Curse

Fril Estelin · Apr 05, 2009, 11:04 AM // 11:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bug John

I'm just trying to show that this is ridiculous to feel "offended" there.

As is claiming that people shouldn't feel offended. Feeling is not a rational process, or else we'd all make Allan Turing happy, for his conjecture would be right.

Quote:

Lots of people have completely lost common sense, and should focus their attention on things that really matter.

What if I want to name my character "Jesus Sucks" ? Shouldn't anyone stupid enough to feel offended be forced to uninstall GW, so that they could have more time to see what the real world looks like ?

So "common sense" is mocking religious figures or naming a character to piss other people? Preach by example please!

And +1 on zwei2stein's post, spot on!

Rhamia Darigaz · Apr 05, 2009, 11:22 AM // 11:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmakinen

obsolete belief systems are exempt from the prohibition.

redundant much?
even if all religious beliefs weren't obsolete, what would make belief in the ancient greek gods obsolete and still allow you to consider something like belief in allah or the christian god useful? keep in mind that popular belief in a god does not increase the probability that it exists.

Bug John · Apr 05, 2009, 11:33 AM // 11:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

As is claiming that people shouldn't feel offended. Feeling is not a rational process, or else we'd all make Allan Turing happy, for his conjecture would be right.

Feeling may not be rational, but taking decisions (banning a name), should be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

So "common sense" is mocking religious figures or naming a character to piss other people? Preach by example please!

And +1 on zwei2stein's post, spot on!

You try to look smart quoting Allan Turing, but you rush into easy conclusions.

You're completely missing the point of my post. The problem is precisely that people will fall for this kind of basic provocation : a character name in a video game...

I'm not saying that it's a good thing to provoke others, I'm saying it's lacking common sense to overreact the way they do.

Rhamia Darigaz · Apr 05, 2009, 11:38 AM // 11:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bug John

Feeling may not be rational, but taking decisions (banning a name), should be.

agreed. nothing should be enforced based on admittedly irrational feelings.

Fril Estelin · Apr 05, 2009, 11:41 AM // 11:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bug John

Feeling may not be rational, but taking decisions (banning a name), should be.

That's the rational part of your brain talking here. We're not programs, our logics are at higher degrees of abstraction (not trying to "look" smart here, it's the rational part of my brain talking).

Quote:

You try to look smart quoting Allan Turing, but you rush into easy conclusions.

I think you should re-read my post. You interpreting it as "me trying to look smart" is an emotional reaction, not one based on rational arguments.

Quote:

You're completely missing the point of my post. The problem is precisely that people will fall for this kind of basic provocation : a character name in a video game...

I'm not saying that it's a good thing to provoke others, I'm saying it's lacking common sense to overreact the way they do.

I didn't miss the point, it's not an overreaction for the majority of people, it's a "common sense" reaction, albeit a very subjective one. You trying to tell people what they should be based on a biaised understanding of what the Internet "is" is rather an overreaction, you're going beyond what most people do.

Stating your opinion is perfectly legitimate, telling others what to do is trying to be Anet and even decide what policy we, players, should have regarding reactions to this kind of events. You're lacking "common sense" if you think your arguments prevail by simply stating them.

If it indeed was "common sense", we wouldn't be here discussing it.

Rhamia Darigaz · Apr 05, 2009, 12:03 PM // 12:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

That's the rational part of your brain talking here. We're not programs, our logics are at higher degrees of abstraction (not trying to "look" smart here, it's the rational part of my brain talking).

are you trying to argue that our emotions are some kind of higher logic than logic and not merely a product of evolution which drove our primitive ancestors to do things which most probably lead to self-preservation, reproduction and, as a result, the propogation of genes that cause a disposition to emotional thought?

Bug John · Apr 05, 2009, 12:13 PM // 12:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

I think you should re-read my post. You interpreting it as "me trying to look smart" is an emotional reaction, not one based on rational arguments.

It's not interpreting, it's analyzing. What's the point of quoting someone most of the people don't know ? It's not like this quote is adding anything to the content of your post, it's just showing that you do know this person's point of view, to emphasize your education level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

I didn't miss the point, it's not an overreaction for the majority of people, it's a "common sense" reaction, albeit a very subjective one. You trying to tell people what they should be based on a biaised understanding of what the Internet "is" is rather an overreaction, you're going beyond what most people do.

