Policy Updates

They didnt cause major damage to anyone in modern times. Most of them are viewed in a positive way so... your good to go on them.

You missed something, here. Parents will buy games for their kids without bothering to see what's in it or brushing off the "it's not for a kid that age" warning with "oh, it can't be that bad".

Then, when they see that it is indeed 'that bad', they throw a fit about it and blame everyone around them because it certainly couldn't be their fault that Little Jimmy was killing hookers in a game, they had no idea!

(yes, I deal with this far too often)

Anyway, people seem to be mistaking a T rating with an actual age limit. There isn't one. It's a suggestion, not a requirement like with the M rating. And GW has a T rating for, as the back of the box says, "Suggestive Themes, Use of Alcohol, and Violence". It says nothing about inappropriate language or anything like that.

1. We understand that is this a mere codification of the current policy. We just don't like the current policy in the first place. There is a ridiculous and unfair presumption that a name is offensive merely because it was reported. Rather than codifying a bad policy, you should change the policy, then codify it.

2. Given the huge false-positive rate under the current policy, increasing the penalties is not acceptable. The more I think about it, the more I agree with Sjeng -- the increased penalties are a dangerous gift to griefers. If the quality of the review cannot be improved, the penalties should not be increased. In fact, I'd go so far as to agree with Sjeng that, if the the quality of the review cannot be improved, then offensive name reporting should be altogether abandoned and anti-offensive-name enforcement should be left to the name filter at character creation time.

According to the Terms of Agreement you must be 18 or have a parent or guardians permission to play this game. Just because parents allow their children to do so doesn't make it ok for people to do some of the stuff that goes on around here. As much as you may argue that it's Anet or the parents fault try taking some responsibility for your own actions. You agreed not to do the things that has been discussed when you accepted the ToA yet if you get punished for them it's not your fault. Please.

I do not think it is A-Nets fault. How is it A-Nets fault that some 10-13 y/o kids get the game (which as you just stated requires you to be 18 or have parents permission) but I DO place blame on parents. We just discussed that. If you do not want your kids playing or seeing offensive stuff then they SHOULD take the time to check out what goes on in all the games. That is no ones fault but the parents. They are the guardians, they are the ones that are supposed to take care of them. Too many just toss them games or let them watch shows to babysit them and they do not even check it out. My parents always checked out what I was into and they would even agree that other parents SHOULD check out the games. Lazy and poor parenting.


Especially in a game that is international. I have friends from other countries that say things that most would never do in public, but to them it is okay. For some people words used here in the US are no big deal overseas. It goes the other way as well. That is another part of the discussion - who decides what is wrong? Someone gets punished for what to them is their normal every day talk?


And besides, a BIG part of what people are discussing is the ABUSE of this system. Which it can and has been abused many times.

Ok I have to admit I loled. But seriously, by all means ban away. I'm tired of all this immaturity. Just witnessed the most disgusting conversation in FA yesterday. Some dude talking about his female teacher's body parts. I didn't report but was sorely tempted to.

I do admit that foreign names are tricky though. I once saw a chinese player with swastikas in his name, but in china the swastika is a perfectly benign buddhist symbol. Perhaps names in foreign languages should be referred to those familiar with the language or culture for evaluation. If they can't be bothered to evaluate names properly then they shouldn't ban at all.

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

That was, as you said, before the Nazi party. Since then it has been viewed as a symbol of hatred and is despised in every free-thinking civilised country in the world. People who still insist on using it with the excuse that "I'm using it in the Buddist sense" are kidding nobody.

(Apologies to anyone from Finland - that would be the one notable exception to the above. Nobody important comes from Finland, though )

WHY SO RIDICULOUS?

I see the point of the censoring names…so players are not hurt. Yet I am not being considered here. My religion is being attacked buy the acceptance of witchcraft and other dark arts (spells, hex, necromancy, etc.) in the game. With that in mind only the warrior class should be allowed in the game! Oh no I spoke too soon. My value system does not condone any violence (turn the other cheek). That takes the warrior class is out too.

I guess the game is just plain offensive. Hmm, if I am offended by the game therefore it’s LAWSUIT time. That’s the real reason to sensor names.

Why can't we all just make names like this^ and it won't be a problem anymore?

Well, I do see why there is a name policy but I wish it would actually work better.
Just to give 2 examples of what I mean:

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.

The game contains creatures like a Damned Cleric, but my paragon was not allowed to be called Litany Of Damnation...so it's Litany Of Perdition now...

Again, I understand the need for a name policy but I get a bit frustrated when the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual.

so, people can be offended by someone else's name in a video game... that's pathetic

"oh no, this guy has a name that insults my god (my religion, my country, my color, my age, or anything you want here), how can I keep on living ?"

sure guys, life has gotten sooooo hard to live nowadays

That happened to me too, I called my spider "Little Bite", logged on one day and it was gone, sheesh had to change it to to "Little Byte"

Sigh, I am betting some day soon I will have to change my Assassin's name :/

This thread inspires me to make my next new character carry the name of the absolute divine being of my religion: the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If people report me for it, they would only acknowledge that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a true major religious figure

Any thoughts?

Meridon

I have two main points to make.
1.) Parents should only let their children play the game if they know that their children are mature enough to handle the some of the content.
2.) If players are greatly offended or annoyed by character names, they're obviously not mature enough to handle playing online games... go back to Hello Kitty Island Adventure or whatever.

