After almost 16 years on this site, I have to say this is just about the most disappointed I've felt with the mod team and site admins. This is the type of thing that vgchartz is known for not doing, and one of the reasons I love this place. I have no skin in this game, personally (I have no interest in HP or its author), but the principle of outright banning particular views or counters rubs me the wrong way. As does stretching the whole guilt by association-or proxy thing that's washing over the western world these past few years. I happen to belong to the classical liberal left, and this type of decision and reasoning makes me sad, more than anything.

Going to add on to this.

Questioning the boycott is fine, I.E. Believing it to be pointless or that it won't work (it clearly hasn't worked, if anything, it probably increased sales a little).

Just do not mock people for taking part in it, as many of those have genuine reasons for being upset with the connections it has to JK Rowling.

Going to use an example: I'm likely to avoid Atomic Hearts due to certain financial connections it has, I won't attack anyone for playing it, I don't expect to be mocked for it, I won't agree to banning discussion on it, I'm making a personal decision.

Fairly simple: Don't attack/Don't mock.

Discussion on the game isn't banned. Discussion on the boycott isn't banned. Just saying to be considerate on how you frame it.

Off topic, but speaking of appreciation. I appreciate your Always Sunny avatar.

Talk about the game and leave the politics out of it. Anybody who wants to boycott is free to do as such. I will be grabbing the game tomorrow. Looks really cool.

I don’t think you have cause for concern. Bigotry has always been banned on this site. This is a clarification of an existing rule that has been recently violated many times.

It’s always going to be dicey to have an open political section on a site that strives to set the bar of discourse higher than Youtube or Twitter.

This would've gone over better if the OP was fully focused on just the civility aspect and left out the other stuff by just saying that attacking those who are not buying the game cause of Rowling or those who play or stream it is not allowed. The way it's written is pretty off-putting to most people.

It's the right approach to take, because people have taken the discussion to far in a negative direction, baited, trolled and been downright toxic.

When it comes to peoples sexuality/gender or otherwise, it's honestly none of our business, it's an aspect of the person, it's not the person as a whole, they deserve dignity and respect, not constant attacks and derided behaviour.

There are Trans people on this website, I fully support, back and acknowledge them, we all should, we are a community... And I would ask and offer to any individual on this website who may be struggling or feeling frustrated, feel free to reach out, have a chat, we are here to help and support you, we do more than just moderate.

Exactly. It could have been as simple as saying not to comment on issues such as this surrounding the game. Instead it is a post forcefully giving a specific viewpoint as the only one that is right and acceptable.

I don't think mocking the boycott equals agreement with Rowlings positions or endorsement of transphobia. There are a lot of reasons to criticize the boycott, be it that it mostly harms devs that themself have differing opinions than Rowling and put a lot of work into a game they wanted to make. Or the fact that boycotting is endorsing the neoliberal delusion that informed consumption can be ethical (it will not be) - it is better to use your money to support charities or organizations that *directly* support your cause instead of diluting your opinion in consumption decisions. Or be it the fact that some streamers got attacked and mobbed for streaming the game, which is not OK. All of this can be reason to criticize the boycott and mocking is one way to (harshly) criticize. That all doesn't mean one is transphobic.

For everyone feeling guilty playing the game: if we assume 10% of the game revenue goes to Rowling (probably way less) and she uses 10% of her money to support trnsphobic causes, then only 1/100 of your money goes to that. If you support a pro-trans charity with even a fraction of the money you spend on the game, you have much more leverage for actual change. Because indirect money is less effective than direct money for the causes.

I find it ridiculous that banning discussion of the game was even considered.