Woman gets banned from Xbox Live for being a lesbian.

[Snuggletummy]

Original

(Former) Xbox Live gamer Teresa found herself on the receiving end of a ban from the service for a surprising reason. She identified herself as a lesbian in her Live profile.

That resulted in a ban from the service after her Xbox Live peers complained about her profile, according to a letter to the Consumerist.

It's not like we haven't heard this before. Microsoft has issued bans to players in the past for expressing their sexual preferences in Gamertags, but this is the first we've heard of profile info at the root cause of being kicked off Live.

Microsoft has gone on record in the past about its policy, saying that it's not limited to Gamertags of homosexual nature.

"Yes 'TheStraighterGamer' or 'TheHeterosexualgamer' would have gotten the same treatment and would have been found to be in violation and forced to be changed," wrote Microsoft reps following previous incidents.

Perhaps more alarming than someone being banned for their expression of sexual preference was how this particular gamer was treated by the gaming public.

Teresa tells the Consumerist "I was harassed by several players, 'chased' to different maps/games to get away from their harassment. They followed me into the games and told all the other players to turn me in because they didn't want to see that crap or their kids to see that crap."

Five minutes worth of interaction with the general Xbox Live population will get the point across—they don't care for "the gays." But does the policy go too far in one sense, not far enough in another?

What are your thoughts? I personally think that Microsoft should be sued or something over this. She plainly put that she was lesbian in the "about me" section of her profile, nothing of harm was meant, and yet people found it offensive and decided to get her banned.

[SlappyMcGee]

I saw this the other day, and I think the article is misleading. Microsoft's policy is to have XBOX Live -not- act as a dating service. No mention of your sexuality is necessary.

[Atilla]

I disagree, Slappy. Mentioning your sexuality doesn't mean you're using the Xbox Live as a dating service. Should we also ban people from mentioning that they are female in their profile, so as to prevent dating? Should we prevent people telling us their favourite band, because it's "not necessary"? If you don't want people doing things which are "not necessary" to play games, why do you even have an "about me" section on your service? For comparison, the purpose of, say, these forums isn't to act as a dating service, nor is it strictly necessary for us to know your orientation, but we don't ban people for mentioning their orientation, and I think we can all agree that doing so would be idiotic. Same applies to NUMA - if you want to mention your sexuality in your profile, I really doubt you're going to get banned for it.

Also, despite Microsoft's claims that they'd also ban someone who stated that they were heterosexual, this policy is clearly discriminatory. Our culture is heteronormative - if you don't state your orientation, it's assumed you're het. Thus, the only people (or at least the vast majority of people) who are going to talk about orientation are homosexual, and thus they will be the only ones who get banned.

[smartalco]

MS knows that a very large part of Live subscribers are immature 15 year olds, which is why the policy is in place, to prevent things like what happened to this unfortunate person. I think it is a stupid rule, but its even more stupid that it has to be there to prevent incidents such as this.

[otters~1]

Was there any reason why she had to mention this on Xbox Live? Come on. She should have realized that something bad might happen. I mean, even if the point is clearly discriminatory, it was dumb for her to put herself in the situation in the first place.

[jean-luc]

I'm very sympathetic to Microsoft on this issue - it's a very complex issue, and they seem to admit that their policy is not the best solution to the problem. I definitely see the problem that they're trying to prevent - XBox live is surely full of a lot of people that will not handle matters of sexuality in any effective manner.

[T3chno]

What's wrong with the username "TheStraighterGamer"?

[smartalco]

In MS's view, the same thing thats wrong with 'TheGayerGamer', anything to do with your sexuality isn't allowed (and if you have that name, you shouldn't be allowed to speak anyway, come up with something creative, not stupid)

[Eiturlyf]

I don't see shit wrong with expressing your sexuality. Microsoft should be sued.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Microsoft is clearly being a bag of cocks on this issue, but it's similarly ridiculous to say they should be sued. Microsoft is a private corporation that sells a copyright product that allows access to a private service, the terms of service of which more than likely say they're free to be as schizophrenic as they damned well please when it comes to denying people access to their private service. You accepted these terms of service when you started playing Live (your fault if you didn't read it), and so a lawsuit would be over in under a minute in Microsoft's favor.
XBox Live is not a government agency, public resource, or employer. Microsoft is free to make any terrible choice it wants with its private property, and the only repercussion it deserves is an impact in its stock value if it does something the public disagrees with.

