexual. That's bigotry, and that's homophobic.

Imgame

2006-02-01 15:22:54 UTC

Post by nvrsbr
Sucks to be them....
There is NO reason to bring your RL preferences into WoW. Most people
could care less what you are into in RL. You dont see people making
Straight only Guilds, could you imagine the uproar if people did :P
Go get em Blizzard !!

What you mean the Thorium Brotherhood.. is not actually BROTHERS? Oh hell
guess I better start working on that faction then!

nvrsbr

2006-02-01 15:28:43 UTC

Post by BombayMix
Oh please they're loads of homophobes playing WoW who wouldn't think
twice about having a straight only guild and laying into anyone in game
they knew was gay.

I am sure there are homophobes playing WoW, but we play WoW
to get away from RL so why bring RL into it ?
Honestly this topic just needs to die so we can all get back to playing
WoW
and make friends "in game" that you most likely wouldnt be friends with
in RL.
There are probally Homophobes in WoW that have made friends in game and
dont even relaize that
person could be Gay.
WHO CARES ANYWAY.......

JohnR

2006-02-04 09:29:34 UTC

Post by nvrsbr

Post by BombayMix
Oh please they're loads of homophobes playing WoW who wouldn't think
twice about having a straight only guild and laying into anyone in game
they knew was gay.

That is what I interpret Blizzards response as. What they seem to be saying
is STOP labelling yourselves and play the damned game ffs.

ScratchMonkey

2006-02-04 21:59:23 UTC

Post by JohnR
That is what I interpret Blizzards response as. What they seem to be
saying is STOP labelling yourselves and play the damned game ffs.

That would be fine if the game required intense concentration all the time.
But the big draw of this game is its social nature. Social interaction is a
big part of what WoW is about. Esp. on RP servers.

JohnR

2006-02-08 10:25:00 UTC

Post by JohnR
That is what I interpret Blizzards response as. What they seem to be
saying is STOP labelling yourselves and play the damned game ffs.

You tell me how sexuality has anything whatsoever to do with the in-game
interaction. I'd suggest you get out more.

John Gordon

2006-02-08 18:51:13 UTC

Post by JohnR
You tell me how sexuality has anything whatsoever to do with the in-game
interaction.

Sexuality is a part of life, and as such is likely to come up in
in-game conversations. The same with sports, weather, politics, etc.

It would be nice to be able to participate in these conversations,
without fear of offense/retribution/abuse.

--
John Gordon "It's certainly uncontaminated by cheese."
***@panix.com

nvrsbr

2006-02-08 20:14:28 UTC

/sigh

Is this crap still going around ?

No one cares if you are Gay or not.... again there is NO need to talk
about in WoW.

Taras Bulba

2006-02-06 02:50:30 UTC

Post by nvrsbr
Sucks to be them....

It surely does suck to be gay in some ways. As it does to be in almost
any minority group.

Post by nvrsbr
There is NO reason to bring your RL preferences into WoW.

Everyone brings their real life preferences into WoW. Even you. Your
real life preference is to not have real life preferences in WoW. But
is there any more merit in your preferences than anyone elses?

Also, it seems more than a little optimistic to expect people to shed
their personalities before entering the game.

Post by nvrsbr
Most people could care less what you are into in RL.

How exactly do you know that?

Post by nvrsbr
You dont see people making Straight only Guilds, could you imagine the uproar if
people did :P

Is there a suggestion that someone was making a gays-only guild?

Why shouldn't someone be able to join a guild where they know that
homophobic chitchat and behaviour is not tolerated?

Is that unreasonable?

Post by nvrsbr
Go get em Blizzard !!

Who exactly is 'em', and how should they be got?

TB

Nabuu

2006-02-06 04:03:27 UTC

Post by nvrsbr
Most people could care less what you are into in RL.

How exactly do you know that?

I'd guess the opposite -- most peopld *DO* care what you are into in RL,
particularly if they think that what you're into is unusual.

Experiment: Tell everyone you meet that you're into <insert unusual
behaviour here> and see how many don't react in some way.

Post by nvrsbr
Go get em Blizzard !!

Who exactly is 'em', and how should they be got?

While I think Blizz is over-reacting (or perhaps it's the press that
is), I appreciate that online advertising for gay-friendly guilds is as
discouraged as online advertising for christian-friendly,
straight-friendly, abortion-friendly or whatever else-friendly is.

If it were me, I'd tell people to say whatever they want in chat, it's
just chat!, and everyone else should get over it (in a chat system that
has /ignore, there is no such thing as harassment, IMO.) However, given
that Blizz wants to play Big Protector, I think it's a fine policy that
you have to advertise your guild-politics (sexual, religious or
governmental) outside the game's chat channel.

It's not like they banned the guild, or anything, for cripe's sake!

--
Nabuu, Tauren druid on Dethecus.
Also (rarely):
Chum, Gnome warlock, Bronzebeard
Tost, Dwarven rogue, Bronzebeard
Meadow, Night elf priest, Bronzebeard
Harmany, Undead mage, Dethecus
<http://www.ManyFriends.com/WoW/PhotoAlbum/>
Aka "Misc" -- If you don't remove your pants, I won't get your email.

Taras Bulba

2006-02-06 05:24:23 UTC

Post by nvrsbr
Most people could care less what you are into in RL.

How exactly do you know that?

I'd guess the opposite -- most peopld *DO* care what you are into in RL,
particularly if they think that what you're into is unusual.

That would be my guess as well.

Post by Nabuu
Experiment: Tell everyone you meet that you're into <insert unusual
behaviour here> and see how many don't react in some way.

Post by nvrsbr
Go get em Blizzard !!

Who exactly is 'em', and how should they be got?

While I think Blizz is over-reacting (or perhaps it's the press that
is),

I think it is something that Blizzard just wants to go away with as
little fuss as possible, and their reaction was both hasty and poorly
thought out. And yes the press is surely looking to beat this up.

Post by Nabuu
I appreciate that online advertising for gay-friendly guilds is as
discouraged as online advertising for christian-friendly,
straight-friendly, abortion-friendly or whatever else-friendly is.

But why shouldn't you be able to advertise for people that have common
interests?

It is already done by advertising for certain classes, or people that
can play a certain amount of hours. No-one wants idiots in their guild
either. Simply advertising in English is an exclusion process.

Where exactly do you draw the line?

Christian guilds should not be allowed? Family type guilds that do not
allow profanities should not be allowed?

Post by Nabuu
If it were me, I'd tell people to say whatever they want in chat, it's
just chat!, and everyone else should get over it (in a chat system that
has /ignore, there is no such thing as harassment, IMO.)

If there were no harassment, you wouldn't need an ignore button. And
you can be harassed in any of the channels, and by alts, and by friends
of the harasser.

Post by Nabuu
However, given
that Blizz wants to play Big Protector, I think it's a fine policy that
you have to advertise your guild-politics (sexual, religious or
governmental) outside the game's chat channel.

Isn't it a restriction of free speech if people aren't allowed to
announce their sexuality, or religion, or race, or age, or any other
personal information?

Post by Nabuu
It's not like they banned the guild, or anything, for cripe's sake!

That would have taken a brave decision by Blizzard.

I wonder what might happen if she continues to advertise for guild
members in the same manner, and ignores Blizzard's wishes in order to
force a decision from them. With 5.5 million accounts I would expect
someone, maybe someone not even really interested in WoW, to use the
game as a forum for their personal politics.

And sooner, rather than later.

TB

Adam Russell

2006-02-06 06:28:08 UTC

Post by nvrsbr
Most people could care less what you are into in RL.

