The Gamer's Quarter Forum Index The Gamer's Quarter
A quarterly publication
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The [i]World of Warcraft[/i] Mess.

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Gamer's Quarter Forum Index -> Club for the Study and Appreciation of Interactive Audio Visual Media
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tablesaw
.
.


Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 303
Location: LACAUSA

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 4:44 pm    Post subject: The [i]World of Warcraft[/i] Mess. Reply with quote

That big old WoW thing hasn't been mentioned here yet. I addressed it on my journal, because it's gotten me so mad that I couldn't go to sleep until I did. Comments there or here, I guess.
_________________
It's the saw of the table!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
SuperWes
Updated the banners, but not his title
Updated the banners, but not his title


Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 3725

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think this is being blown out of proportion. I'm sure it wasn't mandated from the Blizzard on high that they need to keep gays in the closet. It was probably just some Q&A dude who thought he was keeping Aseroth safe by trying to keep stuff that could cause fights out of the game. It's a fact that being gay is offensive to some people and could cause some people to flip out. Is he wrong for doing this? Sure he is! But honestly, can you really blame someone for taking it for granted that someone calling someone else gay over the internet might have been intended as an insult?

-Wes
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
dessgeega
loves your favorite videogame
loves your favorite videogame


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 6563
Location: bohan

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="SuperWes"It's a fact that being gay is offensive to some people and could cause some people to flip out. Is he wrong for doing this? Sure he is! But honestly, can you really blame someone for taking it for granted that someone calling someone else gay over the internet might have been intended as an insult?s[/quote]

wes, "our guild is glbt friendly" isn't "calling someone gay over the internet".
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ryan
.
.


Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 999

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wasn't the problem that it was in-game? Any guild can recruit for anything in the forums and whatnot, but it was using the in-game chat that caused problems. I've read there are religious and political groups, but those recruiting in chat have been banned and others forced to change their guild name when someone complained.

Blizzard, this wouldn't be happening if you were making other games. Just think about that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DonMarco
.
.


Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 349
Location: 33903

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that the most important point to walk away with is that sexuality, in any sense, is a no-no for WoW. Straight, gay, whatever. Seriously, the greater problem is how it is addressed by the playing public. The asshats that don't make the rules and run the servers and make billion-dollar descisious on policies and regulations that such a large online community.

Quote:
If Blizzard is allowed to use this kind of "we're doing it for your own protection" defense, it would have the effect of completely reversing the intent of California law.

WoW is no more a business than the Boy Scouts or the Shriners. Blizzard designs software and WoW is a community of players. Or an "organization". I mean, to show favoritism or leneancy towards any sexuality or religon isn't an option. Otherwise, the Pedo Maniacs guild would be possible. And the Furry Magic guild. Hell.

"Don't ask don't tell" ring a bell? Since when were guilds and MMOs about sex, rather than the mindless number watching and skill micromanagement? What I'd like them to do is just shut WoW off for California all together. See what happens then.

If you want to raise a mess, check out that User Agreement policy you read when you installed the game and you claim to re-read after every patch and update. It basically sums it up as "don't say anything offensive to anyone of a sexual nature, a sexist nature, a religous nature or anything else ever". Same as most internet forums and offices and courts and public gatherings.
_________________
Collector of over 1,538 strategy guides. That's weird, right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
SuperWes
Updated the banners, but not his title
Updated the banners, but not his title


Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 3725

PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 5:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dessgeega wrote:
SuperWes wrote:
It's a fact that being gay is offensive to some people and could cause some people to flip out. Is he wrong for doing this? Sure he is! But honestly, can you really blame someone for taking it for granted that someone calling someone else gay over the internet might have been intended as an insult?s


wes, "our guild is glbt friendly" isn't "calling someone gay over the internet".


But you're missing the point that it's just some dude who works at Blizzard. It wasn't company mandate.

Also, would you rather play a game where people aren't allowed to call people gay as an insult or play a game where people weren't allowed to advertise for their clans as gay-friendly? Shouldn't it be assumed that all clans are gay-friendly without any advertising?

-Wes
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Kinuko
.
.


Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 66

PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm more curious as to what being warned actually means. Is it, "please avoid doing this in the future so trouble isn't caused," or "do this again and you're banned for three hours"? If it's more the former, then I think too much of a fuss is being made. I'm all for GLBT rights (hell, I was the president of my high school's GSA one year), but I do think that, given the average maturity of the WoW community as a whole, it's best to avoid open talk about sexuality (as with politics and religion and so on ad infinitum). I've seen giant flamefests in Ironforge over stupid stuff like someone leaving a guild, and I'd only think that a more sensitive topic would only result in more anger and chaos.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tablesaw
.
.


Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 303
Location: LACAUSA

PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DonMarco wrote:
I think that the most important point to walk away with is that sexuality, in any sense, is a no-no for WoW. Straight, gay, whatever.

Except that straight sexuality is not a no-no. Consider the policy that allows two characters of opposite sexes to have an in-game marriage, while disallowing the same in-game event to two characters of the same sex. Part of heteronormative privilege is that the overwhelming displays of heterosexual sexuality are largely invisible in speech and action.

DonMarco wrote:
WoW is no more a business than the Boy Scouts or the Shriners. Blizzard designs software and WoW is a community of players. Or an "organization".

This is not an accurate description. WoW is not a business, but Blizzard is. It is not a non-profit organization, it is ultimately a subsidiary of Vivendi Universal, which is a publicly traded corporation. And WoW is the service it provides to the public. Part of that service involves speech between its customers.

DonMarco wrote:
"Don't ask don't tell" ring a bell?

I'm not sure. Is that the policy that allows a significant branch of the American government to discriminate based on sexual conduct or identity as long as they claim not to make inquiries about sexual conduct or identity without cause, even though "cause" can ultimately be based on nothing but rumor?

DonMarco wrote:
Since when were guilds and MMOs about sex, rather than the mindless number watching and skill micromanagement?

Sexual identity is not sexual conduct. Saying "GLBT" is not homosexual sex, in the same way that my saying "I have a girlfriend" is not me having sex with my girlfriend.

DonMarco wrote:
If you want to raise a mess, check out that User Agreement policy you read when you installed the game and you claim to re-read after every patch and update. It basically sums it up as "don't say anything offensive to anyone of a sexual nature, a sexist nature, a religous nature or anything else ever". Same as most internet forums and offices and courts and public gatherings.

I have read the terms-of-use agreement and the harassment policy. Blizzard has consistently referred its rationalization to the sexual-orientation sextion of its harassment policy, rather than to general inappropriateness section of the same. (In that policy, the former is a "highly inappropriate," while the latter is "mildly inappropriate." Thus, saying "GLBT" is considered more offesnive than talking about poop.) Regardless, even referring to the broader language of the terms of use, we have this:
Blizzard wrote:
When engaging in Chat in World of Warcraft, or otherwise utilizing World of Warcraft, you may not [t]ransmit or post any content or language which, in the sole and absolute discretion of Blizzard Entertainment, is deemed to be offensive . . . .

Blizzard's actions have demonstrated that it deems references to sexual orientation to be offensive only when it refers to nonstandard orientations. This discrepancy is, again, discrimination.
_________________
It's the saw of the table!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tablesaw
.
.


Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 303
Location: LACAUSA

PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kinuko wrote:
I'm more curious as to what being warned actually means. Is it, "please avoid doing this in the future so trouble isn't caused," or "do this again and you're banned for three hours"? If it's more the former, then I think too much of a fuss is being made.

The problem is that WoW "warnings" aren't just polite suggestions. They are disciplinary actions that offer the threat of temporary or permanent suspension of a player's account if the player does not comply. In that respect, a warning isn't much different than a suspension, since the suspension is always threatened on the horizon.
_________________
It's the saw of the table!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kuzdu
.
.


Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Posts: 70
Location: Washington Heights

PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think that the problem lies in the fact that Blizzard's main concern is the integrity of what they consider the 'magic circle' of the game. I think you can see this position in everything from their reaction to gold farming, all the way down to the fact the Wow is an incredibly structured and goal oriented MMO, moreso, at least, then others. Blizzard sees guilds as a form of player cooperation first, and a community second.

Now, this is not to say the I agree with their position. They are a company providing a product (I wouldn't say a service, necessarily), and as such they have every right to fashion that product in any way they see fit. However, Tablesaw is exactly right in saying that the prouct they sell has an overt message. Clearly Blizzard believes that open homosexuality hurts the game, which is same as saying that the only acceptable way of playing is as a heterosexual, which is discrimination.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
DonMarco
.
.


Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 349
Location: 33903

PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tablesaw wrote:
DonMarco wrote:
I think that the most important point to walk away with is that sexuality, in any sense, is a no-no for WoW. Straight, gay, whatever.