Stating your opinion is perfectly legitimate, telling others what to do is trying to be Anet and even decide what policy we, players, should have regarding reactions to this kind of events. You're lacking "common sense" if you think your arguments prevail by simply stating them.

If it indeed was "common sense", we wouldn't be here discussing it.

As you didn't fail to notice, English isn't my mother tongue, maybe "common sense" isn't the best suited expression for what I'm referring to : a rational way of seeing things, not necessarily the way the majority sees them.

I'm stating my opinion is legitimate, just like you, and there's not much more we could do. You're using "we" when talking about your point of view, as if mine was exceptional and illegitimate... But I know more people that share my point of view than people who don't.

I'd rather say that people complaining about "offending" names are a minority, but that's just based on my personal knowledge. I'd even go further, and say that people deliberately choosing names to offend people are even less.
There are lots of people that got their name changed that wouldn't even have imagined that their name could be offensive to anyone. What do you have to say about that ?
Some names are (bad ?) jokes, nothing nasty, just trying to sound funny. So why can't people just consider jokes as jokes, and not as personal attacks ?

Even if some people always have to feel offended about anything, moderators (or anybody responsible for moderating in game names) should not take decisions the way they do.

Fril Estelin · Apr 05, 2009, 12:35 PM // 12:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhamia Darigaz

are you trying to argue that our emotions are some kind of higher logic than logic and not merely a product of evolution which drove our primitive ancestors to do things which most probably lead to self-preservation, reproduction and, as a result, the propogation of genes that cause a disposition to emotional thought?

The answer to your question lies in the order with which logics are traditionally taught at school and university: predicate logics first (1st order at school, then 2nd order at uni), modal logic (and computation) at post-graduate uni level.

There is logic in emotions, not just the one we've historically discovered when trying to break up general problems of logic. Also google emotional intelligence for more information, a very serious scientific topic of research.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bug John

It's not interpreting, it's analyzing. What's the point of quoting someone most of the people don't know ? It's not like this quote is adding anything to the content of your post, it's just showing that you do know this person's point of view, to emphasize your education level.

Attributing to me an intention is "interpreting", the intention to show off knowledge. You may not like the light touch it adds to my message, but discarding it as just a byproduct of my emotions is a mistake. I can't simply explain Allan Turing's conjecture here.

Quote:

As you didn't fail to notice, English isn't my mother tongue, maybe "common sense" isn't the best suited expression for what I'm referring to : a rational way of seeing things, not necessarily the way the majority sees them.

Neither is English my mother tongue. Rationality is often on the Internet used as an excuse to win an argument, in a subjective discussion where we can very rarely find scientific content. It is the essence of the reason why your reasons cannot be made rules, their sheer subjectivity make them your own and can't be imposed, because they're not the expression of what the majority is ready to accept. You may want to convince people to your viewpoint before trying to state that it is obviously "rational", because treating "us" of irrational beings is not the best start.

Quote:

There are lots of people that got their name changed that wouldn't even have imagined that their name could be offensive to anyone. What do you have to say about that ?

Learn from that. "Bite" in English is fine, but did you know that it's vulgar for "penis" in French?

Quote:

Some names are (bad ?) jokes, nothing nasty, just trying to sound funny. So why can't people just consider jokes as jokes, and not as personal attacks ?

Names are not made for "jokes", if you want a laugh, tell a joke, don't use a name for that.

Quote:

Even if some people always have to feel offended about anything, moderators (or anybody responsible for moderating in game names) should not take decisions the way they do.

We shouldn't ask them, or Anet, to be what they can't be. They're not program implementing the Guru Rules, they apply their own "logic" with certain objectives (which are actually more important than the rules). It goes back to an issue of "fairness" having core subjective elements that can't be removed, or in other words not everyone can be pleased.

glacialphoenix · Apr 05, 2009, 12:41 PM // 12:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by cthulhu reborn

My ranger's pet was called Bite Me....she was an UW spider. I thought it was cute but I logged in one day and I had to change it because it contained the word bite which is now on the disallowed list (I know it's French for dick but come on). Today I saw someone with a pet named hookerbiatch, but that's ok I guess.

