Curse

vandevere · Apr 03, 2009, 06:49 PM // 18:49

Clarity is good; especially regarding enforcement of policies...

Zahr Dalsk · Apr 03, 2009, 06:53 PM // 18:53

Hey, isn't GW rated teen?

If someone can't handle a bit of rough language or a joke, maybe they're underageB& and perhaps they should be the one getting banned. 10 years old is too young to be on an online game.

ele pl · Apr 03, 2009, 07:01 PM // 19:01

So, will my name (Ele) be banned? Its GW-related, although it didnt come from GW tho.

Good to hear, that pvp play and report system are taken into account on "to improve" list

Martin Alvito · Apr 03, 2009, 07:15 PM // 19:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Regina Buenaobra

People here seem to think that we're going to be even more strict than we were in the past because we published the Naming Policy. That's not the case. We put into writing what we have already been enforcing. The only thing that has changed about enforcement of the acceptable names policy is on the second offense.

Regina, the reason that you're likely to catch some additional /report traffic with an explicit policy is that players will know with relative certainty what they can get other players banned for.

Given known power, certain segments of your audience (eg: Red Sonya) will use it. Extra /reports are costly to administer, so you end up compelled (in the short run) to either assign more people to deal with the problem, run backlogged, or enforce the policy loosely.

aapo · Apr 03, 2009, 07:18 PM // 19:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkofStorms

Authorities look instead at what a reasonably prudent person would consider negligent behavior. A reasonable person would say it is negligent to drive drunk.

- Yes, but have you considered that maybe there isn't a proficient judge with 10 years of experience on the other side of the table? Which of the three people working on GW1 is going to sit there evaluating if the reported name indeed had offensive insinuations on foreign language, or that the person's actual name indeed wasn't "Jesus"?

No, it's based on automated system. Ten people report, account gets mark. Whine on support system, then you might get actual person handling your issue. I wouldn't bet my money on that though. This silliness isn't worth wages. Laws work in such way that threat of punishment makes individual inhibit the action. Just like words "we will carefully check our logs for every report" is supposed to take care of the brunt of abusers. It doesn't mean that they will do as they say. Companies lie all the time when it's to their benefit.

isildorbiafra · Apr 03, 2009, 07:18 PM // 19:18

Regina,

perhaps this might inspire anet in deciding how best to deal with leechers.

Thanks for the info.

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...light=leeching

Martin Firestorm · Apr 03, 2009, 07:59 PM // 19:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkofStorms

A lot of people fail to realize that this is how the LAW works in real life.

Negligence actions, for example, are not based on your subjective views. Courts look at things objectively, with a "reasonable person" standard. Just because you subjectively "thought you could drive well while drunk," doesn't make that a defense to your actions.

Authorities look instead at what a reasonably prudent person would consider negligent behavior. A reasonable person would say it is negligent to drive drunk.

Not quite, though we're pretty off topic here. But the objective, reasonable person standard you mention is strictly for negligence actions, by which I mean a civil action seeking damages due to some accident, etc. The issue with criminal violations such as drunk driving is simply whether you did the crime, in this case driving over the legal limit. That a reasonable person would or would not say it is negligent to drive drunk does not matter. Also, subjective thought does matter sometimes, like in some forms of murder. As for how all this compares to anet's updated naming policy, I would say: bad analogy.

Miss Puddles · Apr 03, 2009, 08:38 PM // 20:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by zwei2stein

Only reason it is okay to use names of gods from obsolete religions is that there in no-one left to complain about them nowadays.

Not if you're Pagan.

That's not the point anyway, I think we all understand that it's the context of the religious reference that may be inappropriate. Jesus Loves You = OK. Isis Has Nice Hooters = Not OK.

As long as they investigate ALL reports as they say they will, it shouldn't be much of a problem. You know if your name is blatantly offensive to some (even if not to you), or you bypassed the filter in some way. Reporting your friends' characters just cause they don't like the name anymore is lame. Leave the reporting/banning to those deserving it.

