Is there a policy against offensive usernames?

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:19 am

Your missing the point compleletly and you know it!!!

Why should i have to play against someone with the name Queerkiller?? It is a small minorty of people that are displaying their names in such fashion. But it is politically incorrect and ignorant and i should not have to play against such a person.

Same goes for game chat. Nobody should be old to f*** off. That might led to a ban to your goodself though considering your feedbcack :wink:

Ps...I have never reported anybody and will always give as good as i get!

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:20 am

alstergren wrote:1. You never have to play against anyone. If you don't care much for another player, don't join his or hers games and use your ignore list. problem solved on an individual basis.

Disagree with this one. If you join a game you didn't host and you haven't joined last then any jerk could show up and ruin your day. Now if you are content to always host and maintain a huge ignore list, or always join last, that changes things, but most aren't.

alster · Post by **alster** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:30 am

hulmey wrote:Your missing the point compleletly and you know it!!!

Why should i have to play against someone with the name Queerkiller?? It is a small minorty of people that are displaying their names in such fashion. But it is politically incorrect and ignorant and i should not have to play against such a person.

No. You are missing my point.

In short, what I am saying is this: We live in a society. And if you're from the U.K. we both live in a liberal society. Being members of a society, we cannot always get what we want. In exchange for our own rights to speak our mind, we have to accept that other people do the same. In short, as soon as we venture out in the public space, we have to stand being subjected to things we don't approve of or like. Whether or not it's a majority or a minority view doesn't matter.

And the same goes for the Internet. (Ok - CC is indeed a private site, and the owner can do whatever he pleases, but as a general point.) Once we venture out on public sites like CC, we cannot always get what we want. We may have to see or read opinions or expressions that we don't approve of. But that's life in a society.

So yes - when you choose to log into this site, you may have to see or read things you don't want. If you feel strongly about it, just choose not to log in here. It's really that easy.

chessplaya · Post by **chessplaya** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:33 am

i miss understood!

alster · Post by **alster** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:34 am

Coleman wrote:
alstergren wrote:1. You never have to play against anyone. If you don't care much for another player, don't join his or hers games and use your ignore list. problem solved on an individual basis.

Disagree with this one. If you join a game you didn't host and you haven't joined last then any jerk could show up and ruin your day. Now if you are content to always host and maintain a huge ignore list, or always join last, that changes things, but most aren't.

I guess life isn't always fair, is it?

We all have deadbeats and idiots in our games. But, if we're bothered by it, all it takes is one push on the "ignore" button and we don't have to see them again.

Besides, imposing rules on usernames and avatars doesn't solve anything here. An idiot is an idiot no matter name or avatar.

flashleg8 · Post by **flashleg8** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:38 am

alstergren wrote:
Curses are part of the language as any other words. Banning "swearing" would be ridiculous. How could one possibly set any such language rules not resulting in arbitrary lines being drawn. If individuals venture out on the Internet, I believe that they, in the same way as if they venture out on any other public space, should be prepared to hear, read or see things that they may not personally approve of. That's part of the social contract.

Swearing is banned in the social lounge (or meant to be) and restricted to the flame wars forum, therefore avatars or usernames containing swearwords should be banned.

alstergren wrote:However, if you're serious - I assume that you are ok with banning Che Guevara nicknames and avatars as well considering that Guevara, in the wake of the revolution on Cuba, personally was responsible for quite a few executions of former Cuban government officials and dissidents.

The corrupt illegitimate regime of Batista was justifiable overthrown by a popular revolution. War criminals an corrupt officials were fairly tried and some that were found guilty were executed for their heinous crimes against the people. Che Guevara did indeed take part in these trials. None of these facts deserve a ban, any more than George Bush’s ridiculously high capital punishment statistics (when governor of Texas) and George Washington as leader of another famous revolution.

alstergren wrote:The word "n****r" is just a word. And a word, together with words such as "nigga", "hoes" etc., commonly used in popular music today. Such words may be offensive to people in general or when used in certain contexts.