[Kablizzy]

The way you kids throw around the "Fag" word, I really don't see a problem. It's acceptable to prosecute those damn gays, right?

Also, really? How hard is it to come up with an innocuous gamertag? If I put Luvs2SwallowCum in as my Gamertag, and someone bitches to Microsoft about it, it doesn't matter how many gallons I guzzle down a day, nor does it matter if the Gamertag is true or not, nor do the legality or moral repercussions thereof matter; If it's against the TOS or the EULA, and it gets reported, there's nothing that can be done - Also regardless of how stupid it may be. None of us like Microsoft anyway; Does it really come as a surprise?

Edit: Also, Atilla - Why would a homosexual person feel the need to include their orientation in their gamertag? It seems like in doing so, the only reason would be to "fly the banner", so to speak. By your current logic, Naziboy448 would be entirely acceptable or KKKiller would also be a just fine gamertag to utilize, when "JeremyThurgood" or "Devilfish" or "Bottlecap44" or "RedWhiteandDude" or "PencilPusher" or "JusticeWatcher" or any of the other quite infinite number of gamertag possibilities would do just the same thing in exactly the same way without causing a stir. I fail to see a necessity in differentiating one's orientation, particularly if a gay person truly wants to be accepted - Then why make it a defining characteristic?

Were I to walk down the street and meet a man, I would shake his hand and say, "Hi, I'm Matt." The expected response would be for him to return the handshake, and reply with his name, rather than, "I'M GAAAAAAAAAAAAY. OH GOD, I'M JUST FLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG! LOOK AT YOUR HAIR ISN'T IT JUST FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO????????????????????????????????????"

Being gay isn't something that you use as a tool, it's a difference of sexual nature, and identifying as a gay person and identifying with gay culture are two entirely different things, but more than that, overtly identifying with gay culture solely for the sake of doing so can only mean that your intentions are not to be recognized as equal, but rather to be recognized as gay solely for the sake of needing to be different. Declaring it to everyone you meet? That only widens the gap, it seems.

I had a very dear friend in undergrad, who I had no idea was gay until we started to hang out together on a regular basis. When I first went to her house, she gave me a disclaimer that she was gay, and that she knew that some people were uncomfortable around she and her partner - But it never occurred to me that she might be gay, and our relationship didn't change a bit either way. To both of us, it didn't matter that she was gay, we were both just people. Thumbs up? Two of 'em, brother.

By the same token, I had a co-worker, a guy, who was quite blatantly gay. He was the type to wear nipple clamps to a bake sale and overemphasize his limp just so he could tell everyone about how hard he just got rammed in the ass. He kept pictures in his wallet from the drag pageants he frequented, and would constantly want to show me pictures of his newest boy-toy and tell me in no uncertain terms what they had been up to the night before. Fucking necessary? God shitting damnit, no. The stories were interesting, and they didn't bug me, per se, but I had to wonder what the shit his motivations could have been. None of my straight friends detail our conquests - Sure, we chat about chicks, but there's definitely something off-kilter about the two situations - Now if he had been telling me about his escapades without the pretense and without the grandiose over-productions, I think it would have made more sense. I don't believe being gay predisposes you to being a drama-queen, nor do I believe that being gay predisposes you to being a pretentious monkeystuffer, either. It's simply sexual orientation, right? In either case, this guy purposefully embellished his stories and made damn sure that everyone knew that he was the gayest guy they've ever met. What purpose could that ever serve? If you're gay, be gay - And don't let people put you down for doing so. If you really need people to know it, then by all means, tell whomever you deem appropriate for being in the know, but if we're ever going to want everyone to *actually* be treated equally, and if indeed homosexuality is nothing more than an attraction to the same sex rather than to the opposite sex, then why the need to be overt? If you're gay, cool, no one cares. That's the attitude we should have - It shouldn't *have* to be a big deal. In fact, it shouldn't be a deal at all. It's not a matter of "No one wants to see it." It's only when we get to the point where no one actually gives a shit when we'll have actual, true equality. Why does racism still exist? In part, segregation, but also that the disenfranchised black culture has grown to a point where it's all pretense and declaration. The Black Panthers felt the need to not only gain equality, but one of their driving doctrines seemed to be (Although it was never declared as such) to enslave the white race. Something wrong here? Um, yeah? It's not enough that we just fucking accept people for who they are; We have to make it clear that black people are somehow "different" with things like Black History Month, Black Entertainment Television, Black Awards Shows. Are baggy pants and backwards hats "Black Culture?" No, to be defined as Black, you're simply from a certain ancestral lineage. Then why the need to be so overt about being "different," I ask? "LesbianGamer" and "ElizaGamer" bring with them entirely different connotations. One says "Female," and the other says, "I FLY MY FLAG BECAUSE I NEED EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT I'M A LESBIAN. CAN I HAVE EVERYONE'S ATTENTION, PLEASE? IS EVERYONE LISTENING? I'M GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY." Necessary? I dunno, but I have to wonder what the motivations are when someone has that need to feel *that* different for no discernible reason.