How exactly do you know that?

I'd guess the opposite -- most peopld *DO* care what you are into in RL,
particularly if they think that what you're into is unusual.

That would be my guess as well.

Post by Nabuu
Experiment: Tell everyone you meet that you're into <insert unusual
behaviour here> and see how many don't react in some way.

Post by nvrsbr
Go get em Blizzard !!

Who exactly is 'em', and how should they be got?

While I think Blizz is over-reacting (or perhaps it's the press that
is),

But why shouldn't you be able to advertise for people that have common
interests?
It is already done by advertising for certain classes, or people that
can play a certain amount of hours. No-one wants idiots in their guild
either. Simply advertising in English is an exclusion process.
Where exactly do you draw the line?

They drew the line at the point beyond which, in their judgement, there
would be more disruptive behavior than is worth it.

Nabuu

2006-02-06 16:04:05 UTC

But why shouldn't you be able to advertise for people that have common
interests?
It is already done by advertising for certain classes, or people that
can play a certain amount of hours. No-one wants idiots in their guild
either. Simply advertising in English is an exclusion process.
Where exactly do you draw the line?

It's a judgement call, and the line is drawn subjectively by the folks
in charge, as it should be, IMO.

Post by Taras Bulba
Christian guilds should not be allowed? Family type guilds that do not
allow profanities should not be allowed?

I did not say that. Blizzard did not say that. What we both said is
that they should not advertise as such *IN GAME*. As I'm reading this,
the policy is: Have all the gay/christian/swearing-only/families with
gay, swearing, children/whatever guilds you want; just don't put out
hot-button topics (religion, politics, sexual orientation, abortion,
etc.) over the general chat, including as part of your in-game guild
advertisements.

AFAICT, Blizz would have no problem, for example, if I wanted to
advertise a cow-fetishist guild here on AGW. (Don't give me any ideas!
;)

If there were no harassment, you wouldn't need an ignore button. And

But there is, so you do. :)

Post by Taras Bulba
you can be harassed in any of the channels, and by alts, and by friends
of the harasser.

That's why WoW's 50-limit ignore bucket isn't big enough. To work,
/ignore must be unlimited, and controlled by the listener.

Post by Nabuu
that Blizz wants to play Big Protector, I think it's a fine policy that
you have to advertise your guild-politics (sexual, religious or
governmental) outside the game's chat channel.

Isn't it a restriction of free speech if people aren't allowed to
announce their sexuality, or religion, or race, or age, or any other
personal information?

Nope. For several reasons, the first of which is that you don't have
any "right to free speech" in a private club, of which WoW is one.
Another is: you've NEVER had the constitutionally protected right to say
any damned thing you please, any time you please. Then there's the
nitty gritty stuff, like how the constitution may or may not apply in a
world market. The list goes on, but the short answer is "nope, this is
not a 'free speech' problem..."

Post by Nabuu
It's not like they banned the guild, or anything, for cripe's sake!

They've already announced the decision: she faces a potential ban (did
you read the article?!)

Post by Taras Bulba
With 5.5 million accounts I would expect
someone, maybe someone not even really interested in WoW, to use the
game as a forum for their personal politics.

Oh, you betcha! And when someone is bothered by it, they file a report,
and a GM investigates, and the person is put through the disciplinary
procedure (which typically -- though not always! -- starts with a
warning.)

---

Tangent: This strikes me as very labor intensive. If I were running
things, there'd be an unlimited ignore facility (as well as the ability
to put someone on /ignore with an N-day timeout) and, when someone said
"so & so is saying stuff that offends me", I'd instruct my GMs to
explain our wonderful /ignore system that would allow that player to
make a personal decision about whether or not they wanted to hear what
the other person had to say.

...But that's just me :)

Taras Bulba

2006-02-07 01:42:28 UTC

Post by Taras Bulba
Christian guilds should not be allowed? Family type guilds that do not
allow profanities should not be allowed?

I did not say that. Blizzard did not say that.

I didn't say you said that. I asked a question on whether it should be
allowed to happen.

Post by Nabuu
What we both said is that they should not advertise as such *IN GAME*.

Why not?

Is the result any different if you advertise either in-game or ex-game?
You are still going to end up with a Christian guild. Attempting to
sweep it under the carpet by removing it from chat isn't going to
prevent that.

Why shouldn't someone be allowed to promote their guild, ingame, by
saying something like;

"We are a guild comprising mostly Christians. We do not exclude anyone
on grounds of religion, but we do have a strong Christian theme to the
guild... come join us if you are like-minded"

I wonder why that is so scary.

Post by Nabuu
As I'm reading this,
the policy is: Have all the gay/christian/swearing-only/families with
gay, swearing, children/whatever guilds you want; just don't put out
hot-button topics (religion, politics, sexual orientation, abortion,
etc.) over the general chat, including as part of your in-game guild
advertisements.

I can see, possibly, why they would want to do that, but it remains to
be seen whether they have the power to do that. It might make a good
story for Bill O'Reilly;

"In the Impact Segment Tonight"

"Christians banned from online game"

Post by Nabuu
AFAICT, Blizz would have no problem, for example, if I wanted to
advertise a cow-fetishist guild here on AGW. (Don't give me any ideas!
;)

If there were no harassment, you wouldn't need an ignore button. And

But there is, so you do. :)

But didn't you say "...there is no such thing as harassment, IMO"

Post by Taras Bulba
you can be harassed in any of the channels, and by alts, and by friends
of the harasser.

That's why WoW's 50-limit ignore bucket isn't big enough. To work,
/ignore must be unlimited, and controlled by the listener.

Yes, but it treats the symptoms, it can't prevent the disease.

Post by Nabuu
that Blizz wants to play Big Protector, I think it's a fine policy that
you have to advertise your guild-politics (sexual, religious or
governmental) outside the game's chat channel.

Isn't it a restriction of free speech if people aren't allowed to
announce their sexuality, or religion, or race, or age, or any other
personal information?

I think this is one that will be sorted out by the courts, rather than
on Usenet.

Post by Nabuu
It's not like they banned the guild, or anything, for cripe's sake!

Well, that's people for you. They announce all sorts of things.

Post by Nabuu
she faces a potential ban

I know. But a potential ban is just that.. potential, not actual. It
could be a hollow threat, couldn't it?

Post by Nabuu
(did you read the article?!)

Is there some reason you think I didn't?

Post by Taras Bulba
With 5.5 million accounts I would expect
someone, maybe someone not even really interested in WoW, to use the
game as a forum for their personal politics.

Some people have the idea that WoW is somehow insulated from the
politics of real-life. That it exists in a cocoon, removed from the
slings and arrows that pervade our everyday life. But is there any good
reason why virtual life in WoW shouldn't be subject to the same basic
laws that we abide by in any other part of our life.

Some thing that you might like to think about;

WoW *is* real-life.

Everything is politics.

TB

Nabuu

2006-02-07 03:26:50 UTC

I can see, possibly, why they would want to do that, but it remains to
be seen whether they have the power to do that. It might make a good
story for Bill O'Reilly;
"In the Impact Segment Tonight"
"Christians banned from online game"

Hey, *I'D* sign up for a game that did that! ;)

(As you say, later -- it's ALL politics.. <G>)

If there were no harassment, you wouldn't need an ignore button. And

But there is, so you do. :)

But didn't you say "...there is no such thing as harassment, IMO"

Close! I said (YOU QUOTED -- TWICE!!!) "IN A CHAT SYSTEM THAT HAS
/IGNORE, there's no such thing has harassment" (emphasis added.)