You are completely wrong. The N word is associated with 500 years of brutal an inhumane slavery. It is not just the individual make up of the letters that is offensive - it is what the word represents, the history and the ideals behind the word. It is a slave name and its use should not be tolerated in any context.

Dancing Mustard · Post by **Dancing Mustard** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:39 am

Goddamit I got completely fastposted by flashleg, this is a response to Alstergren

Isn't there a line to be drawn in any liberal society between statements and practices that may cause offence/controversy, and statements and practices that are designed purposefully to cause offence/controversy?

I think that might be what Hulmey is driving at here Alster. No matter how liberal we are there's nothing that says we shouldn't censure people who clearly seek only to disrupt our climate of liberalism.

Personally however I don't think we should ban offensive usernames. We've got the forums to help us identify such names, and ignore lists to help us avoid them. We've also got PMs to let us petition people to change, and Flame Wars to humiliate them if they refuse. It just seems like overkill to demand that the mods chase around potentially offensive names and ban them. Especially when there's going to be less clear-cut cases than this one, for example 'GFY' and 'Poo-Maker', both of them are crude usernames (both of which I find hilarious) and one is outright insulting (also funny), but I don't think we ought to be banning them...
Yes Queerkill (or whatever) is a very clearcut case, but he's nothing that we can't deal with as a community, no need to go crazy and start demanding bannings and censure here...

detlef · Post by **detlef** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:56 am

If you haven't figured it out by now, everyone, alstergren just likes to hear himself talk and routinely takes inane stances for that reason alone.

This is a perfect example.

That said, I typically think it is best that everyone simply ridicule the a-hole who chooses such a name rather than having that name banned.

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:17 am

What is the problem with having that name banned? Why cant the said "offender " be forced to change his name?

The mods are very quick to give u a forum ban if your Signature is too long!!! Now isnt that petty!

I have worked for several online companies. Some of which have more money than the bankj of england and more transactions per day then the London Stock Exchange. This is on company i worked for and they took a ZERO tolerance against offensive and abusive behaviour.

WHY cant Conquer Club. Why should i have to first play Queerkiller then put him on my ignore list.

Conquer club needs to wake up and accept these facts

alster · Post by **alster** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:19 am

Swearing is banned in the social lounge (or meant to be) and restricted to the flame wars forum, therefore avatars or usernames containing swearwords should be banned.

That is actually a good point. The first one so far. But, cursing is still there. You know that. And it’s alright to do it in the game chats unless one becomes abusive.

As far as I’m concerned, the rules regarding forums and general behavior is more than capable of taking care of any unwanted behavior on this site. There are rarely any problems, and when there are, the mods have been handling those. Imposing new rules and policies seems superfluous to say the least. It’ll only serve to restrict our freedoms in an arbitrary manner.

The corrupt illegitimate regime of Batista was justifiable overthrown by a popular revolution. War criminals an corrupt officials were fairly tried and some that were found guilty were executed for their heinous crimes against the people. Che Guevara did indeed take part in these trials. None of these facts deserve a ban, any more than George Bush’s ridiculously high capital punishment statistics (when governor of Texas) and George Washington as leader of another famous revolution.

Well, that’s a political opinion of yours that should perhaps be kept to the Social Lounger of the Flame Forum. However, I hope you realize that it’s just an opinion. Personally, I have no problems with Batista. And most historical researchers would not agree with you regarding the “trials”. They were mock trials and shameful executions by liberal standards. All in all, that sensible people may be offended by Che Guevara symbols or Castro symbols shouldn’t be an alien notion. On the other hand, sensible people don’t expect never to be offended in public anyways. There’s no right not to be offended.

You are completely wrong. The N word is associated with 500 years of brutal an inhumane slavery. It is not just the individual make up of the letters that is offensive - it is what the word represents, the history and the ideals behind the word. It is a slave name and its use should not be tolerated in any context.