Most of us hetero folk could give sixteen shits if someone is gay. And if being homosexual also (somehow) predisposes you to talking with a lisp, then whatever. Talk with a lisp. But a need to make it your identifying property, rather than the personality traits that identify every other human, regardless of race, age, religion, or credo? I'm not sure, my friend, but something seems to be wrong there, don't you agree?

[deltainferno]

i agree with most of what you said kablizzy, even if some of it made no sense. are you against homosexuality? if you are then you are wrong in my opinion (although you probably arent) but if someone is a homophobe, then why cant they be an.... emo-phobe or an anti-chav. being gay IS merely wanting to be different, but that IS a defining characteristic of every living person on this earth. just think to yourself, how are you different from your friends? there will be many reasons. maybe you like having long hair when your friends like short. maybe you socially exclude yourself from a certain person simply because of their morals. or maybe one of your freinds are gay? i go to an all male high school (sucks i know) and a few of my frinds are gay. but does that stop us from getting changed for P.E in front of them? no. so if you are a whatever-phobe, just think that there's someone who is a you-phobe.

[otters~1]

i agree with most of what you said kablizzy, even if some of it made no sense. are you against homosexuality? if you are then you are wrong in my opinion (although you probably arent) but if someone is a homophobe, then why cant they be an.... emo-phobe or an anti-chav. being gay IS merely wanting to be different, but that IS a defining characteristic of every living person on this earth. just think to yourself, how are you different from your friends? there will be many reasons. maybe you like having long hair when your friends like short. maybe you socially exclude yourself from a certain person simply because of their morals. or maybe one of your freinds are gay? i go to an all male high school (sucks i know) and a few of my frinds are gay. but does that stop us from getting changed for P.E in front of them? no. so if you are a whatever-phobe, just think that there's someone who is a you-phobe.

He is not a homophobe, and I don't know how the hell you gleaned that from his post.

And basically Blizz, I think you said pretty much what I said--with examples--in a lot more words.

[Kablizzy]

Was I not clear enough in my seven paragraphs of paraexplanitory text?

Being gay is certainly not simply a want to be different, and from that, you make it sound like being gay is a choice - I'd have to ponder your stance on homophobia after saying something like that.

Edit: One more thing. Let's do a test. I'm going to go register three X-Box Live Gamertags - LesbianLover, Nigga4Sho, and ClevelandSteamer.

I don't identify with any of those three - I'm not a lesbian (Although Backstop Bitches 12 was trés magnifique!), I'm certainly not a Nigga Fo' Sho', and last I checked, I didn't live in Cleveland or Steam Carpets for a living. Would all of those gamertags get banned? Yep. Does it matter that I'm not a Lesbian, Black man, or steaming pile on someone's chest? Nope. Microsoft doesn't care who's behind the gamertag. If the woman mentioned in the first article were an eleven year-old boy, we would have never heard of this issue whatsoever.

But more than that? What if I genuinely had no idea what a Cleveland Steamer was? What if I were the best damned carpet steamer in Cleveland? Thoughts to ponder.