Oh, gods. *facepalm. So, Vampiric Bite ought to have its skillname changed?

Frankly, I can understand the naming policy to a certain degree, but some things just get utterly, utterly ridiculous.

The thing about skill names is that you can switch languages: obviously Vampiric Bite in English is going to be translated into French or Japanese or whichever language your GW is set to. You can't do that with character names, so things like the "Bite" example above? Could be entirely innocent. Add that to the fact that in places like AB, you can have three teams speaking three different languages.

Bug John · Apr 05, 2009, 01:26 PM // 13:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Attributing to me an intention is "interpreting", the intention to show off knowledge. You may not like the light touch it adds to my message, but discarding it as just a byproduct of my emotions is a mistake. I can't simply explain Allan Turing's conjecture here.

It "adds a light touch" ? Sorry, if you don't explain precisely the theory behind it, it has no value, except pure showoff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Neither is English my mother tongue. Rationality is often on the Internet used as an excuse to win an argument, in a subjective discussion where we can very rarely find scientific content. It is the essence of the reason why your reasons cannot be made rules, their sheer subjectivity make them your own and can't be imposed, because they're not the expression of what the majority is ready to accept. You may want to convince people to your viewpoint before trying to state that it is obviously "rational", because treating "us" of irrational beings is not the best start.

Stop acting as if you were talking for the majority, stop using "we", or "us". You're always talking about subjectivity, apply your own principles to yourself please.

I'm sorry to tell you that, but as subjective as my point of view is, it IS rational. If you can show me any reason why people should care about a NAME in a VIDEO GAME, it'll make me change my mind.

But the only thing I can see here is a sterile discussion about how subjective my words are, going further from the original idea with each new post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Learn from that. "Bite" in English is fine, but did you know that it's vulgar for "penis" in French?

I'm french... And your example really made me laugh, let me explain why.

First, Frenchmen are not stupid, when they see something called "Bite Me", they understand it's clearly not a reference to a penis.
That's what I would call a rational behavior, even if you may argue that such behavior doesn't exist.
Maybe a Frenchman will smile when he sees the English "bite" somewhere, but if such person isn't able to understand why it's not offensive, it's certainly not a reason to ban the name.
Misunderstanding something could be a reason to ban it ? Is there any way to justify this ?

BTW, as a more or less normal Frenchman, if you are offended to see "bite" somewhere, I think you should live in a dark room with no openings, and no computer. Because your whole life will be an endless aggression.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

Names are not made for "jokes", if you want a laugh, tell a joke, don't use a name for that.

A very subjective point of view, isn't it ?

Anything can be a joke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fril Estelin

We shouldn't ask them, or Anet, to be what they can't be. They're not program implementing the Guru Rules, they apply their own "logic" with certain objectives (which are actually more important than the rules). It goes back to an issue of "fairness" having core subjective elements that can't be removed, or in other words not everyone can be pleased.

Of course we can ask them... Are you saying that because everything has its part of subjectivity, there is no such thing as the right decision to take when examining an in game name ?

There is no such thing as "their own logic" when it comes to something as trivial as in game names.

To end my useless posting there, I'll just ask one more thing, that may offend people.

Can you really be pussified to the point you feel offended by in game names, and still be able to live a normal life ?

Red Sonya · Apr 05, 2009, 02:19 PM // 14:19

Quote:

Guild Wars is not "real world", I'm just trying to show that this is ridiculous to feel "offended" there.

That's the most rediculous thing I've read here. We are all real people gathering in a real online environment. Just because the game isn't face to face like in a real world doesn't mean real world morals and laws don't apply. The only difference between GW and AOL is GW has graphics and a game to play while you CHAT. You try this crap on AOL and see how long you last. Or even on OFFICAL forums (not made up kiddy forums). When you play games in America or on American Internet airways you play by American rules and laws not your self centered ones or other nationalities.

For instance when a foreigner comes to america and commits a crime that isn't a crime in his/her country do you think they get away with it here? lol Nosireebobtater they don't. Except for the sleezy diplomatic immunity ones and even they don't always get away with it either. Same if YOU goto another country and violate the laws and rules, do you think American law or rules are going to save you? Hell no they aren't. Just watch that tv show: Locked Up Abroad.