Except that straight sexuality is not a no-no. Consider the policy that allows two characters of opposite sexes to have an in-game marriage, while disallowing the same in-game event to two characters of the same sex. Part of heteronormative privilege is that the overwhelming displays of heterosexual sexuality are largely invisible in speech and action.

Straight sexuality is a yes-yes in practically every species with two sexes. Dogs, cats, penguins and bald eagles alike.

Marriage is one of the oldest and most honored unions between two loving and consenting adults on the planet. Just as there are some states and countries that don't recognize same-sex marriages, the same could be said for fake, made-up fantasy worlds that don't exist. Say two male orcs got hitched, what then? Are you saying that no attention (positive or otherwise) would be drawn by this union?

Finally, marriage and sex are two different things. HAHA. No, really. You can have sex without marriage and marriage without sex. Last I checked, the most sexual action in WoW was blowing a kiss.

"Heteronormative" is a big fucking word for "actual". Most marriages are heterosexual. If you want me to dig up a statistic that finds all the marriages on this planet in the last 10,000 years and what percent weren't same-sex, you're out of luck. I'm willing to bet $5 right now, RIGHT NOW, that it's less than 1%. "Much less" is the term I would use, but this kinda of hatefilled bantering on the matters of sexuality and legal practices comes back to haunt people. Like my work in a few anti-pro-life campaigns back in North Carolina. I wan't allowed in my first-choice college because of that arrest.
_________________
Collector of over 1,538 strategy guides. That's weird, right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
dessgeega
loves your favorite videogame
loves your favorite videogame


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 6563
Location: bohan

PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DonMarco wrote:
Straight sexuality is a yes-yes in practically every species with two sexes. Dogs, cats, penguins and bald eagles alike.


you know plenty of animals of those species have sex with animals of the same gender, right?

Quote:
"Heteronormative" is a big fucking word for "actual". Most marriages are heterosexual. If you want me to dig up a statistic yadda yadda


surprise! when only heterosexual marriages are legal, most legal marriages are heterosexual.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DonMarco
.
.


Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 349
Location: 33903

PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tablesaw wrote:
DonMarco wrote:
WoW is no more a business than the Boy Scouts or the Shriners. Blizzard designs software and WoW is a community of players. Or an "organization".

This is not an accurate description. WoW is not a business, but Blizzard is. It is not a non-profit organization, it is ultimately a subsidiary of Vivendi Universal, which is a publicly traded corporation. And WoW is the service it provides to the public.

Your description said that WoW was a business. That was also an inaccurate description. So let's say we're even on "not accurate" labels? Blizzard is a company and the service of providing a server to play WoW on is a business maintained/funded/staffed/designed/fondled by a branch within Blizzard. GREAT. THANKS FOR CLEARING THAT UP.

Tablesaw wrote:
Part of that service involves speech between its customers.

One part of many. Another is to solve disputes and keep said speech in check. Also to give outt warnings on what to say and how to say it.

Tablesaw wrote:
DonMarco wrote:
"Don't ask don't tell" ring a bell?

I'm not sure. Is that the policy that allows a significant branch of the American government to discriminate based on sexual conduct or identity as long as they claim not to make inquiries about sexual conduct or identity without cause, even though "cause" can ultimately be based on nothing but rumor?

Then I'll explain since you were too lazy to google something.

"Don't ask don't tell" was one of those polite mandates that spread like wildfire through the military in the late 80s and early 90s. As the number of homosexuals enlisted, some heterosexuals were either put off or made uneasy about this. Curiosity and doubt led to several cases of gay-bashing and discrimination. Mostly with men. The higher-ups decided it would be UNPROFESSIONAL to discuss matters of the bedroom with someone who may save your life one day. Because in the military, you are prepared to die or kill based on the orders handed down by your superiors and their superiors. You're part of a larger picture. Focusing on the details may detract needed attention off more important matters, like who the enemt is or where you left you humvee keys.

So by "not asking" if your fellow soldier was gay or straight you might focus on thier more important features, like how fast they run and how clean they shoot. By "not telling" anyone your sexual preference or practices, talk may be of a more pressing concerns like who will win the Superbowl or where the party is later tonight. After a set time with any human being, you're able to get a good idea where their flag lies.

In a similar line of thinking, men and women are not told to think of each other as different sexes, but as fellow soldiers.

Tablesaw wrote:
DonMarco wrote:
Since when were guilds and MMOs about sex, rather than the mindless number watching and skill micromanagement?

Sexual identity is not sexual conduct. Saying "GLBT" is not homosexual sex, in the same way that my saying "I have a girlfriend" is not me having sex with my girlfriend.