You seem to be very full of yourself in a very annoying manner. I’m just glad that you weren’t the one telling Jay-Z what words he could or could not use. If so, some of the most magnificent hip-hop albums ever to be released would not have seen the light of day. Good riddance.

This anal idiocy when it comes to language is perhaps best illustrated by the practices of MTV. When airing Jay-Z’s 99 Problems, they simply had to cut off the entire last verse. Why? Because if they had followed their guidelines on which words to beep out, there wasn’t much left of that verse. Too many words that “should not be tolerated in any context” in there. Just a long beep…

Jez…

detlef · Post by **detlef** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:20 am

hulmey wrote:What is the problem with having that name banned? Why cant the said "offender " be forced to change his name?

The mods are very quick to give u a forum ban if your Signature is too long!!! Now isnt that petty!

I have worked for several online companies. Some of which have more money than the bankj of england and more transactions per day then the London Stock Exchange. This is on company i worked for and they took a ZERO tolerance against offensive and abusive behaviour.

WHY cant Conquer Club. Why should i have to first play Queerkiller then put him on my ignore list.

Conquer club needs to wake up and accept these facts

Actually, that seems pretty much spot on. People love to bring up the slippery slope and the hard to pin down nature of what is and isn't offensive, but there's some pretty easy to nail ones like, for instance reference to killing gay people. I think we can all agree on that one.

alster · Post by **alster** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:24 am

hulmey wrote:What is the problem with having that name banned? Why cant the said "offender " be forced to change his name?

WHY cant Conquer Club. Why should i have to first play Queerkiller then put him on my ignore list.

Conquer club needs to wake up and accept these facts

1. Because there are no policies/rules on nicknames and avatars in place. However, the mods have before handled such issues on a case-by-case basis.

2. You can put anyone you like on your ignore list right now. Just go to the players page and press "ignore". God forbid that you should interact with people, perhaps even hearing something new. Then it's much better simply to judge people from their apperance as soon as humanly possible.

3. You're not talking about facts. You're expressing your opinions. That's really two different things. And really, isn't it wonderful being able to do that? Just telling people what you think like that before first making sure that you're not violating any speech/opinion rules laid down?

Dancing Mustard · Post by **Dancing Mustard** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:26 am

detlef wrote:That said, I typically think it is best that everyone simply ridicule the a-hole who chooses such a name rather than having that name banned.

I like the way you think. That's precisely how I think we should be handling the situation.

Hulmey wrote:The mods are very quick to give u a forum ban if your Signature is too long!!! Now isnt that petty!

Are you saying that because we have one silly rule that the mods enforce it makes other silly rules ok? I'm afraid I can't agree.

Hulmey wrote:WHY cant Conquer Club. Why should i have to first play Queerkiller then put him on my ignore list.

Because that's how liberal society behaves. Why should I have to play deadbeats, bad players and people with rubbish grammar? Why should I tolerate team-mates who aren't as good as Blitzaholic? Because this is an open site, and those kind of people have every right to play here just like us.

However, we have every right to persecute them and make their lives miserable until eventually they either leave, or do something stupid that gets them banned. Trust me, it's going to be great fun! Let's get that Queerkiller PM'd right now, I fancy a night of Flame Warring.

detlef wrote:there's some pretty easy to nail ones like, for instance reference to killing gay people. I think we can all agree on that one.

It's true, this name is designed purely to cause offence and has clearly already done so. I'd be quite happy to see it Mod-ammended, so long as the 'offender' is given a clear warning that such a step is about to be taken (so they can actually log in and stuff). But banning is just a bit too harsh in my opinion when a more gentle step (as just mentioned) can be taken. But I'm still firmly against a policy whereby mods can just ban people for usernames as they feel fit, this seems like an area where it's best for the community as a whole to request mod-action rather than just having leaving it up to 2-4 people to judge as they see fit. After all, it's about what the community finds offensive, not what 2-4 of them find annoying.

alster · Post by **alster** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:30 am

Dancing Mustard wrote:Isn't there a line to be drawn in any liberal society between statements and practices that may cause offence/controversy, and statements and practices that are designed purposefully to cause offence/controversy?