So, many of you need to get off your self righteous because I am playing a game I can do anything attitudes. Laws and rules don't stop just because you're playing a game. There's a EULA you probably didn't read either. And remember "I'll Be Watching You Ingame". /report <insert user name> violation of naming policy.

hallomik · Apr 05, 2009, 02:52 PM // 14:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bug John

If you can show me any reason why people should care about a NAME in a VIDEO GAME, it'll make me change my mind.

It matters to the extent that it will make more people more or less likely to continue to purchase the game.

There are no monthly fees to Guild Wars. The continued support and creation of additional content depends on people continuing to purchase the game. If "offensive" names acts as a turn off for some, either directly by those being offended, or indirectly by people complaining about the immature or crude nature of the community and turning off potential players, then that is a legitimate matter for concern.

Age of Conan sought to appeal directly to those not offended by "mature" content. "Mature" language, nudity and other "mature" themes were built into the game. AoC famously had and has one of the worst communities among Online RPG's and has an uncertain future.

To the extent that policing this sort of stuff keeps the community strong and welcoming to others, all the better.

Here's the thing. Most of us who support these policies are not personally offended by any of the "mature" joke names. We just want the game to continue to thrive - to the extent that a game as old as GW can.

zwei2stein · Apr 05, 2009, 05:28 PM // 17:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by hallomik

It matters to the extent that it will make more people more or less likely to continue to purchase the game.

There are no monthly fees to Guild Wars. The continued support and creation of additional content depends on people continuing to purchase the game. If "offensive" names acts as a turn off for some, either directly by those being offended, or indirectly by people complaining about the immature or crude nature of the community and turning off potential players, then that is a legitimate matter for concern.

Age of Conan sought to appeal directly to those not offended by "mature" content. "Mature" language, nudity and other "mature" themes were built into the game. AoC famously had and has one of the worst communities among Online RPG's and has an uncertain future.

To the extent that policing this sort of stuff keeps the community strong and welcoming to others, all the better.

Here's the thing. Most of us who support these policies are not personally offended by any of the "mature" joke names. We just want the game to continue to thrive - to the extent that a game as old as GW can.

That is reasonable stance, but you must also undertand that this leads problems if practiced with this intentions without limit.

You will just keep adding restrictions, as there is always gonna be new groups you would want to attract and they would bring their own kind of offensive. Lets say you wanted to target fundamentalist muslim gamers (I am sure they play more than MS Flight Simulator

). You would need to add unremovable burkas all female models. And it does happen; panda pets, anyone?

It would eventually lead to gameplay experience devoid of any "spice". You do want game to keep fun factor to attact people.

Now, naming policy is not thing you want to get rid of, but lets face it: if players is offended by some name they will never see again, they are gonna have issues with people even with strict naming policy because of nature of MMO player comunication. Or issue with some of content. It takes little skin to play game where you can meet people from places where social norms are different and which was created by people with different background.

Are OCD people who will add some name to friend list and will, ... well ... religiously track its user untill he was banned/forcfully renamed worth catering to?

You take stance for people who get offended by names. Tell me, have you personally met someone who was offended with some name enough to just quit on spot? Because all I see in this thread are people who take stance for offended ones, but are not really offended themselves. Maybe you have a bit less faith in humanitys ability to "get over it"?

-Sonata- · Apr 05, 2009, 06:22 PM // 18:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bug John

If you can show me any reason why people should care about a NAME in a VIDEO GAME, it'll make me change my mind.

A word is a word, is a word, is a word.

Words are, by nature, subjective to interpretation based on a myriad of criteria, which can include your culture, society, gender, age, traditions, and history. Because GW is played by people all across the globe, angles differ to each.

With that said there are two points I'd like to make in regards to your statement.

First - Because the medium of the word used is in a video game, does that really devalue the meaning of a word? I often hear that, "It's the internet", as excuse to just type whatever you choose to type and noone should care.

Does the word "Rape" change on a forum, as opposed to writing it on a piece of paper? No. Words do not lose their definitions, or meanings, based on where they are written.