Sexual identity? You mean the three second where you decide to be a male or female character at the very beginning? Saying "I have a girlfriend" in a WoW game would mean nothing as the real-life person could be male, female or lying.

Tablesaw wrote:
DonMarco wrote:
If you want to raise a mess, check out that User Agreement policy you read when you installed the game and you claim to re-read after every patch and update. It basically sums it up as "don't say anything offensive to anyone of a sexual nature, a sexist nature, a religous nature or anything else ever". Same as most internet forums and offices and courts and public gatherings.

I have read the terms-of-use agreement and the harassment policy. Blizzard has consistently referred its rationalization to the sexual-orientation sextion of its harassment policy, rather than to general inappropriateness section of the same. (In that policy, the former is a "highly inappropriate," while the latter is "mildly inappropriate." Thus, saying "GLBT" is considered more offesnive than talking about poop.) Regardless, even referring to the broader language of the terms of use, we have this:
Blizzard wrote:
When engaging in Chat in World of Warcraft, or otherwise utilizing World of Warcraft, you may not [t]ransmit or post any content or language which, in the sole and absolute discretion of Blizzard Entertainment, is deemed to be offensive . . . .

Blizzard's actions have demonstrated that it deems references to sexual orientation to be offensive only when it refers to nonstandard orientations. This discrepancy is, again, discrimination.

Discrimination against who? If all marriages in WoW are, as you pointed out, same-sex then how can raising the great in-game "GLBT debate" gonna accomplish anything? There are a great number of opinions on how it should be handeled but when you get right down to it, the heads of Blizzard and the legal department and the ESRB and the paying customers say what's gonna be in it. What should be in it. What can't be in the game. Discussing anything sexual shouldn't be allowed or encouraged. Period. Will people break this rule? Sure, thousands of times an hour. That's why they have GMs running around and Agreements you have to check off. Hell, any MMO will tell you the same thing.

If you disagree with it, cancel your subscription. Write a letter to your senator. Maybe bitching about it in LiveJournal wasn't the best way?



===========


dessgeega wrote:
DonMarco wrote:
Straight sexuality is a yes-yes in practically every species with two sexes. Dogs, cats, penguins and bald eagles alike.


You know plenty of animals of those species have sex with animals of the same gender, right?

Rather than be a sarcastic reply, I'll clarify my statement. "Species with two sexual genders tend to breed by performing acts of a sexual nature with members of the opposite sex." Plenty of animals do have odd things happen sexually. "Odd" defined as "not regular, expected, or planned".

dessgeega wrote:
Quote:
"Heteronormative" is a big fucking word for "actual". Most marriages are heterosexual. If you want me to dig up a statistic yadda yadda

Surprise! when only heterosexual marriages are legal, most legal marriages are heterosexual.

Suprise! That's my fucking point! Come talk to me in 20 thousand years when the... Crap, there I go being vague again.

Deesgeeggga, I'm saying DUH. I'm also saying "DUUUUUUUUUUUH" to your clever pointing out what I said.
_________________
Collector of over 1,538 strategy guides. That's weird, right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Swimmy
.
.


Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 990
Location: Fairfax, VA

PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You know, I really liked Brokeback Mountain, but after I saw it, all the reviews I read which said, "This isn't a 'gay cowboy movie,' it's a love story!" annoyed me. It's totally a gay cowboy movie.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
dessgeega
loves your favorite videogame
loves your favorite videogame


Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 6563
Location: bohan

PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DonMarco wrote:
"DUUUUUUUUUUUH"


...i quit this thread.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
DonMarco
.
.


Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 349
Location: 33903

PostPosted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did you see that one Southpark, the indie film festival where the kids snuck into a film about gay cowboys eating pudding or something?.
_________________
Collector of over 1,538 strategy guides. That's weird, right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
sawtooth
.
.


Joined: 02 Nov 2005
Posts: 419

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Swimmy wrote:
You know, I really liked Brokeback Mountain, but after I saw it, all the reviews I read which said, "This isn't a 'gay cowboy movie,' it's a love story!" annoyed me. It's totally a gay cowboy movie.


I'm pretty sure that each reviewer is thinking the same thing, though. They see an excellent movie, and they cringe when they see something that's going to turn all of middle america away from the film.

so they just play down the fact that it's gay. The trailers that I've seen don't hint at anything in that direction. It's ridiculous and stupid, sure, but the point is that at least frumpy housewife #1,017 will walk away from the screen in disgust after paying 10 dollars to see it rather than not even enter the theater.


