What Constitutes an "Inappropriate" Name?

What ivory tower are you in to determine who is adult and what is considered appropriate adult conduct? It has everything to do with political correctness and my drawing of a comparison between other far deadlier pandemics is both relevant and reasonable. Obviously you haven't been reading the thread. Why would cracker, ofay or any variation thereof be acceptable when negro is not? You know what fog, I find cracker offensive. I find anything racially pejorative against white people offensive. Explain it away with immaturity all you want or "hiding in mommies basement" which is frankly childish on your part. Making exceptions is not ok and if one form is not allowed the other shouldn't be either.

No? If you do something wrong, you do something wrong. And it can be wrong on a severity. For example, an armed assault would get you in less trouble then a shooting spree, because it is less severe. You are punished regardless however, which is what you seem to not comprehend.

Ok, so then we can agree that things severe, such as joking about AIDS should be punished harshly, since it hits millions of people. We can also agree that making fun of One Legged John, would hit very very few people. So what do you suggest for the small punishment? 100g? 30 second ban?

What are you talking about? Out of the 2 million or so GW players, a million have AIDS?

Ok I don't know exact numbers, but I'm sure we can agree that more people have aids that play GW than people that have lost a leg?

I agree. There how do you like that? I think many discussions in chat, and names chossen for characters are offensive (by definition). Am I offended by them? No I have much thicker skin than that.

My point is that there are names made up for "shock value" or for dark or racy humor. It is childish (and not by my defenition of adult), it is something I expect to see out of 10-14 year old boys. And maybe that is who is doing it.

If Anet didn't police some of these names it would continue with worse and worse stuff. All of you crying out against bans for this stuff know this is true. They are doing the right thing (for once).

I'm sure we can agree that more white people play Guild Wars then black people (GW is hosted in Europe and America, both predominantly white, while not in Africa). So I guess that names with the n word in them should be given quick 30 second bans while names with "cracka" in them deserve perma-bans?

Or maybe the little offensiveness scale you are trying to use doesn't... work?

See, I think we could have avoided the murder analogy for one simple reason:

Murdering is against the rules.

Having a name that has a word in it that is allowed by the filter is not.

OMG it was a simple temp ban for choosing a name obviously intended for shock value. A temporary ban. So you can't play GW for a few days. It's not punishment - it's a deterrent, and a way for Anet to pull a little CYA.

Look, if it happened to me, I would be pissed too. Though if I ever made a character name like that, I'd understand the action taken. In fact, I'd probably be waiting for the ban stick every day.

*Begins to wonder if these people actually believe what they are saying or are just trying to defend Anet*

Could possibly violate these.

When I bought Guild Wars, I read the Code of Conduct. I knew what I could do and what I could not do in order to avoid losing playing privileges. My problem right now is that Arenanet has taken away my right to play (and essentially, some of my money). I don't care how long it is for. If I didn't break the Code of Conduct (I challenge someone to find out where I did), then I see no reason to ban.

EDIT:After seeing the above post, I still don't believe I violated any part of those two clauses.

Omniclasm, I think you forgot your initial post. Or you weren't paying attention? Or something?

You made the argument that it's not okay to use the name Snype has A I D S because there may be some man named Snype that plays GW that happens to have aids, and his life may have been devastated by it.

So in response to that, what if a character with the name One Legged John was created, and there happened to be some man named John that plays GW that lost his leg is a tragic accident in which, like I suggested, he lost both his wife and child.

How is that different? So maybe there's more people that play GW that have aids than those who've lost limbs in a traumatic accident, so what? If something is offensive, it's offensive. Snype whose life has been devastated by aids has no more or less right to feel personally offended than One-legged John who lost his wife and child just because he happens to be in a majority.

My first post was explaining how somebody could find it offensive.

He only got a 72 hour ban, not permanent. You should have a chance to rename the character after the suspension is up.

So if Anet banned you for 72 hours because you used an ugly dye combination, it would be ok because it was only for 72 hours right?

You agreed to this.

I'm defending the choices they make that protects the company itself. If it makes them more successful, I'm all for it. I want this game to be more than it is, and that will only happen if they are successful with it.

Read what I said here:

They must take these actions to ensure as little bad publicity as possible. If they piss off a handful of players, but gain 2-3x that because of their actions ("they keep the game clean of offensive behavior/names"), then it's a good business decision. Besides, like I said, it's a temp ban. They didn't delete his characters, ban him permanently, or cut off his hands - they simply are not allowing him to play for a few days. It's hardly unfair, and it's a good publicity move (as a whole, not just this one person) - the good outweighs the bad.

EDIT:
Read what I typed above...

To further this, remember the whole panda thing? Where we couldn't have a panda as a pet because it offended the nation of China? Consider that.

ALSO: Like what I said, if that John with one leg decides to go on a crusade, and does everything he can, something will be done. Like I said, a large enough group or a loud enough individual. It's not about how offensive it is, it's entirely about how offensive it is to the people who can make a scene.

And followed it with the ideal that less people are missing legs than people suffering with AIDS. SO WHAT? Who cares if there's 1 million people with AIDS that play GW, and just 1 man with a missing leg that plays GW? If you're championing that it's not okay because those 1 million people have possibly had their lives devastated, you cannot then turn around and say "so what about John and his one leg, he's in the minority!" Offensive is offensive is offensive is offensive! It doesn't matter how many people it offends, or for what reason they are offended, you can't just exempt certain people because they're in the minority.