So what's the difference between text here on a forum, or in a game, as opposed to inside a book in a library, or magazine? Where's the difference in speaking the word, or putting it in your own handwriting?

Does the Declaration of Independence lose all meaning on a web page as opposed to the actual document? Does Einstien's theory of relativity lose all meaning if you read it on the internet, as opposed to his actual documentations?

Does this post, my text here, hold no meaning as opposed to me writing you a hand written, properly formatted, essay?

Sure, all of the above would feel more "Personal" in their documentation, but if the words are exactly the same, line by line and letter by letter, the meaning remains the same.

If the internet, this forum, isn't a serious form to convey words, then I would hold no motivation to respond to this topic. You would hold no motivation to place your feelings and will hold no future motivation to respond. However, our feelings we choose to express on here, based on personal reactions to reading each other, are real aren't they? You chose to make your first responses in this thread based on a series of words, just as I have here. Each of us, as individuals, reacted based upon particular words that triggered an emotional response. That is no different than reading words as a name; That some will react because the words trigger an emotional response and for some it will trigger no response at all.

If the "Internet" isn't a serious medium to convey provocative words, If Guild Wars is just a video game and provocative words hold no value, then there should be no motivation by the creator of the name to use the provocative word(s) to begin with.

But that's just not the case, that words on the net hold no value, and we all know it.

Now on a personal level, I'm offended by very little in this world. I swear a lot in my personal life. I'm an athiest. I love sick humor. I play violent video games, watch violent movies, and tell crude jokes. However, as a 30 year old adult, I must take responsibility for my actions in the presence of others and while a guest in other peoples homes. As a business owner, when a customer doesn't agree with my positions, I don't tell them to F-Off like I would with a buddy. When working with clients and partnerships I don't go spouting off about politics. I don't expose my niece to the video games I play. I'm also an advocate in the preventation of hate-crimes through education, I'm an adovcate for Gay-Rights, and a advocate for Free-Speech across the globe. All of this leads me to the Second Point of reference:

There is a time and place for everything and personal responsibility must play a role here.

To use a previous off-hand example, "Jesus Sucks" has no place in Guild Wars. Mind you, it's not something I'm offended by at all. It's not something I'd ever report for. In fact, I'd agree with it. I do find the humor of it because I own a t-shirt that has a similar saying on it. However, this video game isn't the place for it. An anti-Christian forum would be perfect time and place for it.

In my Guild Wars life, I reported only one name. That name clearly, without any subjective approach, referenced molestation of children. There was no excuse in the book that could have argued otherwise. There is nothing funny about such a subject, regardless of where it's portrayed. To argue that because it's a video game the subject is null and void is foolish. To say noone should care about such a thing is to accept the behavior.

With that said; If some players won't use personal responsibility, the owners of the service must do it for them. I do believe, 100%, the current system is broken, vague, and broad. It is far too constrictive in some areas and far too lenient in others. It has opened a door for abuse, not just by /report happy players, but also by those who "Don't Care" and will purposely try to create names to obscure the loop-holes.

I'll give Anet credit for attempting to find some sort of balance and clarity, but there's a long way to go and half of this blame goes on the players as well. If players used more responsibility in their own naming practices, Anet would not be in such a position to make such changes. If Anet had shown more fairness and balance in their banning policies we would not have players pushing the lines and limits.

Anet must now show its responsibility to show fairness, balance, and an unbias approach in regards to their policies. I hope they do so because as it stands right now, from my vantage point, it is unbalanced and in some cases, unfair. There has to be a line drawn, but that line has to be drawn clearly, without waiver, and applicable to everyone no matter who they are.

To conclude; A word is a word, is a word, is a word. Don't pretend that just because this is a video game, or a forum, words lose all meaning. If that's the case, upon hitting "Submit Reply" to this post, this thread should contain no more responses by those who state that the internet isn't serious and names, or words, shouldn't trigger emotional response. If so, my internet words hold no value, and therefore no reason to warrent response upon agreements, or disagreements with what was just written.