I just finished watching Sonatine. Tarantino is did a little intro/outro thing with the movie, and he mentioned that the trailers for it played up the romance between two characters (in the actual movie it's not even really implied that they sleep together, but more that they enjoy each other's friendship and yeah they might get it on later) because it was discovered that women controlled what movies everyone went to in most Japanese households. Sonatine, directed by Takeshi Kitano, is a stone-faced yakuza crime film. There's little sentimentality involved. There's a scene where the female actress takes off her top in the rain and Kitano's character remarks that "indecent exposure is fun." Neither of them move. Scene cut! Very romantic, no?

back on subject:
I'm all for removing outward signs of sexuality from games, just because I'm there to slay the dragon, not get married. But just as more than once I've heard the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy called a trainwreck, I'd rather just let everyone do what they want to, gblt-welcome guilds, homosexual marriages and all. Blizzard's pretty clearly half-assing it. They don't want their first major TV news story about them from some Fox subsidiary, airing some halfwit's complaints about how a game that accepts homosexuality is perverting their child.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Shapermc
Hot Sake!
Hot Sake!


Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 6279

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 4:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woah! What the hell is going on here?

Ok, I offically am saying that canceling you account and sending a letter to Blizzard as to why is the best option here.

Also, keep it civil.
_________________
“The average man has a secret desire to be a swaggering, drunken, fighting, raping swashbuckler.”
-Robert E. Howard in a letter to a friend circa Decmber 1932

"There is no place in this enterprise for a rogue physicist!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
purplechair
.
.


Joined: 28 Mar 2005
Posts: 378
Location: in my pants

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 4:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think there's a big corporate agenda to discriminate against the GLBT community... it's just a series of errors of judgement that have spiralled out of control somewhat. Unless I've missed something, no-one in this thread so far has mentioned that the GM in question sent a warning after being prompted by another player that the recruiter was using sexually offensive language. The GM made a call between whether to ignore this 'offense' or whether to ask if they could stop. After that, it's just been Blizzard trying to defend the GM's actions ex-post, rather than being a serious political stance.

I do think Blizzard are in the wrong, though. For example: in-game weddings make me cringe anyway, but I don't really see why you can only get married to someone of the opposite sex - you can't tell me there are no gay elves. It just seems to be a relic of the environment in which the game was made, or something. I don't think Blizzard are going to do anything to make WoW more GLBT-friendly, mainly just to avoid being labelled "the gay MMO" or something, which would probably alienate a lot of its teenage male fanbase. That's the saddest thing, in my opinion.

I guess what we're seeing is a company that makes a fortune off immature teenagers basing its ethical policies on those of... immature teenagers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tablesaw
.
.


Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 303
Location: LACAUSA

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DonMarco wrote:
Marriage is one of the oldest and most honored unions between two loving and consenting adults on the planet. Just as there are some states and countries that don't recognize same-sex marriages, the same could be said for fake, made-up fantasy worlds that don't exist. Say two male orcs got hitched, what then? Are you saying that no attention (positive or otherwise) would be drawn by this union?

Finally, marriage and sex are two different things. HAHA. No, really. You can have sex without marriage and marriage without sex. Last I checked, the most sexual action in WoW was blowing a kiss.

My concern in this is not whether or not two persons of the same sex or gender should be allowed to be married. My concern is with businesses regulating speech and actions based on an appearence of sexual orientation. If, as a GM has stated, a player can be disciplined--under the harassment policy--for actions that appear to indicate sexual orientation (like an in-game marriage to a character of the same sex or a /kiss to a character of the same sex), then the legal ramification would be that a store could deny service to a customer who might indicate sexual orientation in real life (such as by holding hands with a partner of the same sex).

I do agree with you about the interrelation and lack thereof between sex and marriage. But our view is not held by all, and there are a great many people who contend that a same-sex marriage directly implicates homosexual intercourse while not holding the same opinion about opposite-sex marraige. If Blizzard is enforcing its policy based on anticipated harassment, it again leads to the discriminatory double standard in enforcement.

DonMarco wrote:
"Heteronormative" is a big fucking word for "actual".

I am unsure of your intent here. Heteronormative is a word used to describe the current values in America and other societies. Using terms like "actual" or "the way things are" enforces the dominant values without either questioning them or raising alternative value systems. "Heteronormative" specifically applies to the manner in which heterosexuals are portayed as normal and non-heterosexuals are portrayed as deviant, even (sometimes especially) when that portrayal is unintentional. Just because this describes the currently dominant values, doesn't mean that those values should by automatically accepted.