Post by Nabuu
That's why WoW's 50-limit ignore bucket isn't big enough. To work,
/ignore must be unlimited, and controlled by the listener.

Yes, but it treats the symptoms, it can't prevent the disease.

What disease?! If I can't hear people blathering on about their
Christian values and how they "welcome everyone", I can't very well be
harassed by it, can I?

Post by Nabuu
Nope. For several reasons, the first of which is that you don't have
any "right to free speech" in a private club, of which WoW is one.
Another is: you've NEVER had the constitutionally protected right to say
any damned thing you please, any time you please. Then there's the
nitty gritty stuff, like how the constitution may or may not apply in a
world market. The list goes on, but the short answer is "nope, this is
not a 'free speech' problem..."

I think this is one that will be sorted out by the courts, rather than
on Usenet.

I highly doubt that. Blizz owns the servers. It's a private club.
They have terms of service. They decide the terms, you decide if you're
interested in paying to belong to the club.

Post by Nabuu
she faces a potential ban

I know. But a potential ban is just that.. potential, not actual. It
could be a hollow threat, couldn't it?

That'd be poor management. As far as we've seen, Blizz has been pretty
good on following through with their disciplinary actions...

Post by Nabuu
(did you read the article?!)

Is there some reason you think I didn't?

Yes. The questions you ask and thoughts evident from your posts. Hey,
I was just asking (and you STILL haven't answered!)

Post by Taras Bulba
Some people have the idea that WoW is somehow insulated from the
politics of real-life. That it exists in a cocoon, removed from the
slings and arrows that pervade our everyday life. But is there any good
reason why virtual life in WoW shouldn't be subject to the same basic
laws that we abide by in any other part of our life.

Only the terms of service agreement.

Here's something to think about: is there any reason to believe that
virtual life in WoW *SHOULD* be subject to the same basic laws that we
abide by in any other part of our life?!

Bonus points: How many people are you encouraged to kill in a given day?
How many virtual spouses should I be allowed to have?

Post by Taras Bulba
Some thing that you might like to think about;
WoW *is* real-life.

Uh... that's just silly. WoW is a game, played in a private club.

Post by Taras Bulba
Everything is politics.

Well, yeah... <G>

Taras Bulba

2006-02-07 05:47:40 UTC

I think this is one that will be sorted out by the courts, rather than
on Usenet.

I highly doubt that. Blizz owns the servers. It's a private club.
They have terms of service. They decide the terms, you decide if you're
interested in paying to belong to the club.

They can't decide on *any* terms they wish though, can they?

What happens if some of the terms are illegal... or unconstitutional?

Who would decide if they were either, or both? Blizzard?

Post by Nabuu
she faces a potential ban

I know. But a potential ban is just that.. potential, not actual. It
could be a hollow threat, couldn't it?

That'd be poor management.

I'll take that as a yes.

Post by Nabuu
As far as we've seen, Blizz has been pretty
good on following through with their disciplinary actions...

Have they discplined others for this sort of 'offence'?

Post by Nabuu
(did you read the article?!)

Is there some reason you think I didn't?

Yes. The questions you ask and thoughts evident from your posts. Hey,
I was just asking (and you STILL haven't answered!)

Yes.

So that natural justice is observed.

Post by Nabuu
Bonus points: How many people are you encouraged to kill in a given day?

How is that relevant?

Post by Nabuu
How many virtual spouses should I be allowed to have?

As many as the law allows.

Post by Taras Bulba
Some thing that you might like to think about;
WoW *is* real-life.

Uh... that's just silly.

How so?

Post by Nabuu
WoW is a game, played in a private club.

So what? Aren't games part of real life?

In what way do you see games as not being part of real life?

Post by Taras Bulba
Everything is politics.

Well, yeah... <G>

Adam Russell

2006-02-07 06:24:18 UTC

I think this is one that will be sorted out by the courts, rather than
on Usenet.

I highly doubt that. Blizz owns the servers. It's a private club.
They have terms of service. They decide the terms, you decide if you're
interested in paying to belong to the club.

They can't decide on *any* terms they wish though, can they?
What happens if some of the terms are illegal... or unconstitutional?

The constitution has *no* say in what a club may do. It only deals in what
the government may do. Of course clubs may not break the laws passed by
congress et al, but they havent. That said, it seems as if blizzard may be
having a change of heart. Stay tuned.

Adam Russell

2006-02-07 05:35:57 UTC

Post by Taras Bulba
Christian guilds should not be allowed? Family type guilds that do not
allow profanities should not be allowed?

I did not say that. Blizzard did not say that.

I didn't say you said that. I asked a question on whether it should be
allowed to happen.

Post by Nabuu
What we both said is that they should not advertise as such *IN GAME*.

Why not?
Is the result any different if you advertise either in-game or ex-game?

Yes. In game results are 100 harassment complaint for customer service to
deal with. Who needs it?

Taras Bulba

2006-02-07 05:51:50 UTC

Post by Taras Bulba
Is the result any different if you advertise either in-game or ex-game?

Yes. In game results are 100 harassment complaint for customer service to
deal with. Who needs it?

Thats interesting.

If someone broadcast a few times, or even once;

"New guild with Christian values now recruiting, anyone at all welcome"

Would you feel harassed?

TB

Adam Russell

2006-02-07 06:28:43 UTC

Post by Taras Bulba
Is the result any different if you advertise either in-game or ex-game?

Yes. In game results are 100 harassment complaint for customer service to
deal with. Who needs it?

Thats interesting.
If someone broadcast a few times, or even once;
"New guild with Christian values now recruiting, anyone at all welcome"
Would you feel harassed?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? The point is that the guild would
obviously get alot of harassment as a result of their advertising, they
would complain, and customer service would have to deal with it. Regardless
of who is doing the harassment, it is not worth dealing with.

Nabuu

2006-02-11 04:03:04 UTC

Post by Taras Bulba
Is the result any different if you advertise either in-game or ex-game?

Yes. In game results are 100 harassment complaint for customer service to
deal with. Who needs it?

Thats interesting.
If someone broadcast a few times, or even once;
"New guild with Christian values now recruiting, anyone at all welcome"
Would you feel harassed?

Yes.

Well, no -- but only because I have the /ignore flag (see my previous on
harrassment.) But, to the extent that I understand your question to
really be "...would you feel every bit as harassed as if they recruited
for some other set of values with which you disagree?", then answer is
yes.

Marshall

2006-02-06 21:50:58 UTC

But why shouldn't you be able to advertise for people that have common
interests?
It is already done by advertising for certain classes, or people that
can play a certain amount of hours. No-one wants idiots in their guild
either. Simply advertising in English is an exclusion process.
Where exactly do you draw the line?

Right where Blizzard drew it. Good job, Blizzard. Advertising for
specific ingame classes who wish to play together, or for people
who can play together during specific hours, or any other specifi-
cation directly related to the gameworld or the timeframes of those
who wish to play together in it (for two good examples), actually
have something to do with the game and the mechanics of how it
can be played. Sexual preferences do not.

Post by Taras Bulba
Christian guilds should not be allowed? Family type guilds that do not
allow profanities should not be allowed?

I'd put religious-affiliated guilds in the same boat with gay-friendly
guilds or nazi-friendly guilds, when it comes to advertising in public
chat- keep sex, religion and politics out of public guild advertising,
please. Family-friendly, I'd have no problem with, as long as they
didn't get out of line by saying 'no gays, no cat-lovers, no libertarians,
no Hindus', etc.

If there were no harassment, you wouldn't need an ignore button. And
you can be harassed in any of the channels, and by alts, and by friends
of the harasser.