Bof · Apr 05, 2009, 07:40 PM // 19:40

- Please stay on-topic.
- Sun Fired Blank

I agree with -Sonata-. Everyone in the real world is going to be offended with something and it is foolish (IMO) to get rid of several players who disagree with the name or whatever the case my be rather than just the one person. -Sonata- mentioned child molestation. I have seen someone named Baby Eater. I am pretty sure anyone with a child and probably most without would be offended by this no matter what religion, culture, or geographical location you are in.

As -Sonata- said, people should take personal responsibility.

Not sure who said that emotions have logic, but Jumping off a bridge for love is not good logic. Though I believe sticking up for what you believe in (Reporting for Name Abuse) is good logic unless you go out of your way to harm someone. I would say just through in the report and be done with it. Let ANet decide, but do not track someone down for a personal vendetta.

Sun Fired Blank · Apr 06, 2009, 01:34 AM // 01:34

I'm finished. If you have any problems with my moderating decisions, you can speak to me via PM.

cataphract · Apr 06, 2009, 07:00 AM // 07:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jecht Scye

Before the Nazi party the swastika had a positive connotation to it. I don't remember exactly what it was though.

It still has in some parts of the world.

persuadu · Apr 06, 2009, 10:02 AM // 10:02

As far as the naming policy goes, in reality it is purely a reactive measure as far as I have seen. "Make inappropriate references to human anatomy or bodily functions". I had a char named Harry Wrecked Em. I understand it sounds like rectum, the scientific term, and that the name implies it is hairy. It also clearly says there is a guy named Harry and he Wrecked Them, as in the monsters or other team. I had the name for over a year and a half until someone didnt like the price I was charging for a dungeon run and reported me. I put in a ticket and they said it was too much like rectum. They said rectum was offensive, end of story on their part.

The bad part is when I made suggestions for other names and they refused to comment on whether or not it was offensive or not. SO basically that policy should read "If someone reports your name for whatever reason AND if depending on how the staff feels that day". When they refused to comment on if the new names I was picking were offensive or not, thats when I figured out that this was just a PR tool that they use when people complain and not actually a policy to be enforced. Is a hairy rectum an inapropriate reference to human anatomy or is the rectum and inapropriate part of HUMAN anatomy to be referenced? Why is that offensive or inapropriate? I just want to add that the rectum is not ONLY a part of human antatomy. Perhaps you may want to update that as well. And it takes someone REALLY looking for it to find a hairy rectum from Harry Wrecked Em. So dont wreck anything in GW or you are inapropriate!

TwinRaven · Apr 06, 2009, 05:08 PM // 17:08

I have a tendency to avoid anything particularly offensive, but often find thing getting filtered anyway. I thought of a character from a book I'd read as a teen-ager "Wormfinger" and changed it to "Wyrmfinger"...blocked. And I occasionally run into the same issue when creating a new character. I like being creative, in my own way, and give my characters names with more of a role-playing feel: Malice Wyrmscale, Aithne Stormraven, Harvest Queen, Ruby Tsunami, Alotta Sparks...usually something that identifies the with profession. I personally have never been banned for and "offensive" name choice...yet, when I see people getting banned for things like "Raging Pwner" because someone says it sounds too much like "Raging Boner" it really pisses me off (Personally, I prefer "Raging Clue")... It doesn't matter what their policy includes specifically, there will always be those who are hurt by the /report system with the lack of proper oversight and review. There should be someone at the helm having some dialogue as to the actual offensiveness of names...if it is one or only a small handful of reports, a proper review of the name, rather than a reactive insta-ban should be implimented. Since this has become an issue, I have picked the most offensive names I can find...in Latin! Only smart people have the right to be offended by them.

Bof · Apr 06, 2009, 09:18 PM // 21:18

Google Latin Translator. I R Smart ... give me a break dude.

No matter what you get the name from someone is going to take it differently. Lets take your example of Wyrmfinger. People commonly refer to a penis as a worm and a finger. Thats ones not hard to figure out.

In terms of Pwner = Boner that one is a mystery because the most logical thought after reading that would be to ban every name with Pwn in it.

I do like persuadu's comment on it is however they feel that day.

that goes with every higher figure. ANet just has it easy because it offended or partially offended someone and they can take out w/e is up their that day and take it out of them.

I like to keep mine simple with Bof ... Highly sure it doesnt mean anything in any other language and if it does I would have to rename my entire account.