I think that might be what Hulmey is driving at here Alster. No matter how liberal we are there's nothing that says we shouldn't censure people who clearly seek only to disrupt our climate of liberalism.

Of course. But such lines are difficult to draw in a liberal society since one of the basic principles creating it is the idea of free speech/free opinions in the public sphere.

However, there can be no banning of statements and practices that are designed purposefully to cause offence/controversy as such. That's clearly to step over the line towards Fascism, Communism and Religious fascism. There's no right not to be offended. There can be no right not to be subject to controversy. God gave us a free will, and liberal societies are based on allowing people to exercise that as far as possible.

Our climate of liberalism include cursing and non-PC opinions.

But that doesn't mean of course that it's ok to harrass other individuals. And there are perfectly good rules covering that here on CC. Just read them in the Rules section.

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:36 am

Are we sure QueerKiller is violent towards homosexuals? Could it be that he simply kills strange people? In the latter case I think we all have a major problem on our hands.

alster · Post by **alster** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:37 am

Dancing Mustard wrote:However, we have every right to persecute them and make their lives miserable until eventually they either leave, or do something stupid that gets them banned. Trust me, it's going to be great fun! Let's get that Queerkiller PM'd right now, I fancy a night of Flame Warring.

Are you insane? Of course you have no right persecuting other members of CC. If you have a problem with an individual player, you take it to the mods. Starting up a mob, going after a player in order to bully them into leaving is unacceptable. If you don't realize that, you have some growing-up to do.

I find the game chat rules to be nicely put.

Game Chat Moderation
"Trash-talking" can be a fun element of the game and we take a liberal stance on what is allowed to be said in game chat. If one player offends another we generally do not want to get involved. However, in cases of extreme obscenity or extreme harassment (in our judgement) we may take disciplinary action against the offending member.

If you find yourself in a game with someone who offends you, simply add the member in question to your Ignore List and his/her comments will disappear.

There are no specific rules regarding pm'ing people, but I would assume that harrassing people by pm's very well would amount to such "extreme harassment" that actions could be taken.

People. Just let it go. Accept that life isn't perfect and go on with your own games in here. Because this is such a small deal. One username (with zero finished games mind you) isn't a problem.

Timminz · Post by **Timminz** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:39 am

If it offends you, ignore it. It's really quite a simple thing to do here at CC.

Personally I find it offensive that some people think they can control what other people say or do. Of course, if QueerKiller was going around convincing people to kill queers, it would be very wrong, and worth trying to stop. But it's JUST A STRING OR LETTERS. maybe you should bring your concerns up to Tipper Gore. She might fight for your censorship campaign.

alster · Post by **alster** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:39 am

Coleman wrote:Are we sure QueerKiller is violent towards homosexuals? Could it be that he simply kills strange people? In the latter case I think we all have a major problem on our hands.

Well. Or he could very well be homosexual himself. Then adding the "Killer" part to get a cool name for a game of world conquest. That would get all PC-people in trouble here since it would be non-PC to ask a homosexual man not to use the word "Queer".

We're here, we're queer, get used to it! :shock:

detlef · Post by **detlef** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:40 am

I believe the OP was simply saying that the name should be banned, not the user himself.

Alster, society as a whole is much further down the slippery slope towards fascism that you so comically warn us of than this would make CC. There is no shortage of precedent where clubs have legislated against inappropriate behavior.

Once again, this is not someone getting their panties in twist over something merely provocative. This is an example of someone taking a very indefensible and hateful stance against a segment of society that quite likely are members of this club.

Telling them they can't do so does not, in fact, tear at the fibers of a free society. It simply demands a code of reasonable behavior from members of a club.

