By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Official Mod Notice regarding Hogwart's Legacy discussion & rules regarding transphobia.

 I never had any interest in HP so I've never seen, watched,played, or read anything. I was a kid who liked The Worst Witch Movie myself in the 80s. Fairuza Balk was the worst witch and Tim Curry was her mentor. A decade later she's the evil Witch in The Craft and looks like Tim Curry in Rocky Horror Picture Show. My head cannon that's how Mildred ends up.

Ok, I will get my coat of many colors and make like a tree and leave.

Last edited by Leynos - on 18 February 2023

Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Around the Network
shikamaru317 said:

That sure is what it reads like to me. Personally I find it offensive that people are attacking JK simply because she wants to protect female safe spaces like women's restrooms, women's prisons, mental hospital female only wards, women's locker rooms, etc., from possible abuse by men pretending to be women. We have stories like these out there and you wonder why some women are scared out of their minds right now:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11750379/Violent-trans-pedophile-raped-three-month-old-moved-female-prison-mother-baby-unit.html

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life

https://nypost.com/2023/01/14/sighting-of-trans-womans-penis-in-ymca-locker-room-sparks-tears/

Just a few weeks ago, 12 Time NCAA All-American Swimmer Riley Gaines, who competed against transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, was in tears as she talked about how Lia, a 6'4" trans woman with male genitalia still intact, dropped her pants right in front of the biological women, exposing her male genitalia to them. 

Edit: I do fully acknowledge these are "a few bad apples spoil a bunch" type stories. I acknowledge that there are plenty of good transgender people out there who just want to live their lives as normally as possible. They have transitioned to the point where it is no longer safe for them to use the restroom of their birth sex, and the same goes for prisons and such as well. A trans woman who looks 80-90% like a biological a woman is no safer in a male prison or locker room, than the women in a women's prison or locker room are safe with a female identifying male in there with them. We need to be looking for some kind of middle ground here by opening special trans only wards in prisons, those special all gender restrooms with locking doors, trans only sport leagues and classifications, etc., we need to make everyone as happy as possible, not infringe on one group's rights at the cost of another group's rights. Just my two cents. 

Anyway, I will post no more on this subject, especially if it is going to get me banned. 

Who would eat here if there was no item separation?

What if there was just one long trough with everything mixed together?

There's plenty of room for a wide diversity of many things, but a little separation goes a long way.

For those that choose to mix everything together on their own plate, go right ahead, just don't force everyone else to.



What harm exactly has JK Rowlings opinions made? I dont get it.



KLXVER said:

What harm exactly has JK Rowlings opinions made? I dont get it.

She said things that imply that trans women are not and will never be real women and has pointed multiple times the dangers that this line of thinking could entail to biological/real women.

As for this thread, I don't care much about Hogwarts Legacy or the controversy about JK Rowling. I do, however, find disappointing the atitude of the staff of vgchartz on the matter. I agree people should not be made fun off for boycotting the game. It's their choice and they do no harm to anyone. But I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the motives behind the boycott. Not only if the boycott will accomplish anything, but the actual moral reasons behind the boycott itself.

Proclaiming that doing so is in itself an act of bigotry or transfobism is taking things too far. Questioning and having a debate, even if it's not a pleasant subject for one of the parts because it puts their beliefs in doubt is not something that should be censored or punished. That's what debates are for. They are supposed to take us out of our comfort zone, making us see other points of view that we may not agree or even like at all and have a discussion about them.

Another story would be directly attacking a collective or ridiculize it just for the sake of it or to spread hate. That's unacceptable and should be punished. What is not acceptable to me is banning people for, for example, questioning the magnitude or the nature of JK Rowling declarations with arguments, and by extension the reasons behind the boycott to Hogwarts Legacy. That doesn't protect people from bigots or bullies. What that does is allow people to live in a fantasy world where no one will question anything they do or believe in. And if that's what they want, a public forum on the internet is not the best place for them. 

And I won't say anything else about this topic. 

Last edited by Vodacixi - on 18 February 2023

Mnementh said:
Shadow1980 said:

As was explained, people are boycotting this game over Rowling's transphobia. It is specifically the dismissal toward or insulting of concerns over her bigotry that will bannable.

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.

The OP is clear. If you're mocking ppl who are boycotting the game because of their views of Rowling's transphobia, then the mods are going to step in. This definitely hints at condoning transphobic beliefs.

if you mocking the boycott because of concerns for the devs, or streamers, then there's nothing for you to be concerned about (as long as that criticism abides by standard forum rules).  