Jecht Scye · Apr 03, 2009, 08:44 PM // 20:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkofStorms

A lot of people fail to realize that this is how the LAW works in real life.

Negligence actions, for example, are not based on your subjective views. Courts look at things objectively, with a "reasonable person" standard. Just because you subjectively "thought you could drive well while drunk," doesn't make that a defense to your actions.

Authorities look instead at what a reasonably prudent person would consider negligent behavior. A reasonable person would say it is negligent to drive drunk.

A reasonable person would find your names to be offensive. Just because it isn't offensive to you, doesn't change the fact that it is.

Again, this is how the court system actually works. Of course it may not seem "fair" to apply someone else's standard to your behavior, but that makes people act with caution.

The court system isn't retroactive with their laws. If they passed a law legalizing marijuana today, everyone in prison for it would still be there. Not that this is the case here, but assuming a four year character name gets banned as a result of the policy change (which it shouldn't), then it would be the case.

lutz · Apr 03, 2009, 08:45 PM // 20:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miss Puddles

Jesus Loves You = OK.

This offends my religion because this assumes Jesus exists. Therefore, it claims my religion is incorrect.

Ban please.

Koudelka · Apr 03, 2009, 08:49 PM // 20:49

* Have offensive racial, ethnic, or national connotations.
* Reference sexual acts or real life violence.
* Are pornographic.
* Make inappropriate references to human anatomy or bodily functions.
* Reference illegal drugs or activities.
* Reference major religious figures.
* Reference certain real-life people that may cause distress (e.g. Hitler).

I am glad that they are implementing these. However, I see they fail to mention names that are offensive on account of sexuality. Fighting a "Gay Wars" in Fort Aspenwood was hardly amusing...

The User Agreement actually fails to mention homophobic behaviour...

Illegal activities: time to name a character Tax Evasion ;p.

Koudelka · Apr 03, 2009, 08:54 PM // 20:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zahr Dalsk

For example, if I saw someone named after Fred Phelps, I'd be pretty pissed, unless the name was poking fun at him.

It's his phychopathic daughter I'm more worried about!

But it's all good, they've been banned from the United Kingdom ^_^.

Miss Puddles · Apr 03, 2009, 08:55 PM // 20:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by lutz

This offends my religion because this assumes Jesus exists. Therefore, it claims my religion is incorrect.

Ban please.

Jesus can love me all he wants, doesn't mean I believe in him either. Would you be offended if I named my next character Santa Loves You ? (Oops, spoiler!!!)

Michman · Apr 03, 2009, 09:12 PM // 21:12

S H I T T E R Euros
O Yeah Fck Me
J E W C I F E R
He Ro In
Babyz For Breakfast
Fat Kids Are Hard To Kid[Nap]
Mum Says I Am Special[tard]
Iron Chefs of Pounding[vag]
Drugz Dealer
We Love Children With[Salt]
Dead Girls Dont Say[No]
Real Men Hunt Kids BYO[Boy]
Cheesus Crust[God]
Germanys Next Cocckmodel

The above list of names came from the GVG and 1v1 Ladder and from Tolkano while observing tournaments.

While there are those that may find these names clever and unoffensive, I'm sure that others would disagree. Anet doesn't object to clever names. But they try to keep objectionable names out of their game. And what might not offend you could well offend others somewhere around the world. I do think that you should have to change your name but I think the 3 day ban shouldn't apply until the 2nd offense.

StueyG · Apr 03, 2009, 09:41 PM // 21:41

I know of a few people that had names that lasted for years, were not really offensive, yet someone had an issue with them and got a few people to report the name and it was banned and had to be remade. Lousy system imo.

Also think it is silly to bring up comments about how young kids get the game and the parents might be offended by some names. I work retail and I have had several parents that were buying games that were EXTREMELY offensive for their 10-15 y/o kids. Very few actually asked, and I said "no, these are not games for that age group"; most did not even bother to check it out.

