Blizzard to patrol Moon Guard's Goldshire for harassment, erotic role playing

Check out the full Blizzard response after the break.
Arrestide -- Re: Cancelled My Son's AccountThis topic is not a new one, and we know it's a concern for our players and our player-parents. We hear perennial complaints about spots in our game where this activity is said to take place, and Moon Guard Goldshire appears in that list with some regularity.
Often the public assumption is that unless a GM appears with a crack of lightning and a mighty hammer, Blizzard is turning a blind eye.... this is very much not the case, so I'm hoping to shed a little more light on this topic from Blizzard's perspective.
For reference, the In-Game Harassment Policy:
http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?locale=en_US&articleId=20226
Our Intent
It's our goal (and in our interests, obviously), to present a safe and accessible environment for play. While defining "offensive" behavior can be subjective, the policy linked above reflects our working definition, and our intent to keep certain types of offensive behavior from affecting the play experience.
Enforcement
With millions of players in hundreds of servers and thousands of channels, it is impossible to manually monitor everywhere. To this end, World of Warcraft provides features to help players protect themselves and help us moderate accordingly:
- Profanity/obscenity filter to automatically intercept the most obvious offensive language
- The ability to report any player violating the rules
- Ignore functionality to remove individuals from appearing in chat
No single one of these, by itself, is always sufficient. It's critical to understand the rules we're enforcing, and where they apply. Relevant to this case, whisper chat between two consenting individuals, guildmates, etc is not an area we are out to pro-actively police. Any offensive in-game behavior needs to be reported in order to receive the right followup.
"Punish in Private"
Some posters on this thread have suggested that Blizzard ignores those reports. From several years as a manager for our call centers, I can promise you that we take action routinely.... because they call us. Or they email us. Sometimes there's blame placed on a roommate or sibling, sometimes an account thief committed the offense, etc. The point is that players appeal because players receive actions. You won't see it happen.... well, unless it happens to you. Otherwise you can only decide whether you will take our word on it.
Okay, what now?
Members of our CS team will 'patrol' Goldshire on Moon Guard on a regular basis, and take appropriate action for individuals violating the Harassment Policy. Note that this pertains primarily to public messages (/say, /yell, General) and unsolicited whispers. We won't be showing up with that mythical crack of lightning-- we'll just be watching silently for any rule-breaking language and following up privately with the player[s] in question.
Often the public assumption is that unless a GM appears with a crack of lightning and a mighty hammer, Blizzard is turning a blind eye.... this is very much not the case, so I'm hoping to shed a little more light on this topic from Blizzard's perspective.
For reference, the In-Game Harassment Policy:
http://us.blizzard.com/support/article.xml?locale=en_US&articleId=20226
Our Intent
It's our goal (and in our interests, obviously), to present a safe and accessible environment for play. While defining "offensive" behavior can be subjective, the policy linked above reflects our working definition, and our intent to keep certain types of offensive behavior from affecting the play experience.
Enforcement
With millions of players in hundreds of servers and thousands of channels, it is impossible to manually monitor everywhere. To this end, World of Warcraft provides features to help players protect themselves and help us moderate accordingly:
- Profanity/obscenity filter to automatically intercept the most obvious offensive language
- The ability to report any player violating the rules
- Ignore functionality to remove individuals from appearing in chat
No single one of these, by itself, is always sufficient. It's critical to understand the rules we're enforcing, and where they apply. Relevant to this case, whisper chat between two consenting individuals, guildmates, etc is not an area we are out to pro-actively police. Any offensive in-game behavior needs to be reported in order to receive the right followup.
"Punish in Private"
Some posters on this thread have suggested that Blizzard ignores those reports. From several years as a manager for our call centers, I can promise you that we take action routinely.... because they call us. Or they email us. Sometimes there's blame placed on a roommate or sibling, sometimes an account thief committed the offense, etc. The point is that players appeal because players receive actions. You won't see it happen.... well, unless it happens to you. Otherwise you can only decide whether you will take our word on it.
Okay, what now?
Members of our CS team will 'patrol' Goldshire on Moon Guard on a regular basis, and take appropriate action for individuals violating the Harassment Policy. Note that this pertains primarily to public messages (/say, /yell, General) and unsolicited whispers. We won't be showing up with that mythical crack of lightning-- we'll just be watching silently for any rule-breaking language and following up privately with the player[s] in question.
This is the first time the customer service team has taken a preemptive, proactive approach to dealing with this type of rule-breaking behavior. Moon Guard is infamous for its roleplay community, but this move by Blizzard should definitely not be seen as a slight against their acceptance of roleplayers in general. The policy is laid out for those who would want to roleplay in the general chat channels, and Moon Guard residents can rest assured that their private conversations are not being monitored for harassment policy infractions. Unsolicited /tells, however, are definitely against the rules, especially when they involve unwanted language, descriptions, vulgarity or innuendo.