If I was, for an off-the-wall example, a transvestite*... I would have
the good sense to keep it to myself, instead of inviting harrassment
by spamming advertisements to that effect all over the realm. And
I'm sure most of my fellow gamers would appreciate that. My
choice of bloomers is my personal business, and not something I'd
want anybody else on a realm knowing about. In a perfect world,
there'd be no harrassment of anyone for any reason- in the world of
WoW, there's the Ignore button, or reporting harrassers to the GM's.
The game is not a place for guilds to make huge donnybrooks out
of real-life hot-button issues. Thankfully, Blizzard is taking steps to
prevent that.

Isn't it a restriction of free speech if people aren't allowed to
announce their sexuality, or religion, or race, or age, or any other
personal information?

::shrug:: For now, Blizzard makes the rules regarding what is inflam-
atory or otherwise unacceptable to say in public WoW chat, as per the
TOU we all agreed to. I personally agree with their decision. If some-
body doesn't, there's always the court system.

Post by Nabuu
It's not like they banned the guild, or anything, for cripe's sake!

That would have taken a brave decision by Blizzard.

Not brave, stupid :-) It was the guild master who was admonished
to stop sexually-biased advertising. Unless everyone else in the guild
was also doing it and refused to stop, or it had a patently inflammatory
guild name, they would have no reason to ban the guild.

Post by Taras Bulba
I wonder what might happen if she continues to advertise for guild
members in the same manner, and ignores Blizzard's wishes in order to
force a decision from them. With 5.5 million accounts I would expect
someone, maybe someone not even really interested in WoW, to use the
game as a forum for their personal politics.
And sooner, rather than later.

Yes. I'm sure it will get interesting, eventually. Too bad. That crap should
all be kept out of the gameworld, IMO.
-Marshall

* Hanes mens briefs, FTW!

Taras Bulba

2006-02-07 01:57:41 UTC

Post by Taras Bulba
Where exactly do you draw the line?

If I was, for an off-the-wall example, a transvestite*...

I always find the examples people choose... interesting.

Post by Marshall
I would have the good sense to keep it to myself, instead of inviting harrassment
by spamming advertisements to that effect all over the realm.

Why would that be good sense?

And why blame the victim for the actions of the perpetrators?

Shouldn't the offensive action be punished?

Post by Taras Bulba
Isn't it a restriction of free speech if people aren't allowed to
announce their sexuality, or religion, or race, or age, or any other
personal information?

That's right. There is.

Post by Nabuu
It's not like they banned the guild, or anything, for cripe's sake!

That would have taken a brave decision by Blizzard.

Not brave, stupid :-)

These things are not mutually exclusive. And I agree, it would have
been stupid.

Post by Taras Bulba
And sooner, rather than later.

Yes. I'm sure it will get interesting, eventually. Too bad. That crap should
all be kept out of the gameworld, IMO.

I agree.

And the Arabs should get along with the Jews, and no-one in the world
should go hungry, and there should be cures for all known diseases.

TB

Rastus

2006-02-01 14:51:13 UTC

Your subject totally misrepresents the article.

They don't give a shit about "glbt" guilds - they just don't want them
recruiting to such guilds <<ingame>>. That means they don't care if you play
wow with 4 cocks in your mouth and half a dozen strapon weilding midgets
pounding your arse with vibrators, they just don't don't want you standing
in ironforge spamming the fact.

Just like they don't care if your black, white, racist, short, fat, skinny,
drunk, drugged, republican or enjoy driving nails through your scrotum, as
long as you don't start shouting your respective propaganda accross the
zone.

Hornet

2006-02-01 14:54:41 UTC

Post by Rastus
Your subject totally misrepresents the article.
They don't give a shit about "glbt" guilds - they just don't want them
recruiting to such guilds <<ingame>>. That means they don't care if you play
wow with 4 cocks in your mouth and half a dozen strapon weilding midgets
pounding your arse with vibrators, they just don't don't want you standing
in ironforge spamming the fact.
Just like they don't care if your black, white, racist, short, fat, skinny,
drunk, drugged, republican or enjoy driving nails through your scrotum, as
long as you don't start shouting your respective propaganda accross the
zone.

ahahahhahaa!

lkng4chubs

2006-02-01 18:04:52 UTC

LMFAO! That is the funniest damn thing. But, it's true. Nice re-rant
Rastus. :D

Zyan

2006-02-01 23:54:48 UTC

Post by Rastus
Your subject totally misrepresents the article.

The subject title is from the article itself.

Post by Rastus
They don't give a shit about "glbt" guilds - they just don't want them
recruiting to such guilds <<ingame>>. That means they don't care if you play
wow with 4 cocks in your mouth and half a dozen strapon weilding midgets
pounding your arse with vibrators, they just don't don't want you standing
in ironforge spamming the fact.
Just like they don't care if your black, white, racist, short, fat, skinny,
drunk, drugged, republican or enjoy driving nails through your scrotum, as
long as you don't start shouting your respective propaganda accross the
zone.

Jack D

2006-02-02 09:38:42 UTC

ROFL! Got visual there...

Post by Rastus
Just like they don't care if your black, white, racist, short, fat, skinny,
drunk, drugged, republican or enjoy driving nails through your scrotum, as
long as you don't start shouting your respective propaganda accross the
zone.

It's even less than that, from how I understood the article they wanna
prevent the abuse some people would wield towards the specific guild as
word got out they are a gblt-oriented guild. Better to be safe than
sorry...

--
Nerghal - Undead Warlock lvl 60 - Bloodscalp EU
Chasey - Undead Priest lvl 23 - Bloodscalp EU
Helmut - Tauren Shaman lvl 13 - Bloodscalp EU
Chasey - Human Mage lvl 15 - Xavian EU

Adam Russell

2006-02-02 18:11:19 UTC

Post by Jack D

ROFL! Got visual there...

From what I read they are perfectly ok with gay guilds. They just dont want
it advertised in general chat. Advertising a gay guild is *certain* to
bring out obnoxious behavior which is certain to bring up more trouble
tickets. In fact I would guess that the gay advertising is really nothing
more than a troll.

Nabuu

2006-02-04 16:11:20 UTC

In article

Well, sure -- but where are you going to find half a dozen midgets all
in the same place at the same time...?!

lkng4chubs

2006-02-01 18:06:21 UTC

Post by Zyan
http://news.com.com/Online+game+warns+gay-lesbian+guild/2100-1043_3-6033112.html?tag=nefd.top

I love how in the article it mentions blizzard's Policy "Their (terms of
service) statement was clearly crafted to protect the GLBT community,"

Interesting, then tell me why everyone seems to think it's ok for people
going around saying "That's gay."

Christian Stauffer

2006-02-02 08:35:28 UTC

Post by lkng4chubs
I love how in the article it mentions blizzard's Policy "Their (terms of
service) statement was clearly crafted to protect the GLBT community,"
Interesting, then tell me why everyone seems to think it's ok for people
going around saying "That's gay."

STFU u fag!

Yep I'm offended by that stuff too, and I'm not even a homosexual.
I think that's just the kind of idiocy you have to deal with when
playing an MMO game with a lot of teenies...

Chris

--
[WoW] Wildcard - Treehugging Tauren (60) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
Horace - Demonic Forsaken (33) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]
Lonewalker - Striding Tauren (24) on EN Sunstrider [PvP]

Nikolas Landauer

2006-02-03 20:32:50 UTC

Post by Christian Stauffer

Post by lkng4chubs
I love how in the article it mentions blizzard's Policy "Their
(terms of service) statement was clearly crafted to protect
the GLBT community,"
Interesting, then tell me why everyone seems to think it's
ok for people going around saying "That's gay."

