ToS Violation for name ????

[Colobulous]

So you've implicitly conceded to me the point that bowdlerization and censorship to avoid offense is inherently unjust because you can't apply it equally to all people for all reasons? I say that because you instead choose to denigrate the validity of my objection against those of another person or cause.

 

Bioware isn't going to try for equal application of anything, and I suspect they won't listen to your complaints if you bring it to them. They'll say "Thank you for your input, but we'll do what we think best" though I'm sure it'll be in a longer and more flowering language.

 

Well, let me put it like this. Freedom of speech is an issue that many people care deeply about. People die for it. People kill for it. People fight wars over it. I'm not trying to claim that this is another revolution or anything, but I do want to make it very clear that you are utterly incorrect in your thinking when you write so dismissively about taking offense to censorship. Some people still believe in such things.

 

Well, you want to take your cause up, you can, I won't stop you. But you are unlikely to find Bioware going to listen, and you will likely have trouble finding anybody else in a position of authority to validate your concerns.

 

They'll just tell you that they'd rather worry about real issues, not a video game.

 

I can guarantee you that more people have been upset by the censoring of the player name Anemia than were ever upset by the name itself.

 

I think you're wrong, but so what? More people are totally indifferent to it than care either way.

 

Now, I know that we all agree to the ToS and I can cancel my sub if it bothers me so badly. That isn't my issue. This is a private service and Bioware/EA have every right to implement whatever codes of conduct they please and I support that. The problem at hand is this issue of offensiveness being used as a rule.

 

Not a problem for me. Something offends, for a recognizable reason. Works for me that the GMs decided that it wasn't an appropriate naming choice.

 

We already have pretty well established that Anemia was a violation of offensiveness and nothing else. This leaves us working with a problematic and undefined rule that has no consistency in its enforcement, no recourse against its execution, and an inherent inability to be applied evenly to all players.

 

You've just now noticed that they don't foolishly try to come up with an overarching principle to guide themselves, but instead act on an individual basis, which they explicitly reserved the capacity to do?

 

I think you're a bit behind on noticing it. Such language and statements have been standard corporate policy for decades.

 

Do you want to know why they choose that kind of language? Because of the tiresome and argumentative rules lawyers who are not actually pursuing justice, but instead a selfish cause that seeks to override others not for any particular nobility, no matter how they might protest it, but for their own gain.

 

So now we have to accept that one players feelings and offendedness is suddenly arbitrarily more righteous than another (or many others)? We are supposed to believe that it is just and good that one person who may or may not even be honest at all in their complaints can have their will subjected onto another person who probably wasn't even aware that the offended person even existed?

 

You do know that the GM is making a neutral decision, not based on the person involved, but a consideration of a problem from a perspective of an outside observer? At least, that's been my experience with it.

 

Should we believe that there is no burden on the part of the offended player to try and talk to the other player?

 

Actually, I believe trying to do that causes MORE trouble than it resolves. Because instead of a GM neutrally making a decision without starting a fight, it leads to an acrimonious conflict between people.

 

There's a reason why they tell you to flag, not argue with somebody on these forums.

 

See this thread for example. Nothing but arguing and other things.

 

I'm amazed that in such a social environment as an MMO we don't think it unnatural that people don't stop and try to ask questions of each other. Is it so wrong to think that before reporting Anemia, the reporter might have whispered him and said, "Hey, why did you name that toon Anemia? I feel like you're making light of a disease which I suffer from." Then perhaps a dialogue could have occurred and the offended person might have learned the reason for the name and that no offense was intended. Heck, sometimes when random strangers talk to each other they meet a new friend.

 

Nope. What happens is this, you get a question why you did something, then that person explodes in rage, declaring that you are controlling them, bunches of other people might get involved, and nobody actually communicates with each other in an effective way.

 

Rather like this thread. I see a lot of hostility and anger, and a lot of accusations that anybody who reports a name is somehow engaged in spiteful behavior, and that it's wrong.

 

Which doesn't solve the issue at all.

 

Thank you, but no thank you, if you have a problem with a name in game, or anything else, please report it instead.

 

I'd honestly rather they do some other things to prevent conflict like change the loot system, but that's a digression.

 

Okay I'll wind down to a conclusion of what is wrong here.

 

Here's my response:

 

1. Seems clear enough to me, they have some pretty well defined rules, but they reserve the right to decide other things, and are not bound by strict pre-determined actions.

 

2. You are making an assumption about GM decisions that is not evident.

 

3. I would much rather have a neutral party examine things than you try to deal with me personally, because you know what? I get the feeling it would not resolve any conflicts, but would exacerbate them.

