Username policy

[Jest Phulin]

And you ask what I want from this discussion. I want to know why a ... username ... is considered "fine" just because the user replaced an "o" with a "0".

If the name has been reported and found to be acceptable, it is most likely not because the "o" was replaced with a "0." It is more likely that you find the name offensive, but the BGA moderator did not. Your solution in this case is to create your own website (including getting all of the appropriate licenses from all of the game publishers), build your own fan base, and create your own limitations. Or let it go. I'm fairly certain that everyone who takes a case to the supreme court of their country believes they are in the right. Half of them are told they aren't.

---
I will admit that much of this argument hinges on the statement that replacing "o" with "0" is the only difference in an acceptable vs unacceptable name. Is there proof that the name would be disallowed if the letter was used instead of the digit?

[wrldtrvllr]

I did not find the username "offensive"; I found it to be triumphalist, provocative and immature. And it was obviously chosen to evade a filter, the point of which can only have been to prevent exactly that type of provocative and triumphalist username. Test it yourself; try to create a username containing the word "god", and you will see the message "Sorry, because of our moderation policy your username cannot contain `god`". But a username containing "g0d" has been declared "fine".

My solution in this case was in fact to cancel my subscription. I won't pay money for a service I can't trust.

[Silene]

I actually think the idea of the automatic filter is to protect religious sensitivities and not prevent immature triumphalists.

You cannot cover everything in an automatic filter and it's also difficult to even put in words what you would want to exclude and what not. Creating a loophole-free jurisdiction is impossible even in real-live and that's why we need court-hearings in the first place (we wouldn't if everything was absolutely clear and easy to decide).

[wrldtrvllr]

I actually think the idea of the automatic filter is to protect religious sensitivities and not prevent immature triumphalists.

You cannot cover everything in an automatic filter and it's also difficult to even put in words what you would want to exclude and what not. Creating a loophole-free jurisdiction is impossible even in real-live and that's why we need court-hearings in the first place (we wouldn't if everything was absolutely clear and easy to decide).

The code of conduct specifically prohibits triumphalism and provocation but says nothing about religion, but that's really beside the point. The message is totally unambiguous: "Sorry, because of our moderation policy your username cannot contain `god`". If "god" is problematic, for whatever reason, then "g0d" is *obviously* just as problematic. But the moderators have declared that to be "fine" and rendered their own policy completely meaningless.

[voriki]

There could be many words on the wordfilter that could be allowed if under the right context, but refused in the first place.

(Totally making this name up, don't know if it matches any origin)
What if there is a guy named Bish Itari, and he wants to pick the simple username BishItari, then the word filter will also(most likely) refuse it and say that he is not allowed to have 'shit' in his name. But upon claryfying the context through support, his name would get manually approved.

This is a case by case scenario.


Edit: here's a better example, DiegoDonDeLaVega, nothing wrong with the name, but it contains 'god'. Thus manually approved.

[wrldtrvllr]

Your fatuous examples are not relevant to the situation I am describing, and the moronic insult you posted earlier indicates that you are not intellectually capable of engaging with this issue.

[Jest Phulin]

The examples are good ones. Many K-12 schools are blocked from searching for information on mars exploration, because the letters s-e-x are in that sequence. Finding information on Richard Nixon, the 37th president of the United States, is hard too because of his nickname "Tricky Dick." I put these examples up because word filters can't catch everything nor can they not catch some things they should. Yes, these are incorrect catches, not incorrect passes, but they show imperfection in filters.

How about I make an account for my canine friend Danny. Should DoggoDanny be banned because it has goD in the middle of it?

But, let me get this straight, wrldtrvllr. You do not find names with the word god in them offensive, but you do find them triumphalist, provocative, and immature, which are not offensive. Your entire issue is that a username that *you* felt violated some rules was deemed by a BGA administrator to be OK? Again, the solution in this case is for you to create your own website and enforce your own rules. Otherwise leave it to BGA staff.

[wrldtrvllr]

Yet more stupid examples. You really have to be trying quite hard not to understand the situation here. This is not about a username which happens to contain the substring "god". It is about a username which contains the word "god", written as "g0d" to evade a filter which applies a policy, which is that triumphalism and provocation are not allowed. And the solution, as I've already stated, is to stop paying money for a website that either doesn't understand or simply doesn't enforce its own rules.

[Silene]

consistency is a difficult task

[aesche]

You can be sure that by now, after 3 weeks and 3 pages full of ranting and complaints from you, incl. personal attacks that you deserve a serious moderation for, everyone very easily understands that you must have no other tasks and problems in your life, than to keep going about such a non-issue. You even got an answer from official side. Accept it or don‘t, but pls get off that horse, you already rode it to death long ago, and noone at BGA will care the slightest to lose a few bucks from you if you in turn finally stop this here.