Thee two situations are clearly not the same. It's that simple. 

haxxiy said:

Should we consider banning discussion on King of Fighters too? Or Tears of the Kingdom? Or the Mario movie (not only because of Ninty but Chris Pratt is at least as conservative as JK Rowling socially speaking)? Etc.

You're jumping to conclusions.



Around the Network
haxxiy said:
Mnementh said:

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.

Ring ding ding.

Saudi Arabia, the world's number one reactionary political force, now owns 7% of Nintendo and has stakes in multiple other game companies, most notably SNK, and profits off them far more than JK Rowling ever will from Hogwarts Legacy.

Should we consider banning discussion on King of Fighters too? Or Tears of the Kingdom? Or the Mario movie (not only because of Ninty but Chris Pratt is at least as conservative as JK Rowling socially speaking)? Etc.

Good point. The SaudiArabia Public Investment Fund has shares in many companies, not only Nintendo, but also EA, Take Two, Activision Blizzard (that also have other reasons to be viewed badly) and Embracer Group (which now own hundreds of IPs and studios). Also non-gaming companies like Boeing, Facebook/Meta, Uber and Disney. The chair of the fund is now Prince Mohammed bin Salman (aka the murder prince). He is the de facto leader of Saudi-Arabia a big country and also a country who basically no checks and balances to restrict the power of their leaders. He also directly ordered the murder of political dissidents and upholds his countries backwards politics in more than one area. So by all means he is way worse than Rowling. And there is barely any way to avoid products of this fund.

Even besides that there are a lot of products that are linked to bad persons or bad practices. Most notably the resources for electronic products often come from regions with military conflict and are extracted using slave labor. So yes, you can find a lot of reasons to boycott many products, but I assure you it is nigh to impossible to avoid all. That is fine though, everyone can do only that much and has to pick their battles.

So it is fine to pick some products. But with that knowledge in mind - it is not fine to accuse people who pick other battles as evil persons. Everyone has ignored many bad connections in products they use. Otherwise they wouldn't be online. So please don't harrass people because they played a game because they wanted to levitate a cat with Leviosa.

the-pi-guy said:
haxxiy said:

Ring ding ding.

Saudi Arabia, the world's number one reactionary political force, now owns 7% of Nintendo and has stakes in multiple other game companies, most notably SNK, and profits off them far more than JK Rowling ever will from Hogwarts Legacy.

Should we consider banning discussion on King of Fighters too? Or Tears of the Kingdom? Or the Mario movie (not only because of Ninty but Chris Pratt is at least as conservative as JK Rowling socially speaking)? Etc.

I doubt that any one here would say that they're going to support Nintendo, because they support all the terrible things that Saudi Arabia does. Yet there are people who are openly thrilled to see Hogwarts Legacy succeed because of the controversy.

Is that the reason for most people to mock the boycott though? Two weeks ago everyone who said they wanted to brew potions and throw chomping cabbages in that game were declared evil persons and transphobes online. I think a lot of the mockery of boycotters now stems from the relieve these people feel, because they were online shamed for their likes and now see how little real world effect that online shaming had.

That said, there are 8 billion people on the world, and I am sure you found some that mock the boycott *because* they want to support Rowling. As I explained before, it would be much more effective just to send a cheque to Rowling if that is your goal, but whatever. But I assure you, there are also people among the 8 billion that want to play Tears of the Kingdom to support Prince Salman. Because such people always exist. But at least from what I can see in my - admittely limited - viewpoint are people that don't really care about Rowling and just want to play a game there they can learn wizardry.

twintail said:
Mnementh said:

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.

The OP is clear. If you're mocking ppl who are boycotting the game because of their views of Rowling's transphobia, then the mods are going to step in. This definitely hints at condoning transphobic beliefs.

if you mocking the boycott because of concerns for the devs, or streamers, then there's nothing for you to be concerned about (as long as that criticism abides by standard forum rules).  

Thee two situations are clearly not the same. It's that simple. 

I don't think the OP was that clear, otherwise not so many would've reacted the way they did. Thanks for clearing that up. But quite franky - for that purpose you didn't even needed a mod note. Because that is already clearly a bannable offense. You see how that may have worked to spread confusion.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Mnementh said:
haxxiy said:

Ring ding ding.