[Atilla]

Yo, Blizz, I think you missed the part where I was talking about the "about me" section in a profile, rather than a Gamertag. Yeah, it's kind of silly to put your sexuality in your gamertag - though no more silly than calling yourself "Narutofanboy1314" or something. However, if someone says "So, tell me about yourself..." and you respond "Well, I'm a 28-year-old woman, I'm a structural engineer, and I live in Devonshire with my girlfriend of six years (yes, I'm lesbian)." I don't see how this is some terrible offence against society. I mean, you did ask about their personal life. Isn't it pretty silly to demand that nobody mention their spouse or partner or whatever because OMG THIS DUDE HAS A WIFE, THAT MEANS HE IS HETEROSEXUAL BANBANBANBANBAN? Or if it's okay to mention your partner, why is "I'm a girl and I'm in a romantic relationship with another girl!" okay, when "I'm a lesbian!" is, apparently, a horrible affront to humanity?

[SlappyMcGee]

Yo, Blizz, I think you missed the part where I was talking about the "about me" section in a profile, rather than a Gamertag. Yeah, it's kind of silly to put your sexuality in your gamertag - though no more silly than calling yourself "Narutofanboy1314" or something. However, if someone says "So, tell me about yourself..." and you respond "Well, I'm a 28-year-old woman, I'm a structural engineer, and I live in Devonshire with my girlfriend of six years (yes, I'm lesbian)." I don't see how this is some terrible offence against society. I mean, you did ask about their personal life. Isn't it pretty silly to demand that nobody mention their spouse or partner or whatever because OMG THIS DUDE HAS A WIFE, THAT MEANS HE IS HETEROSEXUAL BANBANBANBANBAN? Or if it's okay to mention your partner, why is "I'm a girl and I'm in a romantic relationship with another girl!" okay, when "I'm a lesbian!" is, apparently, a horrible affront to humanity?

This isn't Microsoft saying, "All sexuality is forbidden because it makes us feel uncomfortable/trying to protect other people/whatever". They're doing this because if you mention your sexuality in your profile, the XBOX community is a bunch of trolls and dickwads, and you're going to have given material to a bunch of trolls and dickwads. The very fact that she received complaints from the community to Microsoft is indicative of the fact that that community can't handle itself in an appropriate manner. So, in order to make the experience as enjoyable as possible for everyone, they try and limit trolling. So, don't mention your sexuality. They're legally entitled to do that, and they're goal isn't wrong either.

[jean-luc]

Yo, Blizz, I think you missed the part where I was talking about the "about me" section in a profile, rather than a Gamertag. Yeah, it's kind of silly to put your sexuality in your gamertag - though no more silly than calling yourself "Narutofanboy1314" or something. However, if someone says "So, tell me about yourself..." and you respond "Well, I'm a 28-year-old woman, I'm a structural engineer, and I live in Devonshire with my girlfriend of six years (yes, I'm lesbian)." I don't see how this is some terrible offence against society. I mean, you did ask about their personal life. Isn't it pretty silly to demand that nobody mention their spouse or partner or whatever because OMG THIS DUDE HAS A WIFE, THAT MEANS HE IS HETEROSEXUAL BANBANBANBANBAN? Or if it's okay to mention your partner, why is "I'm a girl and I'm in a romantic relationship with another girl!" okay, when "I'm a lesbian!" is, apparently, a horrible affront to humanity?

This isn't Microsoft saying, "All sexuality is forbidden because it makes us feel uncomfortable/trying to protect other people/whatever". They're doing this because if you mention your sexuality in your profile, the XBOX community is a bunch of trolls and dickwads, and you're going to have given material to a bunch of trolls and dickwads. The very fact that she received complaints from the community to Microsoft is indicative of the fact that that community can't handle itself in an appropriate manner. So, in order to make the experience as enjoyable as possible for everyone, they try and limit trolling. So, don't mention your sexuality. They're legally entitled to do that, and they're goal isn't wrong either.

Right, that's exactly my point. and MS has admitted taht the policy is "inelegant", but it's the best solution they can come up with.