STFU u fag!
Yep I'm offended by that stuff too, and I'm not even
a homosexual.

Same here, but that's part of the solution to this ridiculous behavior
by Blizzard.

The next time you see anyone say "That's gay", or "STFU u fag" or the
like, report it to a Blizzard GM, saying "Since you have made it clear
that any discussion regarding homosexuality is not permitted in World
of Warcraft, I ask that you reprimand this individual. Since you are
reprimanding Sara Andrews, this person must receive, at the very least,
a reprimand, as their use of this language is intended to be offensive
and hurtful."

Do it every time.

Everyone do it.

Blizzard will get tired of dealing with this eventually, and will
hopefully stop being idiots about how they choose to enforce their
policies in some cases, and not others. (I'm still annoyed that people
with completely reasonable names are asked to change them, while
"Paddleme" still hasn't been asked.)

--
Nik
Kirin Tor: Wraien, night elf hunter {Spirit of the Dragon}
Kirin Tor: Verzhanzi, undead mage {Poor Sages of Lordaeron}
Kirin Tor: Modesty, human rogue

ScratchMonkey

2006-02-03 22:29:25 UTC

Post by Nikolas Landauer
"Since you have made it clear
that any discussion regarding homosexuality is not permitted in World
of Warcraft, I ask that you reprimand this individual. Since you are
reprimanding Sara Andrews, this person must receive, at the very least,
a reprimand, as their use of this language is intended to be offensive
and hurtful."

Nice idea. Is there a way to cut and paste from the chat window to the
issue window? Or a log file that the chat gets dumped to? (It's IRC-like,
so there ought to be a log, client-side.)

ScratchMonkey

2006-02-04 09:14:31 UTC

The story made SlashDot:

http://games.slashdot.org/games/06/02/03/2135233.shtml

Player seeks clarification on Blizzard's policy:

http://acidforblood.net/2006/02/03/
player-seeks-clarification-on-blizzards-harassment-policies/#more-179

bryan

2006-02-09 17:47:06 UTC

Post by Nikolas Landauer

Post by Christian Stauffer

Post by lkng4chubs
I love how in the article it mentions blizzard's Policy "Their
(terms of service) statement was clearly crafted to protect
the GLBT community,"
Interesting, then tell me why everyone seems to think it's
ok for people going around saying "That's gay."

STFU u fag!
Yep I'm offended by that stuff too, and I'm not even
a homosexual.

Same here, but that's part of the solution to this ridiculous behavior
by Blizzard.
The next time you see anyone say "That's gay", or "STFU u fag" or the
like, report it to a Blizzard GM, saying "Since you have made it clear
that any discussion regarding homosexuality is not permitted in World
of Warcraft, I ask that you reprimand this individual. Since you are
reprimanding Sara Andrews, this person must receive, at the very least,
a reprimand, as their use of this language is intended to be offensive
and hurtful."
Do it every time.
Everyone do it.
Blizzard will get tired of dealing with this eventually, and will
hopefully stop being idiots about how they choose to enforce their
policies in some cases, and not others. (I'm still annoyed that people
with completely reasonable names are asked to change them, while
"Paddleme" still hasn't been asked.)

there's players on nordrassil called "gluesniffa" and "borntoporn"...

Nabuu

2006-02-11 04:01:07 UTC

Post by Nikolas Landauer
The next time you see anyone say "That's gay", or "STFU u fag" or the
like, report it to a Blizzard GM, saying "Since you have made it clear
that any discussion regarding homosexuality is not permitted in World
of Warcraft, I ask that you reprimand this individual. Since you are
reprimanding Sara Andrews, this person must receive, at the very least,
a reprimand, as their use of this language is intended to be offensive
and hurtful."
Do it every time.
Everyone do it.
Blizzard will get tired of dealing with this eventually, and will
hopefully stop being idiots about how they choose to enforce their
policies in some cases, and not others. (I'm still annoyed that people
with completely reasonable names are asked to change them, while
"Paddleme" still hasn't been asked.)

I think you are mistaken.

I believe that, when we file reports like you suggest (I leave out the
editorializing, and just stick to the facts), the GM checks the logs,
and the player in question gets a reprimand.

I don't believe that they'll ever grow tired of it -- it's their policy.
Rather, I believe that YOU'LL grow tired of making GM reports (sad that
you can only have one ticket open at a time!) before they tire of
reprimanding players.

And, when you tire of it, you'll use /ignore. Then you can send
GM-tickets and suggestion-forum posts about how /ignore needs to be
unlimited, because that's about how many idiots there are ;)

ScratchMonkey

2006-02-11 19:51:05 UTC

Post by Nabuu
And, when you tire of it, you'll use /ignore. Then you can send
GM-tickets and suggestion-forum posts about how /ignore needs to be
unlimited, because that's about how many idiots there are ;)

Yeah, extending the ignore list should be near the top of their issue list.
Why it's not I can't imagine. After all, my Usenet software has an
unlimited plonk capacity.

Adam Russell

2006-02-11 21:51:49 UTC

When you get tired of /ignore there is /leave general. It works wonders,
and you dont need /general to enjoy the game.

Nabuu

2006-02-12 00:04:15 UTC

When you get tired of /ignore there is /leave general. It works wonders,
and you dont need /general to enjoy the game.

I use that one often. What I want is /leave yell :( Heck, while in
Orgimmar, I'd be happy with /deaf that only allowed me to communicate
with sign-language enabled NPCs <G>

Adam Russell

2006-02-12 06:51:59 UTC

When you get tired of /ignore there is /leave general. It works wonders,
and you dont need /general to enjoy the game.

I use that one often. What I want is /leave yell :( Heck, while in
Orgimmar, I'd be happy with /deaf that only allowed me to communicate
with sign-language enabled NPCs <G>

You can leave yell. Right click the chat window tab, choose channels, then
click off yell.

Nabuu

2006-02-12 07:06:16 UTC

Post by Nabuu
I use that one often. What I want is /leave yell :( Heck, while in
Orgimmar, I'd be happy with /deaf that only allowed me to communicate
with sign-language enabled NPCs <G>

You can leave yell. Right click the chat window tab, choose channels, then
click off yell.

I thank you. My mother thanks you. My children thank you. All of my
brothers and sisters thank you. My dog thanks you. You are forever
thanked! :)

Jack D

2006-02-02 09:41:22 UTC

Post by lkng4chubs
I love how in the article it mentions blizzard's Policy "Their (terms
of service) statement was clearly crafted to protect the GLBT
community,"
Interesting, then tell me why everyone seems to think it's ok for
people going around saying "That's gay."

You just made Blizzard's point there. The fact it has become 'accepted'
to say stuff like that, will lower the threshold to start hurling
similar terms towards members of a guild that has propagandized
themselves to be glbt-oriented.

--
Nerghal - Undead Warlock lvl 60 - Bloodscalp EU
Chasey - Undead Priest lvl 23 - Bloodscalp EU
Helmut - Tauren Shaman lvl 13 - Bloodscalp EU
Chasey - Human Mage lvl 15 - Xavian EU

Adam Russell

2006-02-01 18:44:30 UTC

Post by Zyan
http://news.com.com/Online+game+warns+gay-lesbian+guild/2100-1043_3-6033112.html?tag=nefd.top

I think they dont want people advertising "gay friendly" guilds because then
they would have to allow advertising of "gay unfriendly" guilds, and
"straight friendly" guilds. Then maybe they have to allow advertising of
guilds that are "friends of the white race", and "young republicans". Lets
just keep real world politics out of game.