Saudi Arabia, the world's number one reactionary political force, now owns 7% of Nintendo and has stakes in multiple other game companies, most notably SNK, and profits off them far more than JK Rowling ever will from Hogwarts Legacy.

Should we consider banning discussion on King of Fighters too? Or Tears of the Kingdom? Or the Mario movie (not only because of Ninty but Chris Pratt is at least as conservative as JK Rowling socially speaking)? Etc.

Good point. The SaudiArabia Public Investment Fund has shares in many companies, not only Nintendo, but also EA, Take Two, Activision Blizzard (that also have other reasons to be viewed badly) and Embracer Group (which now own hundreds of IPs and studios). Also non-gaming companies like Boeing, Facebook/Meta, Uber and Disney. The chair of the fund is now Prince Mohammed bin Salman (aka the murder prince). He is the de facto leader of Saudi-Arabia a big country and also a country who basically no checks and balances to restrict the power of their leaders. He also directly ordered the murder of political dissidents and upholds his countries backwards politics in more than one area. So by all means he is way worse than Rowling. And there is barely any way to avoid products of this fund.

Even besides that there are a lot of products that are linked to bad persons or bad practices. Most notably the resources for electronic products often come from regions with military conflict and are extracted using slave labor. So yes, you can find a lot of reasons to boycott many products, but I assure you it is nigh to impossible to avoid all. That is fine though, everyone can do only that much and has to pick their battles.

So it is fine to pick some products. But with that knowledge in mind - it is not fine to accuse people who pick other battles as evil persons. Everyone has ignored many bad connections in products they use. Otherwise they wouldn't be online. So please don't harrass people because they played a game because they wanted to levitate a cat with Leviosa.

the-pi-guy said:

I doubt that any one here would say that they're going to support Nintendo, because they support all the terrible things that Saudi Arabia does. Yet there are people who are openly thrilled to see Hogwarts Legacy succeed because of the controversy.

Is that the reason for most people to mock the boycott though? Two weeks ago everyone who said they wanted to brew potions and throw chomping cabbages in that game were declared evil persons and transphobes online. I think a lot of the mockery of boycotters now stems from the relieve these people feel, because they were online shamed for their likes and now see how little real world effect that online shaming had.

 As I explained before, it would be much more effective just to send a cheque to Rowling if that is your goal, but whatever. But I assure you, there are also people among the 8 billion that want to play Tears of the Kingdom to support Prince Salman. Because such people always exist. But at least from what I can see in my - admittely limited - viewpoint are people that don't really care about Rowling and just want to play a game there they can learn wizardry.

twintail said:

The OP is clear. If you're mocking ppl who are boycotting the game because of their views of Rowling's transphobia, then the mods are going to step in. This definitely hints at condoning transphobic beliefs.

if you mocking the boycott because of concerns for the devs, or streamers, then there's nothing for you to be concerned about (as long as that criticism abides by standard forum rules).  

Thee two situations are clearly not the same. It's that simple. 

I don't think the OP was that clear, otherwise not so many would've reacted the way they did. Thanks for clearing that up. But quite franky - for that purpose you didn't even needed a mod note. Because that is already clearly a bannable offense. You see how that may have worked to spread confusion.

>That said, there are 8 billion people on the world, and I am sure you found some that mock the boycott *because* they want to support Rowling.

I'm specifically taking about posts on this very forum. We are not taking action on some hypothetical, other random people saying these things. We made this thread because there has been one major Harry Potter thread on here where there several posts were made including the two that I gave examples from. 

>But I assure you, there are also people among the 8 billion that want to play Tears of the Kingdom to support Prince Salman. 

And again, the issue is not that these people exist. The issue is that people on this very forum are taking this opportunity to post attacks on people for being trans allies.

This isn't a hypothetical, this is a response to posts that have actually happened. 



the-pi-guy said:

Here's the thing. These statements are very generic. 

Both sides think they're the ones pushing for free thought, and only one of them is right.

Person A just wants to live their life, and they're not hurting anyone with it.

Person B wants Person A to stop living their life. And person B is actively supporting policies that hurt person A for living their life. Person B is bullying person A for existing. 

Person A, in order to live their life must fight against the policies that person B is fighting for. In other words, pushing against person B's "free thoughts". 

In a circumstance where person A likes the color blue and person B likes the color green. Sure that's fine. Free thought is important there.  