Blizzard has a fairly comprehensive In-Game Harassment Policy that can be found here for your perusal. Moon Guardians, my only advice to you is to keep it to party chat -- that sultry human death knight at the bar you're eyeing might not appreciate that /tell in the way it was intended.
Filed under: News items, Account Security
Patch 5.4 patch notes
Virtual Realms feature revealed
The Proving Grounds are coming
The latest patch 5.4 news





Reader Comments (Page 2 of 14)
Amoose Aug 5th 2010 12:43AM
@Heilig
"People who label themselves as part of the LGBT community are in fact usually overtly sexual, it's part of the reason they identify so strongly with the agenda of the movement... The 'movement' has an agenda and have decided to be very open and public with their sexuality.""
I'm almost speechless.
You know nothing about the LGBT community if this is really what you think it's all about. Those Nice, Quiet Queer People who aren't overtly sexual ALSO identify with the LGBT community-- and the community is NOT about sex.
Maybe someday you'll actually comprehend what the queer community is about, but until then, please stop spouting crap you don't understand, because as "accepting" as you think you're trying to be, you're setting acceptance back.
Cambro Aug 5th 2010 1:25AM
Well that's just great. Now the ERPers will have to worry about Blizzard watching what they say in addition to Stone Phillips.
Tuhljin Aug 5th 2010 7:22PM
Most of the people attacking Heilig clearly aren't reading the guy's posts. People who CALL THEMSELVES "LGBT" - that's a COMMUNITY/CULTURE LABEL, folks, not a "I happen to be attracted to " label - absolutely do tend to. It's not a stereotype. Your immediate jumping-down-of-throats attacks on Heilig are more stereotypical than what he/she's saying. Oh, and the guy that mentioned Prop 8? Who says Heilig was for it, anyway? And if he was, what's your point? It's pretty unrelated and it clearly wouldn't put him in the minority, now would it? (No, the "judge" is the one in the minority, thanks.)
Tuhljin Aug 5th 2010 7:26PM
Oh, and Re: "the queer community"... the rest of us (including most homosexuals) don't go about creating special-interest clique "communities" based on our sexuality.
Also:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/gaypride-parade-sets-mainstream-acceptance-of-gays,351/
Oteo Aug 6th 2010 5:07AM
INCOMING ESSAY!
I think I see the mistake in Heilig's posts.
From reading his posts, I would guess that Heilig assumes that people take on the LGBT label to advertise their sexuality and find others who also claim the LGBT label for the purpose of sexual acts.
Example: If I say "I'm gay," I'm just stating a fact about myself. If I say "I'm LGBT," it would be like saying "I'm into S&M." "I'm LGBT" = "I'm into being overtly sexual (in a homosexual way)" At least, this is how I think Heilig interprets it when people say they're "LGBT," since he made a distinction between friends saying "I'm gay" and "I'm LGBT."
If this is true, Heilig, then LGBT does not mean what you seem to think it means. It's a catchall label of pride, like saying "I'm black and I'm proud" only it deals with sexuality.
Why do we need the pride label of LGBT? I believe you when you say you don't care if someone is gay or not, but you have to keep in mind that not everyone is as tolerant. We live in a society that would disqualify lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people from doing things they're otherwise qualified to do, like working, based solely on their sexuality. A woman fired from her job solely because her boss finds out she's a lesbian, despite the fact that her sexual orientation had absolutely no bearing on her work, is an example of this. The only thing someone's sexual orientation or gender identity should have an effect on is whether or not I want to have a sexual/romantic relationship with them ( a straight woman doesn't want to marry a homosexual man: he's just not that into her), but gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people are still marginalized in our society due to their sexuality.
*This* is why people call themselves LGBT: instead of allowing others to marginalize them for their sexuality (something that should be a non-issue in the vast majority of our daily interactions), LGBT claim it as a point of pride to spite those who would discriminate against them, NOT to advertise that they're into a culture of overt sexuality. It's a catchall because the one thing, and maybe only thing, that unites this group is that fact that they're discriminated against for their sexual orientation or gender identity. They define themselves by their sexuality only because *we* non-LGBT force them into that position through our discrimination.
(I specifically wrote out gays, lesbians, etc. etc. several times to avoid preconceived notions about the LGBT label... I'm going to switch back now because LGBT is more convenient.)
To be fair (and assuming I'm on the right track with guessing your thought processes), I can see why you might have made the mistake of thinking "I'm LGBT" = "I'm into public sexuality" given Gay Pride Parades. I think the Onion article someone posted above is actually pretty good in summing up misperceptions about the LGBT label: the whole displaying of LGBT pride through acts of overt homosexuality started as an "in your face" retort to people who had been writing off LGBT people as subhuman hedonists. The key word here is IRONY: basically, to marginalize "otherwise normal" LGBT people, bigots would claim that they were sexual hedonists to justify their discrimination. The LGBT community responds by being overtly sexual in things like parades as a point of pride: when you claim to be proud of something, it's difficult for another to use it to demean you.