I'm rather confident that the mods could manage to distinguish the difference between something merely provocative and something intended to offend people.

lackattack · Post by **lackattack** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:41 am

Fortunately Queerkiller was busted as a multi (thanks wicked).

We'll deal with offensive usernames on a case-by-case basis, but generally I want to avoid taking action because of the reasons put forward here (keeping CC liberal and avoiding a slippery slope).

I think there is only one or two cases where I censored a username and it's pretty much because Death To All lobbied for it :lol:

Dancing Mustard · Post by **Dancing Mustard** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:44 am

Alstergren wrote:Of course. But such lines are difficult to draw in a liberal society since one of the basic principles creating it is the idea of free speech/free opinions in the public sphere.

Humbug, it's a very simple line: Statements that have a useful purpose but might cause offence to those who disagree / Statements designed for no purpose other than to offend. Sorry, but your proposition doesn't really wash here.

Alstergren wrote:However, there can be no banning of statements and practices that are designed purposefully to cause offence/controversy as such. That's clearly to step over the line towards Fascism, Communism and Religious fascism.

O Rly? Why's that then? Doesn't look like you actually explain that somewhat bold statement anywhere in your post.
But allow me to elaborate anyway, if you're just using your right to talk in order to make other people's lives miserable, who not stop you? I mean, you make a proposition there, but you don't back it up. So far as I can see there is no moral harm in preventing people exercising their rights for no purpose other than to cause harm/discomfort to others. Rights entail levels of responsibility, and in this case those responsibilities would be being breached. Censure seems entirely appropriate.

Alstergren wrote:There's no right not to be offended. There can be no right not to be subject to controversy. God gave us a free will, and liberal societies are based on allowing people to exercise that as far as possible.

There is no such right, that's correct, but I'm not arguing for one and never was. You're just shadowboxing here, I don't know who you think you're arguing against, but it isn't me. Feel free to disagree with me, but at least disagree with me, and not some phantom argument that you imagine yourself to be facing

Alstergren wrote:But that doesn't mean of course that it's ok to harrass other individuals. And there are perfectly good rules covering that here on CC. Just read them in the Rules section.

You did read the rest of my post right? Y'know, the bit where I was actually agreeing with your stance on not banning people? I've read the rules several times, and I don't feel like they need expanding any more. That's what I was saying? Did you miss that part?
Seriously, if we're arguing for the same thing, then why are you trying to lambast me here? I can't help but feel that It's just not going to help your cause too much.

alstergren wrote:
Dancing Mustard wrote:However, we have every right to persecute them and make their lives miserable until eventually they either leave, or do something stupid that gets them banned. Trust me, it's going to be great fun! Let's get that Queerkiller PM'd right now, I fancy a night of Flame Warring.

Are you insane? Of course you have no right persecuting other members of CC. If you have a problem with an individual player, you take it to the mods. Starting up a mob, going after a player in order to bully them into leaving is unacceptable. If you don't realize that, you have some growing-up to do.

Oh jeez, you took that completely literally and didn't imagine that my tongue was firmly in my cheek. That's disappointing. I think I'm going to go find myself a new partner for the CC debating championships, good luck finding a different partner.

On the other hand, I might go round up a rowdy mob and try to bully that Whump guy into leaving...

PS. Good work on busting the guy lack, I'm glad to see him gone

AAFitz · Post by **AAFitz** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:49 am

personally, I see nothing wrong with changing the name or deleting it...

this is a club, and a business owned by lack....I sure wouldnt blame him for not wanting customers to have to read Qrr kllr as a user name.