In a circumstance where person B wants person A to stop existing (or otherwise opposed to someone), someone has to give up their "free thought". It is impossible for everyone to win and everyone to live free, if one side is inherently opposed to the other side's existence. 

The issue is that the idea of everyone having free thought, becomes contradictory when some people's "free thoughts" and actions include eliminating someone else's free thoughts and actions. 

It becomes contradictory to tolerate someone who can't tolerate your existence. 

I'm pretty sure I've made my exact same point with 6 different wordings at this point. 

We're not talking about "mean words" that should just get brushed off. We're talking about kids getting bullied. We're talking about people getting murdered for existing their way. We're talking about politicians putting an enormous amount of resources into ensuring that those people can't exist. 

twintail said:

The OP is clear. If you're mocking ppl who are boycotting the game because of their views of Rowling's transphobia, then the mods are going to step in. This definitely hints at condoning transphobic beliefs.

if you mocking the boycott because of concerns for the devs, or streamers, then there's nothing for you to be concerned about (as long as that criticism abides by standard forum rules).  

Thee two situations are clearly not the same. It's that simple. 

While these things might all be true, shouldn't the OP just have ended with "Thou shalt not insult people"? And leave it at that? Because that is all anyone should know, and it is a, just, rule here to begin with. The drama after that shouldn't have been necessary, because the OP is most obviously not clear looking at the number of confused posts and especially the number of 'agrees' those post get. 20 'agrees' on single posts isn't a rarity here while it would be anywhere else on this site, so you'll have to admit this has been a pretty big misfire and it is indeed pretty disappointing. Everyone here, well everyone except one and the mods (which is understandable because you'll need form some sort of front) has been taking some sort of issue with this; for example that it isn't clear, or that it puts words in people's mouths, that it's contradictory or singles out one issue while leaving others, is plain out of the blue or whatever.

I personally hadn't said a word about this entire thing in the past, not written a single letter, because I didn't care either way. It's live and let live. This goes both ways. I also haven't really seen anything the OP accuses users of doing, everything was normal here as far as I saw, but okay, you are mods and you have probably a better view of what's going on than me as a random user that doesn't even visit every nook and cranny of this site so I'll take your word for it. But now all of a sudden there's this threat on if I would happen to criticise a supposed boycot (which apparently didn't amount to much anyway) I'll be banned, no questions asked.

Look, I live in a country where there's something somewhere celebrating LGBTI+ like every week. I participate in an otherwise unrelated event every year where its second day is completely devoted to being one huge LGBTI+ party. I even wear a pink shirt that day for the occasion. I treat everyone exactly like I would any one person. So not even like Pemalite nicely says "support, back and acknowledge", no, treat them exactly like every other person. Because that is what 'they' want right? But now, this reads like I'd be at risk as being labeled "definitely, surely, without a doubt, no trail needed, a lowly, and dirty transphobe". Simply for criticising someone. And I take offense to that, even if I actually have a thick skin myself, because it would put words in my mouth. It is thinking in black and white.

And isn't this OP supposed to help 'prevent' just that? There's shades of grey between black and white. I shouldn't have even needed to have written the former disclaimer about wearing a pink shirt, but apparently that what's needed to avoid being labeled either one of an extreme, and only either one of an extreme. It makes me, and I'm sure it does others as well, doubt whether or not I would actually be welcome here if the thinking is this black and white, and if there's supposedly only one "true" way of thinking. In that case, I'm glad none of you are actual judges in a court (is one of you?), because you'd be putting away a lot of innocent people with this line of thinking.

haxxiy said:

Should we consider banning discussion on King of Fighters too? Or Tears of the Kingdom? Or the Mario movie (not only because of Ninty but Chris Pratt is at least as conservative as JK Rowling socially speaking)? Etc.

You're jumping to conclusions.

Is he though. That is the point, where's the line then? This should have merely stated that insulting people is ban-able.



Mnementh said:
twintail said:

The OP is clear. If you're mocking ppl who are boycotting the game because of their views of Rowling's transphobia, then the mods are going to step in. This definitely hints at condoning transphobic beliefs.

if you mocking the boycott because of concerns for the devs, or streamers, then there's nothing for you to be concerned about (as long as that criticism abides by standard forum rules).  

Thee two situations are clearly not the same. It's that simple. 