People unaware of the history of Gay Pride Parades, as mentioned in the Onion article, see these events and think that's what the LGBT movement is all about: being overtly sexual. What the LGBT movement is really about is not letting other people treat you as inferior for your sexuality. Heilig, when you assert that people who call themselves "LGBT" are looking for overt sexual acts, you unintentionally insult all LGBT who know what the label really means. You are taking one small aspect of the gay rights movement and assuming that's what it's all about. I believe the appropriate idiom for this is "not seeing the forest for the trees."
Tuhljin Aug 6th 2010 4:53PM
"It's a catchall label of pride"
Funny. I don't know many heterosexuals who say "I'm straight and proud of it!" Your experience may vary, but from what I've seen, even "gay and proud" (as an actual statement someone might proclaim to others, not simply stating a fact like "gay and not ashamed" or whatever) is outside the norm. See, when people talk about "gay pride," the vast majority of us think about... well, see The Onion article above. (It's humor, but it's part social commentary.) So... you can tell us we don't understand what LGBT means all you want. Experience tells us otherwise. YMMV.
Tuhljin Aug 6th 2010 5:09PM
One more important point.
"The key word here is IRONY: basically, to marginalize "otherwise normal" LGBT people, bigots would claim that they were sexual hedonists to justify their discrimination. The LGBT community responds by being overtly sexual in things like parades as a point of pride: when you claim to be proud of something, it's difficult for another to use it to demean you."
So... if someone accuses you of something horrific and evil, you... flaunt horrific and evil things? "How dare they call me a thief! I'm not a thief! I'll prove them wrong by showing what REAL thieves are like... by robbing everyone!" Yeah, that'll show 'em.
Sorry, but anyone who responds to, say, "you behave like a slut" by putting on what is arguably (and usually just flat out IS) a full-scale pornographic *production* is not showcasing irony to disprove the other people. They've done the opposite: proving to the world that the other person was correct (at least about those *particular* people if not the group). Whether they would have done such things otherwise is IRRELEVANT just as a man "proving what thievery really is" is still a THIEF. Vile, disgusting, and yes, immoral. And if you can't stand people "judging" you by applying such labels as "immoral" to people behaving like depraved animals, too bad. (Now let's watch someone decry me comparing the stereotypical gay pride parade goers to depraved animals. To them I say, A basic sense of cultural norms, history, and morality you have not.) If these people had any sense and wanted to help their communities, they'd be openly and fiercely combating these "pride parades" instead of participating in them.
Eli Aug 4th 2010 12:37AM
In before "I HAVE THE FREEDOM TO SAY WHAT I WANT, SAYS SO IN MY BILL OF RIGHTS"
Joey2250 Aug 4th 2010 2:39AM
This is inside a private system with different rules and terms than RL, your bill of rights do not apply here. Sorry, k thx bai!
Eli Aug 4th 2010 3:54AM
hence the "in before," implying that I'm not the one who believes that. but yeah, thanks for telling me what I already knew.
Richolivo Aug 4th 2010 7:17AM
owned XD
Itanius Aug 4th 2010 8:28AM
Welcome to the internet, Joey.
VSUReaper Aug 4th 2010 8:30AM
Unfortunately, alot of people attempt to invoke that "right".
All I have to say is that its about damn time they do something proactive. Now if they could only clean up the trade chat from the same crap.
slythwolf Aug 4th 2010 4:20PM
Actually the Bill of Rights *does* apply in game. And when Congress shows up on my server to censor me, that will matter.
Eli Aug 4th 2010 5:48PM
@slythwolf
Lol no it doesn't. Every time you patch your client and click "Accept" to the EULA and ToS, you basically allow Blizzard to terminate your account for any reason at all, even no reason at all if they feel like it. So while you may have the freedom to do say/do anything you want, that's as long as you're willing to live with the potential consequences.
Dammit man, haven't you ever played Assassin's Creed? "Everything is permitted, nothing is forbidden"...but then the dirty second part to that, "but there's a price for everything you do."
Kabuki Joe Aug 4th 2010 7:20PM
Bah, after that first thread, in before something related to Hitler even.
Jake Aug 4th 2010 12:37AM
That is disturbing on a profound level.
Zayd Aug 4th 2010 5:38AM
WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?
Draelan Aug 4th 2010 6:26AM
Yeah! Without places like that, you might actually have to give your kids "the talk". =P
Zayd Aug 4th 2010 7:31AM
Yeah, I tried giving my kid the 'Birds & the Bees' talk last week.
He was all like 'Cunning pets? Whatever!' etc.