[Kablizzy]

Yo, Blizz, I think you missed the part where I was talking about the "about me" section in a profile, rather than a Gamertag. Yeah, it's kind of silly to put your sexuality in your gamertag - though no more silly than calling yourself "Narutofanboy1314" or something. However, if someone says "So, tell me about yourself..." and you respond "Well, I'm a 28-year-old woman, I'm a structural engineer, and I live in Devonshire with my girlfriend of six years (yes, I'm lesbian)." I don't see how this is some terrible offence against society. I mean, you did ask about their personal life. Isn't it pretty silly to demand that nobody mention their spouse or partner or whatever because OMG THIS DUDE HAS A WIFE, THAT MEANS HE IS HETEROSEXUAL BANBANBANBANBAN? Or if it's okay to mention your partner, why is "I'm a girl and I'm in a romantic relationship with another girl!" okay, when "I'm a lesbian!" is, apparently, a horrible affront to humanity?

No one said it's an offense against society. If declaring your sexuality is against a private institution's TOS, end of discussion. Also, you know as well as I do that Narutofanboy1314 should also be banned, because Naruto sucks.

But seriously - If there's an about me section, then absolutely put your personal information in there. If you didn't read the portion of the TOS where it says "Orientation is strictly prohibited," then sucks to be you.

If no one knows what NormalGamer's orientation is, they won't be able to call him a "dum fagg" and insult his orientation. If you're flying your flag, you've gotta expect some people being out there who are wholly willing to exploit it at all costs. You know how Internet is, Atilla. In either case, I view this particular policy much in the way Slaps does - It's not a rule meant to hurt or otherwise disenfranchise gays - if anything, it's meant to protect them from this thing we call Internets. Is it a bit overbearing? Sure. Is it a tad silly? Yeah, probably. Is it well within their rights and jurisdiction? You betcha.

[Atilla]

It's certainly within their jurisdiction, yes, but that doesn't mean it's not freaking stupid. Also, it is discriminatory in effect whether it is intended to be or not - in the same way that handing out free money on an office on the 7th floor with no access except stairs disenfranchises the elderly, those with wheelchairs, etc., or in the way that giving everyone the the same right to marriage - that is, the right to marry someone of the opposite sex - is clearly discriminatory, even though it doesn't explicitly say "Haha, take that, gays!"

And what you're saying, about "protecting people"? That's just blaming the victim. It's moving responsibility away from the people who are actually doing the bad shit, and onto the victim for persistently and aggravatingly being gay, or black, or female. It's an affirmation of the view that homosexuals cannot exist in normal society and need to be hidden from the eyes of decent folk so's not to cause a ruckus. Yeah, I know how the internet is. And, knowing that, I am sure as hell not going to advocate that we ban gay-oriented (ahaha) websites to "protect the gays". Remember, the alternative is not putting a "sexuality" box on the sign-up form and slapping "WARNING: GAY" sign on the profile of all homosexual users - it's just letting people decide for themselves whether they want to make their sexuality known. If they're worried about abuse, they're free to keep it hidden.

[blue_tetris]

If no one knows what NormalGamer's orientation is, they won't be able to call him a "dum fagg" and insult his orientation. If you're flying your flag, you've gotta expect some people being out there who are wholly willing to exploit it at all costs. You know how Internet is, Atilla. In either case, I view this particular policy much in the way Slaps does - It's not a rule meant to hurt or otherwise disenfranchise gays - if anything, it's meant to protect them from this thing we call Internets. Is it a bit overbearing? Sure. Is it a tad silly? Yeah, probably. Is it well within their rights and jurisdiction? You betcha.

If the company lets them enter their own text into text fields, then they need to state in their license what sorts of language can get you banned. If the company says "identifying as a homosexual will get you banned" outright when you are purchasing the service, then they can ban you for that later on. If the company says "acting like a black person will get you banned", they can ban you for that too. Racism, sexism, and being a dick are all legal.

The question isn't about whether this is legal or not. The question is about whether this is a reason to distrust the company Microsoft and its service. They have the right to do it; we have the right to complain about it. Rights and laws didn't enter the argument at any point. The argument is whether or not this behavior is poor and harmful to customers. It's whether it's bad business.

People who use the service a lot will grow accustomed to being in a group that doesn't want to ackowledge something about them or, at length, discriminates against them. And it's never fun to be in a group of people that doesn't like you because you're gay. On the one hand, you can say "Well then get the hell out of that group!" But do you want to join the group that hates gay people? Do you support the group that hates gay people? Will you just say "Well, what they do is legal, so I like it!"? (Hyperbole has been used here to emphasize the argument that legal =/= good.)