 

4. Again, making an assumption. Which is actually contradicted by their own statements in the naming policy.

 

5. Again, making an assumption that is also contradicted by their own statements in the naming policy, which cover multiple violations and say...may. Now it may be reading in between the lines, but it's kinda obvious to me that they're not as indifferent to the innocent offender versus the guilty offender as you seem to be claiming.

[XplaguesX]

Wrongo, because if you read the TOS, they ALL have naming rules.

 

this.

 

its funny, last night i saw a dude named Nat'Figga, he was an oversized black BH.... bet hes TORs first ban

[SniperCT]

It should be noted that any and all name changes in ANY MMO generally only happen when a player reports it. If you see a name that offends you (like a lot of the examples of stupid names people are listing as '*** is this okay and Anemia not') report it. If no one reports it it will never change. GMs don't go looking to change names at random.

 

As for Anemia, GM probably misread it or something.

 

*Edit* I've seen this thread or one like it in every single MMO I have ever played across 10 years of MMO playing >.> Its pretty much an industry thing.

Edited December 19, 2011 by SniperCT

[jollycynic]

You know Colo, I find it funny that you have panned communication, seeking mutual understanding and working to resolve interpersonal disputes as a caustic and unproductive exercise, and you hold this threat up as proof of your views. I on the other hand have very much enjoyed this thread and the discussion within. While a few posters have said things that might incur a report and punishment, overall the tone of discourse here has been vehement but civil and interesting. I've enjoyed your responses even when I've disagreed with them and questioned the logic or ethics behind them.

People disagreeing with each other is a hard fact of life we all have to learn to deal with when/if we mature. How we deal with it is what matters. If I'm so wrong for thinking that we should focus more on talking to each other and less on summoning the powers that be every time we stub our toes or get worked up, well then I guess this 26 year old is already aged enough to decry the way kids these days behave and pine for the social conduct of yesteryear.

[Jett-Sato]

 

Well, let me put it like this. Freedom of speech is an issue that many people care deeply about. People die for it. People kill for it. People fight wars over it. I'm not trying to claim that this is another revolution or anything, but I do want to make it very clear that you are utterly incorrect in your thinking when you write so dismissively about taking offense to censorship. Some people still believe in such things. I can guarantee you that more people have been upset by the censoring of the player name Anemia than were ever upset by the name itself.

 

.

 

Please actually read the Bill of Rights before misusing it on a game forum.

 

Freedom of speech means jack squat on a private forum or in a privately held virtual world.

 

Their game their rules, the very same rules you agreed to when you clicked play. Please go to the ACLU, or any other civil rights group and tell them of your plight. They will show you Gitmo and Darfur photos, then they will show you what actual speech suppression is after that they will tattoo first-world problem on your forehead then proceed to kick your rear to the curb.

 

 

Simply put you have no complaint or issue other than self entitlement.

[jollycynic]

Please actually read the Bill of Rights before misusing it on a game forum.

 

Freedom of speech means jack squat on a private forum or in a privately held virtual world.

 

Their game their rules, the very same rules you agreed to when you clicked play. Please go to the ACLU, or any other civil rights group and tell them of your plight. They will show you Gitmo and Darfur photos, then they will show you what actual speech suppression is after that they will tattoo first-world problem on your forehead then proceed to kick your rear to the curb.

 

 

Simply put you have no complaint or issue other than self entitlement.

 

I actually did state that I know the difference and I respect Bioware's right to have a ToS and CoC on their private service which we join of our own free will. I was just pointing out to him that it was unfair and wrong of him to say it is sensible for someone to be offended about the naming thing, but stupid for someone to be upset about censorship. Just pointing out that it made no sense to say one offense was sensible and another wasn't. I know it wasn't really germane to the discussion, but I have a tendency to fixate on things like inconsistent thinking, uneven application of standards, fallacies and hypocrisy and to point such things out.

[Colobulous]

You know Colo, I find it funny that you have panned communication, seeking mutual understanding and working to resolve interpersonal disputes as a caustic and unproductive exercise, and you hold this threat up as proof of your views.

 

No, I find this thread as evidence of the futility of trying to resolve things through such means.

 

And the longer it continues, the more of a divide I see. Much like numerous other threads on similar controversial subjects.

 

I on the other hand have very much enjoyed this thread and the discussion within. While a few posters have said things that might incur a report and punishment, overall the tone of discourse here has been vehement but civil and interesting. I've enjoyed your responses even when I've disagreed with them and questioned the logic or ethics behind them.

 

Really? I find the tone of discourse here to be often venomous, and not at all interesting, with the civility being incidental, but hardly what I would call a productive dialogue. I mostly see a lot of people who are committed to principles that I find to be rather egotistical in nature, and who would have no chance whatsoever of resolving the conflict with dialogue.

 

People disagreeing with each other is a hard fact of life we all have to learn to deal with when/if we mature. How we deal with it is what matters.

