You’re talking about people being able to “say whatever they want”. Do you not understand that for some people, even if not you personally, that will include racist, sexist, homophobic, harassment, and discriminatory language?
You’re either in support of some kind of limitation for community standards or you support people being free to use the above wherever and whenever they want with no consequence. There is no middle ground.
Are you saying that Blizzard prohibiting hate speech, harassment, and discrimination is an “oppressive community standard”? If not, then your point is irrelevant. If you are, then you’re the problem they’re trying to solve.
No, Blizzard isn’t establishing norms, they are reflecting the norms expected from the vast majority of their clientele and society in general.
FFS, the “Social Contract” is a restatement of things that WoW customers have been agreeing to since 2004. They weren’t shaping culture then either.
Yep. And history is ripe with the injustices and awful things that occurred when the vague is utilized to turn the masses against the minority.
Their not establishing norms? Are you reading your own words? And again, the details of the community standards isn’t my real problem.
Yes. They restated their ToS/EULA. And have now titled it a “social contract.” Which has historical meaning to Thomas Hobbes and now apparently the “woke” movement.
And by the way, the initial “woke” movement was by EXCEPTIONAL PEOPLE who were being oppressed and needed to get the word out. Now it is a political talking point…
Okay, so you’re in support of hate speech, harassment, and discrimination. At least the mask is off.
Yes, are you? Do you understand the difference between ‘shaping society’ and ‘being shaped by society’? Blizzard is not creating a community standard, they are using one that is expected of them from society.
The overreaction here is off the charts. I wonder how many of you were even familiar with Hobbes before 9.2.5. This is nothing more than an agreement that Blizzard expects people to understand as a requisite for playing the game. You pay for service, which they provide, but you must agree to some basic community standard to participate. That’s it. Stop trying to turn this into an 18th century revolution against the monarchy.
I wasn’t in the room where the decision was made, but I suspect it was a combination of two reasons. One, in the wake of their own issues, they are planning on being more aggressive about policing the standards that have been laid out, and didn’t want to do so without giving people a reminder about what they’ve agreed to.
Two, and more cynically, it’s a PR move to demonstrate publicly the things that are prohibited in the game to try to win back some of their lost support.
Outrage about the contents are absurd though, given that the content is the same as it has been for almost 2 decades without complaint.
Nope. You are just trying to create paradoxical sentences, but lack the command of the English language to understand why your statements are incorrect.
Lol. Your arrogance is impressive. Guess the chicken came before the egg.
Haven’t “accepted” the ‘social contract’. So my game time consist of coming here now to voice my opposition. Sad you don’t recognize that if this was a historical reference to something oppressive that you believed in fighting for, you’d be in my shoes.
Yah! None of us were! That is the point. All we know is what they put in front of us to read. And we know that this has other meanings if they are presenting it as a “social contract.”
It’s much more likely that you are lacking the command of the language required to understand them.
FFS, it’s not a historical reference, and even if it were, it would be to Rousseau who wrote “The Social Contract”, not Hobbes. Furthermore, as a historical reference, which it isn’t, the concept of social contracts is a theory of how society is held together, and isn’t inherently oppressive. You don’t know nearly enough about the subject to fuel your false outrage with this, and I will call you out on it every time.
Yeah, all of the subscribers should be involved in setting the rules, not just the business who is supplying the capital to run the servers and actually host the game! Power to the People!!!
By the way, no one was in the room in 2004 when they set up the ToS, EULA, and CoC, but you didn’t complain then.
It has no other meaning beyond what is written, which is a non-legalese rewrite of the conditions YOU’VE ALREADY AGREED TO FOR YEARS. Please, please, please try to get a handle on reality.
You’re trying to make it political and it isn’t. They are hosting a game, if you want to play you need to accept the rules. If you don’t, you can’t. It is literally that simple.
Cliff notes will only get you so far in life. You used wikipedia…
What?.. I just want to play a game. Not delve into political theory.
Because a conscious choice to be ignorant was taken.
You didn’t open the link. Even the customer support rep knew where the term “social contract” comes from. Interestingly, and smartly, he edited his post to remove the reference to the ‘woke’ movement.
Edited by Vrakthris
I did no such thing. I didn't edit any of my posts in the thread you started in the CS forum, and the only thing I edited in the thread you quoted was to add to my original post. I removed nothing.
I know this will be a shock to someone like you, but some of us have actually read these works, and were familiar with them long before 9.2.5.
Then why did you express outrage that no one else was in the room making the decision?
I did open the link. It’s a non issue. You can try all you want to make it political, but the concept of a social contract is apolitical. If there were no rules, it would be in each individual’s best interest to take whatever they could from whomever they could whenever they wanted. This results in a very dangerous world, however, so people adopt rules to govern behavior for everyone’s mutual safety and well-being. In this way, people accept a limitation on their personal liberty to act however they please in exchange for the same limitation on everyone else in the name of a cohesive society that can coexist.
If you expect that people won’t come into your house and steal your belongings, and you agree to not go into someone else’s home and steal their belongings, then you agree in principal to the concept of a social contract and can let go of this utterly absurd political nonsense you’re layering over what is nothing more than a rebranding of a EULA you’ve agreed to for years.
Your innocent “I’m just asking questions!” schtick would land better if it wasn’t for:
I don’t think that’s the “gotcha” that you think it is when there are plenty of other blue posts of them being explicit and clear about the intent of the social contract.
It’s their company. Some of us just want to play the game a different way, we will still be decent human beings (e.g. not harassing, hating, or discriminating).
No no. You read what you wanted too. The other side of this isn’t advocating for no rules (you are bringing in a new political spectrum now between anarchy vs totalitarianism). The argument is to find the middle ground between the individual and collective rules here.
Nope. You are trying to change the spectrum again. Now who is comparing apples to fire engines…
I am quite enjoying the gnashing of the teeth, wringing of the hands, and the eye twitching going on because people are getting called out for their crappy behavior. For those that are refusing to agree to the “social contract”. Good for you, stand by your convictions, and I glad you won’t be in game because it tells me all I need to know about you.