Eric

2006-02-01 19:14:36 UTC

Post by Zyan
http://news.com.com/Online+game+warns+gay-lesbian+guild/2100-1043_3-60
33112.html?tag=nefd.top

I think they dont want people advertising "gay friendly" guilds
because then they would have to allow advertising of "gay unfriendly"
guilds, and "straight friendly" guilds. Then maybe they have to allow
advertising of guilds that are "friends of the white race", and "young
republicans". Lets just keep real world politics out of game.

I've never really understood the need to announce your sexual orientation
anywhere where it's not relevant. I don't need to know what movie stars,
musicians, politicians, coworkers, or my fellow WoW players do in the
bedroom, and I'd rather keep it that way.

Now if I'm at a singles dance, it's a different story.

Nan Wang

2006-02-01 19:51:57 UTC

Post by Zyan
http://news.com.com/Online+game+warns+gay-lesbian+guild/2100-1043_3-6033112.html?tag=nefd.top

Is there anything those people don't complain about? Maybe Barbara Streisand?

i***@yahoo.com

2006-02-01 20:29:12 UTC

You seem like a fellow that might appreciate the special brand of humor
at asciiartfarts.com.

nvrsbr

2006-02-01 20:32:04 UTC

They are just attention whores...

*****Hey Hey Hey over HERE Look at me.... lok look look .... I AM GAY
!!!!!!! Look Look hey hey !!!!*****

Seriously no one needs to know if you like Sausage or if you like
Tacos...... just keep it to yourself.

drmikepierce

2006-02-04 12:43:45 UTC

Post by Nan Wang
Is there anything those people don't complain about? Maybe Barbara Streisand?

I have a question. Many have written in "I don't care what your
sexual preference is, keep it to yourself."

I agree sexuality is a private matter. So why should we care if
there's a gay guild?

I think gays will be much more likely to be private about their
sexuality when they are guaranteed the same rights that the rest of us
enjoy. Groups that feel they are discriminated against-be they
blacks, christians or anybody else-tend to seek like-minded folk with
which to associate.

And I think the term "homophobe" generally connotes the belief that
those who "just don't like gays" feel that way because of their own
fear and ignorance. Probably such bigotry has more to do with
ignorance than fear, but I don't think "homophobe" was supposed to
describe someone who wanders around terrified that someone of the same
sex might walk by and start flirting. Gays are afraid to do
that...remember Matthew Sheppard?

JohnR

2006-02-04 16:07:52 UTC

Post by Nan Wang
Is there anything those people don't complain about? Maybe Barbara Streisand?

There are no straight only guilds that advertise the fact, most don't care.
It just seems to me that the faggy thing is to flounce around and try to
make a scene. Personally I play the game for what it is and don't care *or*
want to know the persuasions of those others I play the game with. All I
care about is that they are courteous and something like competent.

drmikepierce

2006-02-05 13:42:50 UTC

"The faggy thing is to flounce around?"

Oh, I see. No bias against gays here. No reason for gays to feel
potentially intimidated or harassed when they're around people like
you. And I can't possibly understand why some gays-and others, for
that matter-might want to get away from people like you.

Post by Nan Wang

Post by Nan Wang
Is there anything those people don't complain about? Maybe Barbara

Streisand?

Post by drmikepierce
I have a question. Many have written in "I don't care what your
sexual preference is, keep it to yourself."
I agree sexuality is a private matter. So why should we care if
there's a gay guild?
I think gays will be much more likely to be private about their
sexuality when they are guaranteed the same rights that the rest of us
enjoy.

Nabuu

2006-02-05 16:34:28 UTC

"The faggy thing is to flounce around"?
Oh, I see. No bias against gays here.

It's funny, isn't it, how folks would notice the flamboyantly gay but
not the quietly gay, and then come to the conclusion that all gays are
flamboyant. It's a little like the way one notices the loud & obnoxious
Texan or New Yorker, but not the quiet & polite ones, then those places
develop a reputation, which is reinforced by visitors who, upon seeing
the stereotype and not observing any non-stereotypes, confirm "it's
true!"

I feel the same way about the Alliance... ;)

Danger-X

2006-02-04 21:51:36 UTC

Post by Nan Wang
Is there anything those people don't complain about? Maybe Barbara Streisand?

I have a question. Many have written in "I don't care what your
sexual preference is, keep it to yourself."

These people should also object then to people mentioning little facts about
themselves like being married. Because in doing so, they are definitely not
keeping their sexual preference to themselves the way they expect gays too.
It's not so much that "homophobia" is the problem (there is a problem, but
it's rather small, or at least I haven't noticed it much on WoW servers),
but rather an overall attitude of "heterosexism".

Post by drmikepierce
I agree sexuality is a private matter. So why should we care if
there's a gay guild?

It's such a big factor in everyone's personality that's it hardly something
that can be kept private. If a married person can casually remark "I gotta
stop playing, my old lady needs to use the computer", then a gay person
should be allowed the same. In other words... Just being yourself is a
freedom that everyone should have.

Hard (nearly impossible for some) for us when we're not part of a "minority"
to understand the level of fear gays might have of accidentally revealing
themselves. We're so open with who we are, we consistently make the mistake
that we're somehow being "private" about our sexual orientation, that we
cannot understand the effort it takes to remain hidden in the shadows. And
somehow we accuse them of "flaunting" for daring to want the same
"open-ness" we take for granted.

Try it for a week or three. Never ever mention you're married, or have a
girlfriend... take off your engagement ring, as that'll be flaunting it too.
If a friend comes over, make sure to remove any pictures of your
girlfriend/boyfriend, husband or wife. If you're in a college dorm, make
sure all the posters you have of scantily clad girls come off the walls...
Be sure NOT to mention at all that you went to a nudie bar the night before,
as that's giving away your sexual preference. Because as we now sexuality
is private.

Cheers!
DX

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Adam Russell

2006-02-04 22:25:34 UTC

Post by Danger-X

Post by Nan Wang
Is there anything those people don't complain about? Maybe Barbara Streisand?

I have a question. Many have written in "I don't care what your
sexual preference is, keep it to yourself."

These people should also object then to people mentioning little facts
about themselves like being married. Because in doing so, they are
definitely not keeping their sexual preference to themselves the way they
expect gays too. It's not so much that "homophobia" is the problem (there
is a problem, but it's rather small, or at least I haven't noticed it much
on WoW servers), but rather an overall attitude of "heterosexism".

Post by drmikepierce
I agree sexuality is a private matter. So why should we care if
there's a gay guild?

There's a big difference between casually mentioning that fact and spamming
in general for as long as it takes to form a decent sized guild. The one is
allowed and the other isnt.

Danger-X

2006-02-04 22:50:26 UTC

Post by Danger-X

Post by Nan Wang
Is there anything those people don't complain about? Maybe Barbara Streisand?

I have a question. Many have written in "I don't care what your
sexual preference is, keep it to yourself."

These people should also object then to people mentioning little facts
about themselves like being married. Because in doing so, they are
definitely not keeping their sexual preference to themselves the way they
expect gays too. It's not so much that "homophobia" is the problem (there
is a problem, but it's rather small, or at least I haven't noticed it
much on WoW servers), but rather an overall attitude of "heterosexism".

Post by drmikepierce
I agree sexuality is a private matter. So why should we care if
there's a gay guild?

There's a big difference between casually mentioning that fact and
spamming in general for as long as it takes to form a decent sized guild.
The one is allowed and the other isnt.

The point I was making wasn't addressing the issue of spam, but of general
conversation. I don't care for spam either no matter what it is...