 

One of the ways we've learned to deal with it is...having outside persons making decisions, not trying to solve it among ourselves.

 

In fact, a little experience on my part tends to tell me...it's really very often detrimental for people involved in a decision to try to settle it that way. It takes a lot more maturity and reason than you might realize.

 

If I'm so wrong for thinking that we should focus more on talking to each other and less on summoning the powers that be every time we stub our toes or get worked up, well then I guess this 26 year old is already aged enough to decry the way kids these days behave and pine for the social conduct of yesteryear.

 

You might want to find out about those yesteryears. The solutions were often violent, much as they are today. Or they were appeals to authority, because it turns out that worked out a lot better for all involved.

 

I can't say more, the discussion would involve some political matters that are not allowed much in these forums.

 

 

I actually did state that I know the difference and I respect Bioware's right to have a ToS and CoC on their private service which we join of our own free will. I was just pointing out to him that it was unfair and wrong of him to say it is sensible for someone to be offended about the naming thing, but stupid for someone to be upset about censorship. Just pointing out that it made no sense to say one offense was sensible and another wasn't.

 

Makes plenty of sense to me. One person has a genuine complaint of offense that you may or may not agree with, but has at least some neutral applicability, the other is just an example of tortuous reasoning used to justify what is really a selfish act of egotism that has no particular merit in itself, and if anything, tends to discredit the actual values involved.

 

I know it wasn't really germane to the discussion, but I have a tendency to fixate on things like inconsistent thinking, uneven application of standards, fallacies and hypocrisy and to point such things out.

 

You really need to look at it in yourself. Or elsewhere. I could give some examples of seeing it in real life, but yeah, that'd probably be trouble too.

Edited December 19, 2011 by Colobulous

[DCGoth]

I have now had to rename my one character three times in the last 12 hours, either I am being tracked by CS better than the US tracked Bin Laden or some really PO'ed player is watching me play and reporting me as soon as I enter the game.

 

Some people just really need to take off the Spock ears and get a life.

[DCGoth]

I also no longer have privileges to look up post by User ID. I better check my brke lines in my car tonight. Must have really irritated someone.

[Jnight]

Anemia = blood disease. I guess thats why its offensive, like walking around being called 'Aids' or something.

Difference is that AIDS is an acronym describing the disease.

 

I believe the disease we now call Anemia was called so because the symptoms one suffers were all synonyms with the preexisting word anemia.

 

So it's not exactly the same.

[Kieranbunny]

The Toyota MR2 didn't go down too well in France.

 

Neither did the Chevy NOVA down in South America...in Spanish it means: It don't go... ==>;*}

[Amdarius]

Unless the name is a swear word, I'm not sure why people care.. even if it was a swear word, it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game.

[Colobulous]

I have now had to rename my one character three times in the last 12 hours, either I am being tracked by CS better than the US tracked Bin Laden or some really PO'ed player is watching me play and reporting me as soon as I enter the game.

 

Some people just really need to take off the Spock ears and get a life.

 

Or maybe there's some problem with the names you keep picking, and it's entirely different people making decisions, so you'd do well to consider something else besides whatever you've chosen.

 

I also no longer have privileges to look up post by User ID. I better check my brke lines in my car tonight. Must have really irritated someone.

 

Actually, searching was disabled for everything and for everybody. There's been a few posts about that, but no worries if you missed them.

[DCGoth]

Or maybe there's some problem with the names you keep picking, and it's entirely different people making decisions, so you'd do well to consider something else besides whatever you've chosen.

 

 

 

Actually, searching was disabled for everything and for everybody. There's been a few posts about that, but no worries if you missed them.

 

The nanes I picked could not be deemed offensive in any way. As I had exhausted choices, the first name I picked was 'Ichiko', Japanese for Sorceress. The next name was 'Akaname', a type of harmless demon in Japanese.

 

If they banned them because they were Japanese, then CS is going to be very busy this week, as about 30 other words in Japanese that I tried were all taken.

 

The only thing close to making sense is, due to some bug, my original name atill shows up as levelling in a Guild listing; however, that's a stretch. I think if I were to choose the name 'Dorothy' they would cite The Wizard of Oz.

 

I really am at a loss right now.

[Skizzik]

2) I'm not deleting a 'played' character. ( Of the three they hit me with, one is just a Level 1).

 

This throws up a flag for me. What were the other names that you had to change? What I'm guessing happened is that you had another name that was offensive and then when you got flagged they looked through all your names and made you change anything that may be remotely offensive.

[Onieros]

I saw a black human character walking around called 'Blackface' just before.. that was um.. interesting >_>

[alerum]

Oh no the PC Police have come!

[Ainotna]

Anemia = blood disease. I guess thats why its offensive, like walking around being called 'Aids' or something.

 

My warlock was named Hepatitis in WoW.