RationalBiker Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4700754.stm The question I'm considering is; Is the advertisement of ANY type of sexual-orientation-friendly guild appropriate for this game? Was any of that allowed by the TOS? Were they letting openly hetero-friendly guilds flourish while keeping the homo-friendly guilds down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAmMetaphysical Posted February 15, 2006 Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 (edited) Is there any such thing as a "hetero-friendly" guild? It seems like that is the default type. Edited February 15, 2006 by IAmMetaphysical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted February 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2006 Actually, the default type (read as typical) doesn't bring sexual orientation into the purpose of the guild. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IAmMetaphysical Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 True, true.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strangelove Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 The question I'm considering is; Is the advertisement of ANY type of sexual-orientation-friendly guild appropriate for this game? In a perfect world, I don't think people would care. Some people seem to want to choose to be with guilds that are openly friendly to their own sexual orientation. Was any of that allowed by the TOS? Were they letting openly hetero-friendly guilds flourish while keeping the homo-friendly guilds down? As I understand it, the TOS was worded with the intent to prevent harrasment by use of homophobic language. So by advertising a "Gay Guild", the use of the word "Gay" was taken to mean, in a literal reading of the TOS, as the use of homophobic language. This pushed Blizzard to censure the recuitor who was advertising the "Gay Guild". With this in mind, you could argue that they were trying to keep the homo-friendly guilds down by reducing their ability to recuit at the same levels as the other guilds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thoyd Loki Posted February 16, 2006 Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 I think they should have something that covers this sort of thing. Anyone know the slang for "taint"? They cowed to that? Two such guilds, Stonewall Champions and The Spreading Taint wrote an open letter to Blizzard criticising its policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted February 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2006 In a perfect world, I don't think people would care. I not sure that I agree this is a quality of "a perfect world". A perfect world can certainly contain people who would like to avoid reading about things they find objectionable to their values. However, that's tangential to the main issue. Some people seem to want to choose to be with guilds that are openly friendly to their own sexual orientation.I think it's less about what people "want" and more about the Terms of Use they agree to as well as the private property ownership of Blizzard. I found this in their Terms of Use; (i) Transmit or post any content or language which, in the sole and absolute discretion of Blizzard Entertainment, is deemed to be offensive, including without limitation content or language that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, hateful, sexually explicit, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable, nor may you use a misspelling or an alternative spelling to circumvent the content and language restrictions listed above; World of Warcraft Terms of Use Agreement - B. Rules Related to "Chat" and Interaction With Other Users. - Blizzard Entertainment That can be pretty all encompassing. However, it may be so sufficiently broad as not to hold up in court. The other question might be whether this rule is applied consistently or not, which given its vagueness might be rather difficult. It becomes even less enforceable when they cow to a particular group. Just the same, players "agree" to these terms when they install the game, and EVERY TIME a new patch has to be installed, which is weekly. ( I know because I go through that patch procedure every week ) But more to the point, do homosexuals have some moral right (other than legal) not to be discriminated against? Suppose Blizzard's Terms of Use stated, "No homosexuals are allowed to utilize our software or servers. If you are homosexual and you purchased our software, you are entitled to a full refund of monies spent." (I'm not totally up on my legalese so please consider that in the context intended) Should it be moral to legally force the company to allow homosexuals to play the game? I say no. Let the market take care of companies with such practices. I think they should have something that covers this sort of thing. Anyone know the slang for "taint"? They cowed to that? They do have something to specifically cover names, both for players and guilds; ...you may not use any name.... 8. Related to drugs, sex, alcohol, or criminal activity; And yes, I'm familiar with the term 'taint'. I could make a hilarious "Weeds" reference, but for the sake of propriety I will spare you all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klarinettus Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4700754.stm The question I'm considering is; Is the advertisement of ANY type of sexual-orientation-friendly guild appropriate for this game? Was any of that allowed by the TOS? Were they letting openly hetero-friendly guilds flourish while keeping the homo-friendly guilds down? Believe it or not, I play a character on the Shadow Moon server (quite a big coincidence as there are many many servers). I can remember Oz advertising that they were GLBT friendly since I first started playing there, many months ago. Kind of odd that Blizzard took action against them but waited after the guild had been well established for a long time. What most likely happened was that another