Dx

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Sarah Jaernecke

2006-02-22 12:47:24 UTC

Danger-X scrawled the following into the Great Almanac of

Post by Danger-X
Hard (nearly impossible for some) for us when we're not part of a
"minority" to understand the level of fear gays might have of
accidentally revealing themselves. We're so open with who we are, we
consistently make the mistake that we're somehow being "private"
about our sexual orientation, that we cannot understand the effort it
takes to remain hidden in the shadows. And somehow we accuse them of
"flaunting" for daring to want the same "open-ness" we take for granted.

Exactly, *very* well put. The double standard on this issue is huge. I'm
glad at least some people have the empathy to understand that.

As long as a significant part of the WoW playerbase is so utterly devoid
of maturity and manners and keeps flinging words like "fag" and "gay"
around as if they're going out of style, those of uf who *are* gay will
be relieved to find a group that explicitly states such behavior will
not be tolerated.

If Blizzard is so bloody concerned about "disruptive" behavior, I
suggest they start by tidying up the RP servers and removing all the
channel-spamming, idiot-speaking, all-caps using constant beggers, duel
freaks and other twits who have no intention of ever roleplaying and
insult those who do.

Yeah, what are the odds?

--
Sarah Jaernecke
Nightfire --==(UDIC)==--
Kookie Jar's quote of the day:
"Reality is the leading cause of stress, for those in touch with it."

Nabuu

2006-02-23 05:46:48 UTC

Post by Danger-X
Hard (nearly impossible for some) for us when we're not part of a "minority"
to understand the level of fear gays might have of accidentally revealing
themselves. We're so open with who we are, we consistently make the mistake
that we're somehow being "private" about our sexual orientation, that we
cannot understand the effort it takes to remain hidden in the shadows. And
somehow we accuse them of "flaunting" for daring to want the same
"open-ness" we take for granted.

Someone's never been to The Castro... ;)

Danger-X

2006-02-23 23:56:55 UTC

Post by Danger-X
Hard (nearly impossible for some) for us when we're not part of a "minority"
to understand the level of fear gays might have of accidentally revealing
themselves. We're so open with who we are, we consistently make the mistake
that we're somehow being "private" about our sexual orientation, that we
cannot understand the effort it takes to remain hidden in the shadows. And
somehow we accuse them of "flaunting" for daring to want the same
"open-ness" we take for granted.

Someone's never been to The Castro... ;)

Took me a moment to google that. Of course I haven't been to the Castro,
seeing as how I don't live in San Francisco, or even the United States for
that matter. If you wish to take the more extreme forms of self-expression
as somehow being representative of all gays, then go right ahead. I'd
suggest you look at it two ways... 1) Being bottled-up as it were, for
their entire lives, can you blame them once they come out for letting loose
a little? and 2) Variety is what makes life more interesting. If you're
going to be offended by them for flaunting, then to be fair, you should be
offended by other hetero examples of flaunting.

Personally, I'm all for a little bit of flaunting, as long as one realize
that people of all types and sexual preferences engage in it. As we can now
both hopefully agree on, one mischievous little wink and counter-example
does not a persuasive-counter-argument-make! :-)

Cheers!
Dx

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Danger-X

2006-02-24 00:30:48 UTC

Post by Danger-X

Post by Danger-X
Hard (nearly impossible for some) for us when we're not part of a "minority"
to understand the level of fear gays might have of accidentally revealing
themselves. We're so open with who we are, we consistently make the mistake
that we're somehow being "private" about our sexual orientation, that we
cannot understand the effort it takes to remain hidden in the shadows. And
somehow we accuse them of "flaunting" for daring to want the same
"open-ness" we take for granted.

Someone's never been to The Castro... ;)

Took me a moment to google that. Of course I haven't been to the Castro,
seeing as how I don't live in San Francisco, or even the United States for
that matter. If you wish to take the more extreme forms of
self-expression as somehow being representative of all gays, then go right
ahead. I'd suggest you look at it two ways... 1) Being bottled-up as it
were, for their entire lives, can you blame them once they come out for
letting loose a little? and 2) Variety is what makes life more
interesting. If you're going to be offended by them for flaunting, then to
be fair, you should be offended by other hetero examples of flaunting.
Personally, I'm all for a little bit of flaunting, as long as one realize
that people of all types and sexual preferences engage in it. As we can
now both hopefully agree on, one mischievous little wink and
counter-example does not a persuasive-counter-argument-make! :-)

On second thought, I realize I may have mis-read your post as being
argumentative instead of just foolin' with me. I apologize for that...
Having been on usenet for years now, I tend to be too much on the defensive.
:-)

Cheers!
Dx

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Nabuu

2006-02-24 06:04:11 UTC

Post by Danger-X
On second thought, I realize I may have mis-read your post as being
argumentative instead of just foolin' with me. I apologize for that...
Having been on usenet for years now, I tend to be too much on the defensive.

I was just having fun with the suggestion that appeared to accuse the
previous poster of over-stating what I call "flamboyant gays", which are
numerous in my area (between San Francisco and Santa Cruz :)

I also lived for a while in Wisconsin, and understand fully a
society/subculture that is much less tolerant than most folks around
here...

Nan Wang

2006-02-17 18:33:03 UTC

Post by Nan Wang
Is there anything those people don't complain about? Maybe Barbara Streisand?

I have a question. Many have written in "I don't care what your
sexual preference is, keep it to yourself."
I agree sexuality is a private matter. So why should we care if
there's a gay guild?

Because they made it a public matter. Whatever-her-name-is even hired a
lawyer.

Post by drmikepierce
I think gays will be much more likely to be private about their
sexuality when they are guaranteed the same rights that the rest of us
enjoy. Groups that feel they are discriminated against-be they
blacks, christians or anybody else-tend to seek like-minded folk with
which to associate.

Gays already have the same rights as everyone else.

Post by drmikepierce
And I think the term "homophobe" generally connotes the belief that
those who "just don't like gays" feel that way because of their own
fear and ignorance. Probably such bigotry has more to do with
ignorance than fear, but I don't think "homophobe" was supposed to
describe someone who wanders around terrified that someone of the same
sex might walk by and start flirting. Gays are afraid to do
that...remember Matthew Sheppard?

I don't like gays becaues they are loud and annoying (yes this is a
generalization), who think they deserve to be put on a pedestal just
because they are different, and anyone who do not agree with them are
unenlightened.

ScratchMonkey

2006-02-18 06:02:04 UTC

Post by Nan Wang
I don't like gays becaues they are loud and annoying (yes this is a
generalization), who think they deserve to be put on a pedestal just
because they are different, and anyone who do not agree with them are
unenlightened.

How many have you met? How many people you know are gay and you don't know
it? How many flamboyantly heterosexual people do you know?

Remember that the media is out to sell papers (and soap ads) and thrives on
controversy and shock, so it endeavors to show the worst of any group. Gun
owners are represented by redneck nutjobs and inner city gangstas.
Christians are represented by Pat Roberts and Jerry Falwell. Computer
programmers are represented by Bill Gates. Republicans are represented by
George W Bush. Uh, ok, that one is deserved. ;)

Nan Wang

2006-02-18 17:15:57 UTC

How many have you met? How many people you know are gay and you don't know
it? How many flamboyantly heterosexual people do you know?

I don't need to meet someone in this day and age to learn about their
opinion.

