Is there a policy against offensive usernames?

[boberz]

On that note TV shows etc.... have made it clear that shows after 9pm (inn the UK) must have some sort of parental supervision

Yes so? If parents are responsible for keeping their kids in front or away from a TV-set, why on earth aren't parents responsible for their kids Internet use?

If some parents, for some reason only known to themselves, would have a problem with this site, it's the parents problem. Not the site's. All those stickers and warnings you see these days are just ridiculous.

OK, granted, society doesn't need to be protected from the boogie man. Do you have an argument against people just expecting a certain level of decorum? That's my point and you keep avoiding it. What is so bad about a club demanding better of it's members and not allowing jerk-offs to use insulting names?

well that is a decision for lack to make and he has made it so now surely your argument is lost.

[detlef]

On that note TV shows etc.... have made it clear that shows after 9pm (inn the UK) must have some sort of parental supervision

Yes so? If parents are responsible for keeping their kids in front or away from a TV-set, why on earth aren't parents responsible for their kids Internet use?

If some parents, for some reason only known to themselves, would have a problem with this site, it's the parents problem. Not the site's. All those stickers and warnings you see these days are just ridiculous.

OK, granted, society doesn't need to be protected from the boogie man. Do you have an argument against people just expecting a certain level of decorum? That's my point and you keep avoiding it. What is so bad about a club demanding better of it's members and not allowing jerk-offs to use insulting names?

well that is a decision for lack to make and he has made it so now surely your argument is lost.

Last I checked, Lack wasn't the final say on how all clubs should conduct themselves. He is with this one that is fine. However, Alster is arguing from a larger standpoint. That clubs, in general, having standards for how people should conduct themselves is a one way ticket to fascism and a blatant disregard of our rights. That people are just to sensitive. My point is, why do we have to constantly test the level of our sensitivity? What is so wrong with expecting people to not be offensive and having certain basic levels of conduct required in clubs?

[boberz]

no he never said that all clubs should have to allow swearing that is stupid but he was putting the case for THIS site not to censor and he has argued it satisfacturally, nobody can expect a certain level of decorum unless that is specifically noted. A lot have people have laughed at the slippery slope metaphor but i have not heard a decent argument against it

[hulmey]

He was putting the case for this site and in also in GENERAL as well. Saw another username Jesus is Gay. Now is that not highly offensive!!!

[vtmarik]

Ok, so we start making rules about what your username can entail. Then we extend the word filter to words like ass and crap. Then, just for kicks, we have a gallery of avatars to choose from and then you can't post your own.


Where does it end?

Censorship for the sake of censorship is wrong.
Censorship for the sake of protecting "the children" is worse.

[Coleman]

He was putting the case for this site and in also in GENERAL as well. Saw another username Jesus is Gay. Now is that not highly offensive!!!

Well at least it means he doesn't believe the Da Vinci code to be something true, then he wouldn't think Jesus was gay, what with being married with a kid and all.

[cawck mongler]

pro-nazi guy that was a lot of trouble.

Are you talking about me?

[Dancing Mustard]

I thought they were talking about that 'xHxIxTxLxExRx' guy.

He was a bellend.

[cawck mongler]

Oh, he sounds like he was cool.

[Dancing Mustard]

His mum told him he was cool...



... although I'm afraid that I'm not his mum. Poor guy.

[yorkiepeter]

Where does it end?

Censorship for the sake of censorship is wrong.
Censorship for the sake of protecting "the children" is worse.

Come on, are you suggesting porn and violent movies should be seen by children?

My point was simply this. A responsible parent would not approve of their children being faced with the tirant of abuse and foul language on this site. I mean phrases like 'your mom takes it up the ass, or she sucks my dick everynight' If this sort of behaviour was censored would it really infringe one's rights?

On the face of it a responsible parent would see this site and just simply think that their child is playing on line games, unaware of the sort of abuse this site allows. I mean really would you like your kid being exposed to that sort of talk?

Until it is outlawed by lack and enforced by the mods then my kid will not be allowed access to this site.

....and really its not too difficult, if someone complains to the mods all they have to do is look at the game/post and if found unacceptable take appropriate action of either suspension or a ban on posting or using in game chat.

[Gustaf Wasa]

This member, for example: http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/profil ... e&u=117723

I asked him in game chat and via PM what his handle is supposed to mean, and have gotten no reply. Is there a CC policy that governs usernames?

thanks.

This keeps me awake at night. I should have the power to force everyone else to do what I do, right down to the choice of usernames at a website. And the only ones allowed to be offensive and in-your-face should be those who have my opinions. We oughta hold a parade about it or something.

[gannable]

first che gueva (whatever the stupid name is) was a thug murderer despite what Hollywood may portray him to be

Second, Alstergreen is 100% correct in everything he said in this thread.

I'd like to add that i'd rather not interact with someone on any level who deigns himself to be an associate member of the Thought Police. I find that type of person to be offensive

[azezzo]

F.F.S.

[stahrgazer]

Where does it end?

Censorship for the sake of censorship is wrong.
Censorship for the sake of protecting "the children" is worse.

Come on, are you suggesting porn and violent movies should be seen by children?

My point was simply this. A responsible parent would not approve of their children being faced with the tirant of abuse and foul language on this site. I mean phrases like 'your mom takes it up the ass, or she sucks my dick everynight' If this sort of behaviour was censored would it really infringe one's rights?

On the face of it a responsible parent would see this site and just simply think that their child is playing on line games, unaware of the sort of abuse this site allows. I mean really would you like your kid being exposed to that sort of talk?

Until it is outlawed by lack and enforced by the mods then my kid will not be allowed access to this site.

....and really its not too difficult, if someone complains to the mods all they have to do is look at the game/post and if found unacceptable take appropriate action of either suspension or a ban on posting or using in game chat.

In disucssion with Andy today, I made the point that any complaints should be warned; but I do not believe that foul language should be bannable offense. Eventually, children WILL learn.

The system they use is, "use your foelist" but that only works if you know in advance who's going to be THAT crude.

But.. Admin's response seems to continuously be, "ignore it, because we are."

A system where "any complaint gets a warning" is not a proper system, as not every complaint is a legitmate complaint. Just like not every reported post is actually breaking the rules.

Well.. really, it depends on how you interpret the rules.

Flames are posts or parts of posts which, directly or indirectly, insult, belittle, bully, name-call, or otherwise attack another user is not allowed."

Under those rules, a flame about sexual activity with someone's mother or the player him (her)self could be considered insulting, belittleing, or indirectly attacking the other player. Calling a player a fucking retard could be considered insulting and direct attack.

Players may lose their tempers; if punishments acknowledged that, but SOME discipline (warning, repeated short vacas for repeated offenses) rather than NO discipline might curb some of the extremes. When extremes begin getting curbed, others might just exercise their right of free speech to curb their own speech. Good can become habit every bit as much as foul can become habit.

But it requires the admin to require their moderating team to address 'grey areas' on the side of the complainer, rather than the original poster. If punishments for verbiage didn't escalate to bans, well, gee, the moderator teams just MIGHT be willing to do the lesser disciplines rather than, "use foelist."