I don't think the OP was that clear, otherwise not so many would've reacted the way they did. Thanks for clearing that up. But quite franky - for that purpose you didn't even needed a mod note. Because that is already clearly a bannable offense. You see how that may have worked to spread confusion.

Idk. I'm not sure how some have jumped to such extreme conclusions based on the OP but they have, so that's an unfortunate situation.

I wasn't even in Modchat for the discussion of this thread, I've not been in Modchat or being a Mod much in general, I did however understand what the OP was getting at but seeing the reactions to the thread and misinterpreting made me jump into Modchat to talk to the Mods but I didn't really need much clarification...Maybe it helps that it basically sums up my thoughts and I know Shadow.

This is the key statement that people should be focusing on "Any further mention of the controversy that has a dismissive or insulting tone towards those who disapprove of J.K. Rowling and the Harry Potter/Wizarding World IP over her transphobia will be met with appropriate moderation."

Some interpreted that as a full stop blanket ban of all discussions relating to the boycott but I for one can't really see where the OP said that but I've had to clarify it nevertheless so I digress, it is what it is.

To clarify once again; Discussion of the boycott isn't banned. Discussion of the game isn't banned. The only thing we're taking note of is if people are mocking those boycotting the title due to JK's transphobia which like them or not, does apply to a large portion of ResetEra, I also dislike shit flinging at other websites which some threads were becoming.

I'll state a few more things, the Admins have nothing to do with the Mod team and never have. It is the Mods stance that trans women are women, that means as a site respecting those who identify as either male or female and calling them as such which in the past has been ignored. I'd also say that this is a situation which hits close to home for some so try to be respectful of that.

I could see myself that some threads were steering discussion towards flinging shit at other sites or a blanket mocking of those boycotting the title with no clarification on which aspect of the boycott they were mocking, so this thread should just be seen as a reminder to be respectful before official forms of moderation come out.

Hopefully that is all cleared up now and the site can continue to discuss the game but just without throwing shit at other websites or blanket mocking of those taking part in the boycott.

Sum Up: Don't attack anyone for playing the title, I know some friends of mine are very pro-trans and are enjoying Hogwarts Legacy but also don't mock those if they choose to boycott a product due to certain situations, I.E. trans people or those with trans family/friends who have been hurt by JK's comments.

I also don't care if someone chooses to boycott Nintendo for the SA investment as an another example, it's their choice, they don't deserve everyone piling on them and mocking them, it's a choice that I respect even if I won't follow it. No they don't need to boycott absolutely everything, that is ridiculous, it would be almost impossible to boycott everything, some battles can be chosen still.

Just be considerate and respectful basically.

Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 18 February 2023

the-pi-guy said:
Chrkeller said:

People need to grow a thick skin. I don't get why people think assimilation is a good thing. Free thought is important.

Here's the thing. These statements are very generic. 

Both sides think they're the ones pushing for free thought, and only one of them is right.

Person A just wants to live their life, and they're not hurting anyone with it.

Person B wants Person A to stop living their life. And person B is actively supporting policies that hurt person A for living their life. Person B is bullying person A for existing. 

Person A, in order to live their life must fight against the policies that person B is fighting for. In other words, pushing against person B's "free thoughts". 

In a circumstance where person A likes the color blue and person B likes the color green. Sure that's fine. Free thought is important there.  

In a circumstance where person B wants person A to stop existing (or otherwise opposed to someone), someone has to give up their "free thought". It is impossible for everyone to win and everyone to live free, if one side is inherently opposed to the other side's existence. 

The issue is that the idea of everyone having free thought, becomes contradictory when some people's "free thoughts" and actions include eliminating someone else's free thoughts and actions. 

It becomes contradictory to tolerate someone who can't tolerate your existence. 

I'm pretty sure I've made my exact same point with 6 different wordings at this point. 

We're not talking about "mean words" that should just get brushed off. We're talking about kids getting bullied. We're talking about people getting murdered for existing their way. We're talking about politicians putting an enormous amount of resources into ensuring that those people can't exist. 

I don't want to get into the political details but that generic view you posted isn't accurate.  Most don't care what others do.   The big issue, at least in the States, is what is and isn't taught in schools.  Personally I don't care what people do in their life.  But I do take issue with schools seemingly pushing social assimilation over math/science.  Social, religious, etc positions is for families to decide.  

As a libertarian I do not care what an adult wants, is or does.  



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Switch OLED