About "protection". Protecting people from something is saying, "Your group is too weak to deal with free speech, so we're insulating you against it." On the rest of the Internet, there's no company to tell you not to say "Hi, I'm gay!" and there's no company to tell you not to say "I hate faggots!" All of those bits of speech are typically allowed by whatever company is sponsoring your text. People are thrown out into an open forum of fools who have the ability to say anything they like about themselves or one another and have only social consequences to deal with in the aftermath.

If Microsoft thinks a padded-walled room is something that is better for business, it might find itself sadly mistaken--so long as not too many people support it just because it's legal. Most people will take this as inherently discriminatory: harkening to the days of "separate but equal" treatment. And if the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is good for them, they might think about including it for every demographic, including white people and mathematicians. So instead of having to say "use of racial slurs is against the rules", they can just say "race is against the rules; just, y'know, everything about it; don't have a race, please" and hope that any racial slurs are so off-mark that no one can get offended. And just in case people come up with mathematician jokes, their bases are covered.

On Steam, most of the servers tolerate anyone saying "nigger" over and over, to their hearts' content. And, incidentally, it usually doesn't happen when a black person announces themselves on. No one outlawed the use of "nigger"; no one said not to tell what race you are. The Steam company trusts us enough to socially manage these situations. If the company curtailed our ordinary liberties too much to let us use it, we'd stop using it. And we'd tell our friends to make sure they stopped using it too.



Anyhow, if we at Metanet said "no mention of your sexuality in your profiles, please", it might be met with some resistance. We may even lose a few members. Microsoft is pretty big-wig and it's got thousands of members whose sexuality is as important to their personalities and their gender, so I can imagine they'll be met with much more resistance. Instead, Metanet has more general policies about "no harassment". It doesn't matter whether you're harassing someone due to their race, sex, or whatever. Some people have left the community because they can't deal with those rules. And that's fine. I think it's harder to complain about a harassment-free community than a gay-free community. But surely complaints can be lodged about both.



EDIT: Woah! Image thingies by our names for forum status? Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeird.

[otters~1]

A little common sense would have prevented this whole situation.

[Kablizzy]

If the company lets them enter their own text into text fields, then they need to state in their license what sorts of language can get you banned. If the company says "identifying as a homosexual will get you banned" outright when you are purchasing the service, then they can ban you for that later on. If the company says "acting like a black person will get you banned", they can ban you for that too. Racism, sexism, and being a dick are all legal.

The question isn't about whether this is legal or not. The question is about whether this is a reason to distrust the company Microsoft and its service. They have the right to do it; we have the right to complain about it. Rights and laws didn't enter the argument at any point. The argument is whether or not this behavior is poor and harmful to customers. It's whether it's bad business.

People who use the service a lot will grow accustomed to being in a group that doesn't want to ackowledge something about them or, at length, discriminates against them. And it's never fun to be in a group of people that doesn't like you because you're gay. On the one hand, you can say "Well then get the hell out of that group!" But do you want to join the group that hates gay people? Do you support the group that hates gay people? Will you just say "Well, what they do is legal, so I like it!"? (Hyperbole has been used here to emphasize the argument that legal =/= good.)

About "protection". Protecting people from something is saying, "Your group is too weak to deal with free speech, so we're insulating you against it." On the rest of the Internet, there's no company to tell you not to say "Hi, I'm gay!" and there's no company to tell you not to say "I hate faggots!" All of those bits of speech are typically allowed by whatever company is sponsoring your text. People are thrown out into an open forum of fools who have the ability to say anything they like about themselves or one another and have only social consequences to deal with in the aftermath.

If Microsoft thinks a padded-walled room is something that is better for business, it might find itself sadly mistaken--so long as not too many people support it just because it's legal. Most people will take this as inherently discriminatory: harkening to the days of "separate but equal" treatment. And if the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is good for them, they might think about including it for every demographic, including white people and mathematicians. So instead of having to say "use of racial slurs is against the rules", they can just say "race is against the rules; just, y'know, everything about it; don't have a race, please" and hope that any racial slurs are so off-mark that no one can get offended. And just in case people come up with mathematician jokes, their bases are covered.