TwinRaven · Apr 03, 2009, 11:27 PM // 23:27

"Reference...real life violence" Hmmm...a game in which nearly every major objective is acomplished through killing is worried about acts of violence?

So, no names with hack, slash, stab, hit, strike, beat, punch, kick, bomb, explode, shoot, shot, blast, burn, raze, thrash, pummel, bang, crush, trounce, punish, whack, smack, pop, axe or hammer (as a verb), brass knuckles, fight, clash, scrape, smash, pound, wallop, knock, slap, puncture, cut, strangle, choke, terrorize, decapitate, behead, dismember, riot, push, trip, uppercut, tackle, elbow and knee (as verbs), jab, backhand, gouge, headbutt, hang, pinch, lash, whip, poke, prod, cattleprod, knife (as a verb), stomp, raid, rebel, revolt, rob, ruin, shank, armbar, headlock, wrestle, box, hijack, fisticuff, kung fu, karate chop, strike, break, broke, murder, homocide, one eight seven, drill, armagedon and poke...plus hundreds of others and all thier variation and nuance....like Smashy Smasherstein...are off limits because they depict "real world" violence? Perhaps this new rule is not specific enough? Perhaps, this is a good place to let common sense take a turn...the rest makes sense, kinda...but this is just...well...stupid.

The problem is still going to be in the /report feature. Always a person out there gonna be offended by something silly. Honestly, according to the rules Buddhist Monk, Saolin Monk or Spunky Monk can be banned because someone may see Buddha as a major religious figure within their community. A Chinese Communist may take offense because of their feeling toward Tibet...Athiests can claim ANY reference to religion as offensive and therefor claim all names with "monk" as offensive, even though it is the name of a class...perhaps, the review process for names reported should have a greater depth to them instead of more specific (and somewhat nonsensical) rules to what others may find offensive.

I applaud the attempt at clarification, but in terms of letting players determine what is offensive though the /report feature (maybe 10-20 reports...each from a seperate account before reviewing the name?) and banning names with depictions of violence in a game which has violence as its primary mechanism to acheive goals is just rediculous...

...unless, by "real world violence" they clarify further by stating specific acts of violence perpetrated against individuals or groups in either historical or contemporary context where a viewer of said name is likely to have a negative emotional response because of the social significance of said act. i.e. refernces to the holocaust, 911, South Africa, or any major terror event or tragedy in which people suffered and died at the hands of others...in which case, these have already been covered by religious, national and racial contingencies in improper name selection, making the "real world violence" stipulation redundant and not needed.

Bof · Apr 04, 2009, 12:25 AM // 00:25

- Removed a reference to deleted material.
- Sun Fired Blank

Lutz: What religion (if you dont mind) are you?

Jewcifer... No one unless they are a satanist which Jewish People (both culturally and religious) are not do not want to be compared to the Devil.

I agree that any religous name could be offensive to someone, but it goes back to context of how the name is used.

The title (GWAMM) isnt refering to the Christian "God" just using its as someone of a higher figure. Hince accomplished 30 titles.

Neez · Apr 04, 2009, 02:33 AM // 02:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

That's a common name only in Spain and Spanish-speaking countries.

Not just Spain. It is also common in Portugal and portuguese-speaking countries.

Unless you actually think that Portugal and Spain are the same thing, which would auto-ban you :|

Bof · Apr 04, 2009, 02:39 AM // 02:39

The only difference is the pronounication of Hey Zeus and Geez Us.

Celeborn10 · Apr 04, 2009, 02:55 AM // 02:55

What about referencing an extremely old person? I like naming some of my characters after Roman historical figures like Caesar, Augustus, Caligula and Messalina. I do hope some idiot who doesn't know how to spell the freaking names (and probably doesn't know the last two from public school; I'm a history freak) doesn't get their panties in a wad over it.

(I'm thinking about naming future children Caligula and Messalina, definitely better than Quasar)