Post by ScratchMonkey
Remember that the media is out to sell papers (and soap ads) and thrives on
controversy and shock, so it endeavors to show the worst of any group. Gun
owners are represented by redneck nutjobs and inner city gangstas.
Christians are represented by Pat Roberts and Jerry Falwell. Computer
programmers are represented by Bill Gates. Republicans are represented by
George W Bush. Uh, ok, that one is deserved. ;)

I have not seen any instances of "normal" gays tell the annoying ones to
STFU.

Nabuu

2006-02-18 17:16:34 UTC

Ok, so maybe that one's deserved... ;)

Mark Rimer

2006-02-20 01:27:52 UTC

Post by ScratchMonkey
How many flamboyantly heterosexual people do you know?

I didn't really mean to get caught in this thread...but, um...huh?

Nabuu

2006-02-20 06:13:24 UTC

Post by Mark Rimer

Post by ScratchMonkey
How many flamboyantly heterosexual people do you know?

I didn't really mean to get caught in this thread...but, um...huh?

The [or "a"] previous poster was griping about his annoyance at
flamboyant gays. If I read it correctly, the point is: flamboyant hets
are just as annoying, it's just that there are fewer of them.

For me, I don't want to watch 2 men making out. I don't want to watch 2
women making out (although, given my choice...) I don't want to watch a
man and a woman making out. I don't have a mirror on the ceiling over
my bed. While I enjoy actually DOING it very much, the fact of the
matter is that WATCHING sexual activity is rarely pretty, even if "done
very artistically."

This is the basis of the whole "do whatever you want in the privacy of
your own home, I just don't want to hear about/see it" mentality, of
which I am a strong adherent.

ScratchMonkey

2006-02-21 09:32:43 UTC

Post by Nabuu
The [or "a"] previous poster was griping about his annoyance at
flamboyant gays. If I read it correctly, the point is: flamboyant hets
are just as annoying, it's just that there are fewer of them.

If you're already het, you don't tend to notice others who are flamboyant
about it. And if you're uncomfortable with gays, then you notice the
flamboyant ones more.

Discomfort over public displays of affection, like fear of spiders, is
something one learns at the knee of someone similarly afflicted. I've been
working to overcome both afflictions. As I achieve more success with that,
I get more irritated at those who handed that attitude to me and continue
to hold it.

Adam Russell

2006-02-21 17:38:52 UTC

If you're already het, you don't tend to notice others who are flamboyant
about it. And if you're uncomfortable with gays, then you notice the
flamboyant ones more.
Discomfort over public displays of affection, like fear of spiders, is
something one learns at the knee of someone similarly afflicted. I've been
working to overcome both afflictions. As I achieve more success with that,
I get more irritated at those who handed that attitude to me and continue
to hold it.

There are degrees of display that are clearly over the line. I'm sure most
people would agree that actual sexual intercourse is too much "public
display of affection". So where do we draw the line? People may honestly
disagree about where that line is drawn, and neither side would be wrong to
hold an opinion different from yours. Personally, I would say that the line
is drawn between a kiss and making out.

ScratchMonkey

2006-02-22 10:12:35 UTC

I'm sure most people would agree that actual sexual intercourse is too
much "public display of affection".

In repressive Judaeo-Christian-Islamic cultures, that's true. (And another
reason for the Middle East to hate the liberated west.) It would be
interesting to know where, historically and anthropologically, that
repression stems from.

neither side would be wrong to hold an opinion different from yours.

I don't have any problem with opinions. It's when those opinions get turned
into repressive laws that I have a problem. The pattern and color of
photons that leave you (say, lots of pink) shouldn't be cause for criminal
action.

Adam Russell

2006-02-22 18:27:17 UTC

I'm sure most people would agree that actual sexual intercourse is too
much "public display of affection".

In repressive Judaeo-Christian-Islamic cultures, that's true. (And another
reason for the Middle East to hate the liberated west.)

Are you implying that there are cultures where it is ok to have sex in a
public place? Could you give a relevant example? I maintain that it is a
social more common to all civilized cultures. With civilized defined as one
that has advance to the point where there is reading/writing.

ScratchMonkey

2006-02-22 19:09:54 UTC

Post by Adam Russell
Are you implying that there are cultures where it is ok to have sex in a
public place?

From what I understand (I think I saw it on Connections), it was relatively
common in northern Europe prior to the development of the chimney. Everyone
lived in one big room, near a central fire, with a big hole in the roof.
The practicality of privacy made it useful as a class distinction. Only a
vulgar commoner would have sex where one could see it.

That's why I find it interesting to look at the history of where our ideas
of "decency" actually come from. I suspect most come from social power
plays and snobbery. These attitudes (like religion) are handed down to us
at such an early age that any alternative becomes unthinkable.

Adam Corolla

2006-02-22 22:31:47 UTC

Post by Adam Russell
Are you implying that there are cultures where it is ok to have sex in a
public place?

From what I understand (I think I saw it on Connections), it was relatively
common in northern Europe prior to the development of the chimney. Everyone
lived in one big room, near a central fire, with a big hole in the roof.
The practicality of privacy made it useful as a class distinction. Only a
vulgar commoner would have sex where one could see it.
That's why I find it interesting to look at the history of where our ideas
of "decency" actually come from. I suspect most come from social power
plays and snobbery. These attitudes (like religion) are handed down to us
at such an early age that any alternative becomes unthinkable.

I happen to agree with your viewpoint and feel that the laws restricting
public nudity or "lewd acts" are pointless.

If nudity and public sex were allowed, most people would be very bothered at
first, but they would soon become used to it and eventually accept it.
Some, though, would never accept it as their values are too rigid or their
religions prohibit such acts.

I once heard a theory that all successful religions have as one core belief
that any form of sex which doesn't result in producing babies within a
married couple is against God. The reason is because back when religions
started, babies whose parents were together had a much better chance for
survival, and when people have as their only outlet for sex the act which
produces babies, they tend to have a lot of babies which will survive to
adulthood which means, since they will almost certainly raise their babies
in their religion, that the people of that religion will procreate faster
than the general population and thereby spread the religion more and more
down through the generations.

It makes a kind of sense.

ScratchMonkey

2006-02-23 21:02:53 UTC

Post by Adam Corolla
I once heard a theory that all successful religions have as one core
belief that any form of sex which doesn't result in producing babies
within a married couple is against God.

Yep, there's an awful lot of unconscious hate of masturabation:

http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/masturbation/kelloggs-cornflakes/
http://www.afraidtoask.com/masturbate/History.htm

Warning: Grisly photos, and even grislier ideas.

Babe Bridou

2006-02-02 09:23:19 UTC

Post by Zyan
http://news.com.com/Online+game+warns+gay-lesbian+guild/2100-1043_3-6033112.html?tag=nefd.top

Like every "rule" it's there to set up a limit. If you become an
annoyance for any kind of reason, and if you happen to cross one of
these limits, someone who has been annoyed beyond the point of
tolerance can call the rule to punish you.

You can call your favourite homosexual neighbour a fag if you want, in
front of him, with a big smile and two glasses of wine in your hands,
he won't blame you for it nor call forth the police until he becomes
pissed after you for other reasons.

I'm not saying that being homosexual or anything is right or wrong, I'm
just saying that this rule is just here to help solving the general
chat spam by - simply - pointing out the fact that the provocator is
probably as guilty as the swearer or the racist when it comes to
polluting the game world. So far only the swearer/racist/homophobic or
whatever, only the guy that loses his nerves was subject to a
warning/ban/suspension.

Outside of inquisitive banning sprees, I wouldn't really care if I were
a gay in a gay guild. As I'm a guildless straight, this post will be my
one and only thought on the subject ;)

PhilHibbs

2006-02-02 13:36:38 UTC