The number of people that leave because they are turned off because of reading that, has to outweigh the number that feel their rights are violated because a name was censored that though probably in jest, seems to advocate murdering an entire group of people based on a lifestyle

its one thing to say I believe something is wrong, quite another to promote violence against it, which is the only thing something like that can be meant to do

Certainly as this is a business, and requires new and repeat customers to survive, censoring things that most or even many would consider offensive is hardly something to be feared. I dont think this will be the new front for communism, if a few common sense censorship practices are undertaken. Especially since it will be done in the interest of capitalism. The irony of the whole situation of course is that the site is based on world domination.

But the best part of this place, is the forum is very open, and feedback almost immediate. Everyone knows that if something is taken too far either by the mods, lack, or any player, it will be confronted immediately, and usually strenuously.

detlef · Post by **detlef** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:53 am

AAFitz wrote:personally, I see nothing wrong with changing the name or deleting it...

this is a club, and a business owned by lack....I sure wouldnt blame him for not wanting customers to have to read Qrr kllr as a user name.

The number of people that leave because they are turned off because of reading that, has to outweigh the number that feel their rights are violated because a name was censored that though probably in jest, seems to advocate murdering an entire group of people based on a lifestyle

its one thing to say I believe something is wrong, quite another to promote violence against it, which is the only thing something like that can be meant to do

Certainly as this is a business, and requires new and repeat customers to survive, censoring things that most or even many would consider offensive is hardly something to be feared. I dont think this will be the new front for communism, if a few common sense censorship practices are undertaken. Especially since it will be done in the interest of capitalism. The irony of the whole situation of course is that the site is based on world domination.

But the best part of this place, is the forum is very open, and feedback almost immediate. Everyone knows that if something is taken too far either by the mods, lack, or any player, it will be confronted immediately, and usually strenuously.

Well said.

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:53 am

Alster u seem to be very liberal minded. You are somewhat disillionsed as well coz you arent go around calling people gay or fuckers or niggers or even hail th Nazi's.

This site is played on by children and there should be some guidelines. Espically concerning Usernames which is a easy remedy. LAckattack not recently banned a guy for having a nazi avatar. So what? I dont care if the nazi's killed 100's of jews. Who cares!!

But in a nut shell someone cared and lack attack saw fit to get the bloke to change his avatar.

So how liberal are we now?

alster · Post by **alster** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:04 am

Dancing Mustard wrote:Humbug, it's a very simple line: Statements that have a useful purpose but might cause offence to those who disagree / Statements designed for no purpose other than to offend. Sorry, but your proposition doesn't really wash here.

Actually, under legal and philosophical theories underpinning free speech, there’s no prerequisite that a statement should have a “useful purpose”. However, that doesn’t mean that all speech is free, for example defamation is banned since the law weighs the protection of one person’s right to free speech against the possible harmful result of that speech to another person.

But to quote Justice Brennan, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

Dancing Mustard wrote:O Rly? Why's that then? Doesn't look like you actually explain that somewhat bold statement anywhere in your post.
But allow me to elaborate anyway, if you're just using your right to talk in order to make other people's lives miserable, who not stop you? I mean, you make a proposition there, but you don't back it up. So far as I can see there is no moral harm in preventing people exercising their rights for no purpose other than to cause harm/discomfort to others. Rights entail levels of responsibility, and in this case those responsibilities would be being breached. Censure seems entirely appropriate.

Again, actually, under legal and philosophical theories underpinning freedom of speech and freedom of expression, there’s no prerequisite that those rights must be exercised in a “responsible manner”. Doing that would undermine those bedrock freedoms to an unacceptable degree.

Also again, since the law weighs the protection of one person’s right to free speech against the possible harmful result of that speech to another person, you are usually not allowed to verbally or literally attack other individuals. Defamation and slander limits free speech here.

I don’t see your point really. All I’ve seen in this thread are people feeling offended by a certain username. Except for your idea to terrorize another player, bullying him into leaving, I’ve read nothing about anyone harassing other players. And here, on the one hand, you say that you agree with me when stating that there’s no right not to be offended. On the other hand, you write as well that you see no harm banning expressions that causes discomfort to others. You can’t have it both ways.