Correct. That isn't banning discussion on Hogwarts Legacy or preventing people from mentioning it. You're twisting things.

Fair.  I will re-word for accuracy.  The mods forced their view onto others, and wrongfully so.  Especially when, based on the financial aspects, the boycott was in fact stupid.  Close down a talented studio because JK who already sold the rights?  It was stupid.    

Not too mention the mods decided to classify people in the obia group...  it isn't a good look, IMO.  

We never banned discussion of the game. This was official forum policy, written by yours truly. There were people out there, including on this board, using Hogwarts Legacy's success as an excuse to mock or otherwise be dismissive towards people who were boycotting the game, said boycott existed purely because of J.K. Rowling's transphobia, and we weren't going to have that garbage here. Bigotry of any kind, including transphobia, has been against board rules since, like, forever ago. If users here don't like trans people, they need to keep it to themselves.

Except JK sold the rights to WB, thus didn't get direct money as it relates to the sales, thus the boycott only was hurting a studio and people's employment....  but anybody who wanted to point that out, couldn't, because the mods decided to label us.  

Alright, I do appreciate you re-wording it and owning up to your mistake because even in the thread we made very clear that discussion on the videogame is allowed and they'd be no ban like other forums have done, which is what ResetEra did, and we even defended those who wanted to buy and enjoy the videogame by stating it wouldn't be held against them, it is not bigotry to want to buy the game or enjoy it. 

1) There will not be an outright ban on discussion of the game. It's a popular game from a popular IP. If people want to talk about the game itself—its mechanics, graphics, characters, etc.—that is perfectly fine.

2) If you state that you want to buy the game or that you enjoy the game, that will not be held against you. Merely enjoying content from The Wizarding World will not be interpreted as bigotry. Separating the art from the artist is not against the rules.

The only limit was on "Dismissal of or insults towards the Hogwart's Legacy boycott will be interpreted as dismissal of or insults toward concerns over transphobia." so we essentially said don't dismiss or insult peoples genuine concerns for wanting to boycott the game which was more of a limit on outside, generally political, commentary on the videogame.

It's old news now, but I don't think it was a bad stance, discussion around that game was heated as hell in the past and we continued to allow discussion about the videogame, made clear attacks to those who enjoy the game won't be allowed whilst also making clear that some folk (such as trans folk, or people with trans family members) have very real reasons for wanting to boycott anything from JK Rowling recently.

Personally, I feel like we were trying to be fair to everyone, our policy was nothing like ResetEra. They were 20x more strict than us, ours was basically just "don't be a dickhead to those who are boycotting" Lol. But discussion is still allowed and people are still allowed to enjoy it.

It isn't necessarily a bad stance, except JK sold the rights..  the boycott wasn't hurting her, it was hurting a brand-new studio in a field where layoffs happen hard and quick.  

And I am just being honest, I've always wanted to point out the financial situation of HL...  but felt banned from doing so.  

"have very real reasons for wanting to boycott anything from JK Rowling recently"

Except she sold the rights to WB...  the game wasn't from her.  Again, I felt banned from pointing that out..  

Regarding what royalties Rowling gets, it may be more complicated than that. Without any actual documentation, we don't know what kind of money she makes off of any given licensed work based off of her books. Most people aren't privy to the specific details of any given licensing agreement. So, maybe she got money off of each copy sold of Hogwarts Legacy. Maybe she didn't.

But that's not the point.

The point was that people are opposed to J.K. Rowling because she is a transphobe. Not "allegedly." Is. People are well within their rights to refuse to continue to spend money on anything related to HP, to advocate for general boycotts of anything related to the Wizarding World because of Rowling's transphobia. People who boycott Rowling and works based on her IPs were being mocked for doing so. They thought it was amusing that people opposed Rowling's transphobia. They took it as an opportunity to mock people they hated for political/cultural reasons.

For example, a user on this site wrote in one discussion "I guess the boycott made by certain 'community' backfired." Not sure else how to interpret that "certain community" jab as anything other than trans people (and probably also trans allies who were also boycotting the game). Another user (who's since been permabanned for multiple instances of flagrant bigotry & sexism) wrote in a separate discussion that "It seems the woke boycott didn't work :)" That's even more explicit in its direct mockery of people boycotting the game because of Rowling's transphobia.

So yeah, we were more than justified in having that policy regarding Hogwarts Legacy. We weren't going to go full ResetEra and outright ban discussion of the game. People can separate the art from the artist, and many people still enjoy HP-related media despite Rowling being a bigoted POS. But we decided we needed to make it clear that we weren't going to put up with people making snide comments about those who were opposed to Rowling and her history of blatant transphobia.

Opinion that you are pretending is a fact and forcing on others.  The boycott was going to hurt a new developer...   but that couldn't be pointed out because your opinion was forced to be accepted by all.  She sold the rights.  The boycott wasn't hurting her....  but we were banned from pointing that out.

With a boycott, who gets hurt the 60k fresh out of school programmer or the person worth $1,200,000,000?  Lol.   

I got nothing else to say, it was a one sided slant forced onto all.  It was and still is a bad look.  

Oops, never mind then :x

I always find it weird that they would ban discussion of the game to the point where you cant even call it by name, seems way too extreme. 

Having different opinions about the author is one thing but flat out banning discussion about a major game made by a different set of people on a major gaming website is pretty weird, like you are losing out on major interest and traffic of discussion on a game that had sold a lot and is popular among a lot of people.

I dont remember it being done here , maybe it happened during a time when I wasnt here since there's been moments of time where I didnt log in but who knows.

It was 100% forced on to us. One of the mods wrote some forum post trying to actively change the forum rules in a forum post. There opinion was completely in the minority on the site. It was called out and the mod closed the thread.

Unfortunately the concept of neutrality from a mod perspective has been thrown out the window or given less importance - previously it was high on the criteria list. We have mods in writing stating having ulterior motives for holding modship. Nothing has changed. They will end all discussion they dont like and they will ban you if they dont like you. Especially if you are lesser known user.