player claimed to be offended by one of the recruiting messages and reported it to a GM, which explains why they've added a separate recruitment channel. Odd thing is, I don't recall seeing Shimmre or anyone else from Oz for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egoistnotegotist Posted March 25, 2006 Report Share Posted March 25, 2006 I dunno. I play on the US Spirestone server (horde of course!). I've never really been offended by anything people say on there, mostly because it's just a game. I can see why advertising that kind of thing would be a problem. I suppose lawfully it's bad or something like that, but philisophically, if they don't mind allowing guilds that promote heterosexuality than I don't see why they shouldn't allow homosexuality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatdogs12 Posted March 25, 2006 Report Share Posted March 25, 2006 Should it be moral to legally force the company to allow homosexuals to play the game? I say no. Let the market take care of companies with such practices. You are asking if a person/company has the right to do what they want with thier own property. It's immoral to ever use force to make someone do something with thier property. So yes defintely it's immoral and it should be. If Blizzard wanted to say in the liscense agreement that you must not wear green while playing the game or you must be a homosexual to play that is thier choice. The door is wide open there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted March 25, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2006 You are asking if a person/company has the right to do what they want with thier own property. I appreciate you responding to the question, but it was actually more of a rhetorical question used in response to the another poster. I already knew the answer. The problem is that it doesn't actually work that way today. A company would be subject to the force of law (not simply the reprecussions of the market) if it had discriminatory policies against people who don't want to wear "green" ( or insert whatever discriminatory policy in place of "green".) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatdogs12 Posted March 25, 2006 Report Share Posted March 25, 2006 I appreciate you responding to the question, but it was actually more of a rhetorical question used in response to the another poster. I already knew the answer. The problem is that it doesn't actually work that way today. A company would be subject to the force of law (not simply the reprecussions of the market) if it had discriminatory policies against people who don't want to wear "green" ( or insert whatever discriminatory policy in place of "green".) LOL okay. I mean I read a lot of your posts and I was wondering "why would he be asking this"? I really thought you knew the answer already, makes more sense now :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 (edited) I appreciate you responding to the question, but it was actually more of a rhetorical question used in response to the another poster. I already knew the answer. The problem is that it doesn't actually work that way today. A company would be subject to the force of law (not simply the reprecussions of the market) if it had discriminatory policies against people who don't want to wear "green" ( or insert whatever discriminatory policy in place of "green".) Why are we discussing the law; Blizzard weren't threatened with a lawsuit here (or at least that article never mentioned one). The players of WoW have the right to ask Blizzard to provide them with whatever they want, and Blizzard have a right to either grant their requests or deny them. In this case, Blizzard obviously felt that the bad PR they would have received from banning the guild outweighed the risk of annoying some homophobes. Theres no difference between WoW players demanding that a gay guild be accepted, and me refusing to do business with a shopkeeper who discriminates against black customers; its purely a free-market issue. In a perfect world, I don't think people would care. Some people seem to want to choose to be with guilds that are openly friendly to their own sexual orientation. Well, would you want to go to a bar/club where there were no women? Even if you arent openly looking for a partner, its still nice to be able to do some light flirting with people that you could conceivably see yourself dating. I would guess that gay people like to associate with other gays for similar reasons as why, all other things being equal, I would prefer hanging out in a group that contained some girls than one without (both in real life, and in online communities). I assume that it also saves them the awkwardness of asking men whether or not they are gay, especially since this still offends some people. Edited March 27, 2006 by Hal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted March 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 (edited) Why are we discussing the law; Blizzard weren't threatened with a lawsuit here (or at least that article never mentioned one). http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/breaking/wow-...ning-153075.php Okay, this article talks about Lamda Legal getting involved. I think this could easily have ended up in the courtroom if Blizzard had stood their ground. Some quotes from the article; In the letter to Blizzard president Mike Morhaime and Vivendi In-House Counsel, Lambda Legal spells out the foundation for possible litigation in the issue. The attorneys explain how an online world can be considered a place of business and how current anti-discrimination laws would apply. Although Blizzard is well within its rights to insist that players avoid referring to other gamers in an “insulting manner,” Blizzard cannot issue a blanket ban on any mention of sexual orientation or gender identity. That is why I discussed the "pull" of law. Edited March 27, 2006 by RationalCop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.