The recent launch of Diablo III's Reaper of Souls expansion and the accompanying version 2.0.1 patch finally brought support for clans and communities to the nearly two-year-old game. That new feature's introduction brought with it a naming controversy that has led Blizzard to once again respond to an issue over its policy regarding banned "offensive" terms in its games.

The latest controversy began when player Lucian Clark tried to create a clan in the game "for transgender and gender non-conforming individuals who would like to play the game together in a relatively safe space of like identified individuals." As Clark explained in a blog post, he found that clans that contained the prefix "tran" or "trans" in their names were explicitly blocked by the game, despite the fact that "gaymer" clans could be created without a problem.

Blizzard says that the "trans" naming block was unintentional and that it is taking steps to fix the issue. "'Trans' was not intentionally prohibited; it was an oversight on our part due to outdated content in one of the source databases we pull from for the game," a company spokesperson told Ars. "We've been working on making the necessary corrections since this was first brought to our attention last week—should be finalized [Tuesday]."

Blizzard went on to say that everything from "game lore to ESRB ratings" affects what ends up on its list of banned in-game terms. "We try to make our games as welcoming as possible to all players, and we know our community is as diverse as our own employee base," the company said. "With that in mind, we generally don’t impose limitations on or draw distinctions between genders or gender-related identification in character and clan/community names."

Clark told Ars that Blizzard's statement was "wonderful news" and that he was gratified to see the change being put into effect. That said, he still thinks Blizzard has some work to do regarding its general policy on harassment. He pointed to two extensive threads on the Blizzard forums comprising hundreds of posts on the "trans" naming issue. While Clark said moderators have removed some of the worst posts (including death threats), the threads still contain many derogatory messages toward Clark specifically and trans people generally.

In talking to Ars, Blizzard pointed to its harassment policy as the core of its decision-making process regarding forum moderation and in-game language issues. But while that policy explicitly bans threats, racial/ethnic slurs, and "insulting" references to sexual orientation, Clark pointed out that it "does not cover gender or gender identity/expression" specifically.

"I feel that lack of coverage allows people to feel safe, in a way, that they are free to say these types of things and get away with it," Clark told Ars. "If these types of things were being said about a gay player, I doubt that a moderator would not have stepped in... This type of behavior being allowed sends a message, at least about the forums, that could translate into the games."

Blizzard responded to Clark's concerns by telling Ars that it was "disappointed to see other players bringing abusive and unacceptable language into the forum discussion" and that the company "neither condones nor accepts these kinds of attacks." While multiple teams monitor the Blizzard forums, the company "[relies] on players to use the 'biohazard' button in the forums to report offensive posts."

"We take every reported post seriously and address any violation with the most appropriate action, [and] sometimes players don’t always see the result of the action taken," Blizzard said.

The evolution of moderation

This isn't the first time Blizzard has drawn controversy for its policies on in-game language use. Back in 2006, World of Warcraft player Sara Andrews faced moderation when she tried to recruit players to an LGBT clan she had created. Blizzard didn't have a problem with the clan per se, but it did prohibit Andrews from promoting it within the in-game chat. Even though Andrews wasn't engaging in harassment in any way, Blizzard considered the mere mention of sexual orientation too destabilizing to in-game civility. At the time, the company said, "Topics related to sensitive real-world subjects—such as religious, sexual, or political preference, for example—have had a tendency to result in communication between players that often breaks down into harassment."

Blizzard apologized for that policy soon after, but language use issues continue to come up. Words like "transexual" and "homosexual" set off World of Warcraft's mature language filter as recently as early 2012 before being removed from the filter list. Others have noted inconsistencies in Diablo III's handling of religious terms and have started gathering lists of banned character names ranging from the vile to innocuous.

That history highlights the evolving stance gaming moderators have taken toward LGBT language issues over the years. Microsoft faced a similar problem in 2008, when a Gamertag for 'TheGAYERGamer' was deemed to violate the company's code of conduct. Microsoft's blanket ban on the term "gay," which was originally put in place to protect gamers from pejorative slurs, was increasingly limiting personal self-expression. The publicity surrounding that issue eventually led Microsoft to pivot from a complete prohibition on sexual and gender identity terms to a more precise focus on derogatory language.

"Suddenly it became sort of archaic and silly to [punish people who would] just state ‘I love my boyfriend,’ and [have] that person be male," former Xbox Live Head of Enforcement Stephen Toulouse told Ars in a 2012 interview. "The vast majority of [the use of gay terms] was still pejorative, but it was one of those things where you take a step back and say, 'You know, the population has changed, the function of the service has changed slightly, so we need to go ahead and take on the effort to divine whether something is pejorative or not.'"

Clark gave credit to Blizzard for similarly evolving and fixing these issues as they arise, but he says there's still work to be done. "Their intentions are good but misguided occasionally," he told Ars. "I feel that Blizzard could use a bit of a more active approach to how they deal with these issues as opposed to the passive way they have chosen... This can definitely be a learning experience [for] Blizzard, and I hope they take it as an opportunity to not only better serve their players but their staff as well."