On Steam, most of the servers tolerate anyone saying "nigger" over and over, to their hearts' content. And, incidentally, it usually doesn't happen when a black person announces themselves on. No one outlawed the use of "nigger"; no one said not to tell what race you are. The Steam company trusts us enough to socially manage these situations. If the company curtailed our ordinary liberties too much to let us use it, we'd stop using it. And we'd tell our friends to make sure they stopped using it too.

Anyhow, if we at Metanet said "no mention of your sexuality in your profiles, please", it might be met with some resistance. We may even lose a few members. Microsoft is pretty big-wig and it's got thousands of members whose sexuality is as important to their personalities and their gender, so I can imagine they'll be met with much more resistance. Instead, Metanet has more general policies about "no harassment". It doesn't matter whether you're harassing someone due to their race, sex, or whatever. Some people have left the community because they can't deal with those rules. And that's fine. I think it's harder to complain about a harassment-free community than a gay-free community. But surely complaints can be lodged about both.

EDIT: Woah! Image thingies by our names for forum status? Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeird.

I'm not sure. I had a really sensical argument as to why it was precisely the opposite - especially pertaining to the idea of actual equality versus faux equality, but I think you and I still fall on different sides of the top-down versus bottom-up engineering in social situations. I think that social management can only go so far before something needs to be done, but in saying that, I seem to put myself in the position of backing such things as affirmative action, which I quite explicitly don't.

In addition, I think I was operating under the assumption that Microsoft did indeed state that orientation was prohibited from those fields - But I suppose this situation can be taken in two distinct ways, and I have to re-analyze what train of thought I was on before.

[smartalco]

On Steam, most of the servers tolerate anyone saying "nigger" over and over, to their hearts' content. And, incidentally, it usually doesn't happen when a black person announces themselves on. No one outlawed the use of "nigger"; no one said not to tell what race you are. The Steam companyValve trusts us enough to socially manage these situations. If the company curtailed our ordinary liberties too much to let us use it, we'd stop using it. And we'd tell our friends to make sure they stopped using it too.

Except Valve doesn't host their own servers (at least, not many, aside from maybe L4D I doubt any of us have played on their servers) and isn't directly responsible for anything done on them. MS however, does have one of the most closed multiplayer systems in existence, so when someone does spam random offensive content, they are the ones receiving the complaint. With Valve games, Valve doesn't hear any of it (at least not from the competent people complaining), it is the server hosts that get the angry emails (most of which probably immediately move them to the 'spam' box).

[blue_tetris]

On Steam, most of the servers tolerate anyone saying "nigger" over and over, to their hearts' content. And, incidentally, it usually doesn't happen when a black person announces themselves on. No one outlawed the use of "nigger"; no one said not to tell what race you are. The Steam companyValve trusts us enough to socially manage these situations. If the company curtailed our ordinary liberties too much to let us use it, we'd stop using it. And we'd tell our friends to make sure they stopped using it too.

Except Valve doesn't host their own servers (at least, not many, aside from maybe L4D I doubt any of us have played on their servers) and isn't directly responsible for anything done on them. MS however, does have one of the most closed multiplayer systems in existence, so when someone does spam random offensive content, they are the ones receiving the complaint. With Valve games, Valve doesn't hear any of it (at least not from the competent people complaining), it is the server hosts that get the angry emails (most of which probably immediately move them to the 'spam' box).

This is actually very true. I may have gotten a bit prolix before.

If you go on a lot of servers for Steam games, there are rules for content. Now, there's nothing illegal about letting someone say "faggot" on your server, but if you are responsible for the content and are trying to get users/donators for your server, that could hurt your business.

The bottomline here is whether Microsoft went too far in protecting their servers and making sure people were comfortable. In pre-emptively banning a person who was a lesbian for receiving complaints, MS really bought into a witch hunt and attempted to run their servers for a more conservative gay-fearing crowd that asked politely that their children not be exposed to homosexuals. They can claim it was for "protection" of a "protected group", but that's just lip service. You don't prevent killings by halting the sale of knives--you're more likely to prevent eatings that way. There might be a metaphor in there.

I wouldn't participate in that community--hell, the television isn't afraid of gays that much, and Disney and the FCC run television. I think that's pretty much it.

[SlappyMcGee]

Ultimately, proof that the XBOX Live community is not as infallible as people in the Console Wars threads seem to make it sound.