Lets face it, in an MMO, racist jokes and crude humor are unavoidable, so why don't we just embrace it, lighten up a bit (it is just a game), and get a few laughs.

By the same token we have enough of that in the real world everyday. So, let's embrace following the RULES for a change. It's like I said EVERYBODY KNOWS when they violate the naming policy except a complete idiot and if they are complete idiots then THEY are the ones who don't need to be playing GW or any other online SOCIAL game.

This is what I say don't name your character a name you wouldn't name your child or you know a judge wouldn't allow it as a name or title in the real world. Laws are made to be respected. Rules are made to be respected. So, respect them and you won't have people like ME reporting you ingame. Nuff said. Win thread statement here can close it now.

The player name in question was in chinese "Ah mi tuo fo" (translated=Amitabha Buddah)

Would such a name warrant a ban? I'm sure there's a world of difference between that an a player named "Heil H*tler" or some other crap.

Ps. Where I live there is a school and a nursing home named "Red swastika".
I kid you not : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Swastika_Society

The real world is like that. Just because you don't take religion seriously doesn't mean someone else wouldn't think differently, otherwise we wouldn't have people blowing themselves up and killing each other in the name of religion. Remember, this may be an American game but it is played by people from an international community. Sometimes I find some of the conversations in-game objectionable but I don't report them. This give and take is something that unfortunately the majority of the GW population seems to be incapable of.

The problem is that this gives power to people who are ignorant. You, for example, are probably not aware that Finland also fought against the nazi's so I'm afraid your little joke at the end fails rather miserably.

On top of that your statement about "every free-thinking civilised country" is automatically biased. Most people in this world, and I mean the vast majority, had nothing to do with the Nazi's and thus if you look at countries like India and China who contain roughly half the world's population, you will see that most people in this world don't see the swastika as a negative but rather a positive symbol.
Was your point that people in countries like China don't count because you feel they are not civilised or is that a misinterpretation? Be careful what you say because you may offend a lot of people here.

There really is a point where things go too far. The simple truth is that Anet are in the US which is a predominantly religious country with a lot of politically correctness issues, at least out in the media. And so it is that they have to take care in that.

It really is difficult to apply censorship, so I feel for Anet in this. As I said, I simply wish the way it works was better. But in the end I agree with a lot of people here that there are plenty of people out there who are too easily offended. And that is where ignorance comes in.

Lucifer for example is only mentioned ONCE in the bible reference a proud king whose fall was predicted. The idea that Lucifer is the Devil or Satan was therefore added afterwards but is not accepted by all Christians. But because somebody at some point decided that Lucifer was the name of the Devil most Christians now do believe this.
I wouldn't be surprised if I were to get in trouble by creating a character with the name Jesus Is A Jew. Even though his mother Maria was obviously Jewish.

Now I am not meaning to turn this into a religious debate so don't see it as such but I just wanted to illustrate why censorship can be such a tricky thing. There are some many different beliefs and at some point people can get upset about pretty much anything. So where do you draw the line?

Kids can watch MTV and watch video's with scantilly clad women (ho's and b*tches as they are called) and lyrics about booty and big butts and all the sexual references you desire, but in a video game it suddenly is a bad thing to make sexual references because 13 year-olds are playing the game, even though these kids probably are more aware of sex than I was at 13 and a bunch of em already had sex at this age.

This, however, is just the hypocrisy of our society and not Anet's idea. They just have to deal with it the best way they can and in the end it simply is a bigger issue in the US and a number of Islamic nations, than in a lot of other countries.

If someone is taking religion *that* seriously, he is not gonna play computer game with "false gods" and deciptinons of their worship, and is more likely to bomb anet HQ for spoiling childrens mind with satan or somethin than anything else to begin with. Jack Chick, anyone?

And, for some reason, I think that suicide bombers have a lot more issues than just religion. There nothing more dangerous than man who has nothing to loose except his life and grudge against someone. Take away religion and I am 100% positive that busses are still gona explode in israel.

That is very core of what is wrong with "hate words". "Free-thinking" people should be able to get over it. Its not word of symbol that did whatever atrocity is associated with it. Drawing of cross with broken arms is not gonna march people to gas chambers and make soap of them.

Here is what happens with "bad" words: they continue increase in amount because we keep creating them. By we i mean decent folks, not haters.

Say, we have group of people. They can be described by color of their skin.

Then, someone nice decides that current word we use ("RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO") became offsensive. Some people stop using it and start using repalcement ("negro"). Same thing happens and we decide that they are to be called just "black", ups. No, we don't, that somehow became offensive too. Great idea! "African American" is really, really decent way of refering to them? Ups, not anymore, now if someone says "African American" you know excatly what he means, and it aint nice thing. so another word should be used, see, finally a "decent word" to refer to them, now what word will it be.

We ended up in creating several racial slurs and having no decent way to name things that need naming when need arises. And laguage is being stripped of nuances and permited word count is shrinking. Ever heard of newspeak, theory that limiting vocalubaly will remove ones ability to think unwanted thoughs? Well, it does not work. Limiting words to describe hate will not prevent people from thinking hate.

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

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 ?

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.

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!

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.

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


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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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?

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.



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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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


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.


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.


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

Anything can be a joke.


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 ?

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.

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"?

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.

- 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.

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

It still has in some parts of the world.

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!

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.

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.