DonMarco wrote:
Your description said that WoW was a business. That was also an inaccurate description. So let's say we're even on "not accurate" labels?

Fair enough. I wrote the entry in a hurry, and I've already admitted to other factual inaccuracies (including numbering WoW's players in the "thousands," which was so dumb I was shocked when someone pointed out I'd said it).

DonMarco wrote:
Then I'll explain since you were too lazy to google something.

My statement was based on the information coming from the research done by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, an organization I have been aware of since my time as an undergraduate at UCSB, where the center is based. Among other things, the site includes reporting of the dismissal otherwise capable gay soldiers at a time when America's armed forces face understaffing in their commitments at home and abroad, as well as generally low recruitment.

DonMarco wrote:
Sexual identity? You mean the three second where you decide to be a male or female character at the very beginning? Saying "I have a girlfriend" in a WoW game would mean nothing as the real-life person could be male, female or lying.
. . . .
Discussing anything sexual shouldn't be allowed or encouraged.

Again, I need to impress the point that sexual identity, including sexual orientation, gender, biologically determined sex, are not sexual topics. Discussing what members of the opposite sex are found attractive, living in an open opposite-sex marriage, or disclosing that one is male or female (whether or not it's true) is not discussing something sexual. Just because these same sorts of aspects of sexual identity are transferred from a heterosexual point of view to a nonheterosexual point of view doesn't change that.

DonMarco wrote:
There are a great number of opinions on how it should be handeled but when you get right down to it, the heads of Blizzard and the legal department and the ESRB and the paying customers say what's gonna be in it. What should be in it. What can't be in the game.

Subject to the law, of course. A restaurant generally has the right to refuse service to anybody. But when that right is invoked in such a way that gay people are refused service or receive qualified service where straight people don't, it is discrimination, and it is against the law in California.
_________________
It's the saw of the table!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
xvs07
.
.


Joined: 22 Sep 2005
Posts: 160

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Summary of the summaries: Blizzard's trying to please everyone because they like cash, and finding out they can't do it. Simple and simply understood. What I find myself asking is this: how many of those angry people whom they cannot please have they never managed to please in the first place? I can't stand Blizzard, and my loathing just increases with time, as I continue to discover the original, innovative, thought-provoking games they bastardized with the electronic equivalent of the cigarette and pushed to kids like me who didn't know better. This GLBT thing? Minor, compared to the kind of candy-colored brainstomping they've been doing since inception. My only hope is that they let this little civil rights snafu balloon until it drives them into the ground.


[Disclaimer: Do I think GLBT rights are the hot, important, sexy issue we all know them to be? Yes, without a doubt, especially as I have a personal stake. Am I fucked up enough to be more angry about the direction MMORPGs are taking? Definitely, because civil rights will eventually resolve itself, but enslavement of the human race via unentertaining yet engaging "entertainment products" is a problem that just seems to loom larger every effing year.]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dhex
Breeder
Breeder


Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork

PostPosted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

if this be enslavement, then make the most of the chains, say i.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
dark steve
.
.


Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 1110

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So everything is cool now.

Special Bonus: A BBC staff writer uses the word "gaymer" as nomenclature for GLBT players.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
RaBeeWilliams
Beatnik
Beatnik


Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 274
Location: Thibodaux

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dark steve wrote:
So everything is cool now.

Special Bonus: A BBC staff writer uses the word "gaymer" as nomenclature for GLBT players.


Dead link. What was so cool, Steve?
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address MSN Messenger
dark steve
.
.


Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Posts: 1110

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's weird. The URL is dead on, and you can still get there from the BBC main page.

Well, long story short, Blizzard apologized and sent all it's GMs to sensitivity training.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
RaBeeWilliams
Beatnik
Beatnik


Joined: 07 Dec 2004
Posts: 274
Location: Thibodaux

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, good to hear. I'll have to check that article out today. That special bonus sounds too good to pass up.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address MSN Messenger
dhex
Breeder
Breeder


Joined: 13 Dec 2004
Posts: 6319
Location: brooklyn, Nev Yiork

PostPosted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

here's kotaku's wrap-up with some primary source docs.

looks like a bunch of midlevels pulled a cya, either out of panic or stupidity or some combination thereof.

not that freedom of association isn't dead or anything.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Gamer's Quarter Forum Index -> Club for the Study and Appreciation of Interactive Audio Visual Media All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group