Username policy

[wrldtrvllr]

Yes, they tend to create text that does not reflect accurately what they actually meant. There are several examples for that - this is just one. One reason is probably that consistency is a difficult task, but I also think they focus more on other things.

You found out that the text is wrong. If that's a reason for you to not pay for the site, that's perfectly fine

Consistency is not hard. There are hundreds of games on this site with clearly written rules which are consistently applied. If you played against someone evading them in some trivially simple way, I'm sure you'd be pretty annoyed. If you reported their evasion and it was declared "fine", you'd be even more annoyed. If someone told you that oh, actually, mostly the rules of the games don't actually reflect how they are played, would you feel less annoyed?

[wrldtrvllr]

I'm with Silene on this one.

If the word "god" is not allowed in usernames,

We have a direct statement from an administrator stating that this is not accurate. A simple use of the "find a player" function on the community page shows that both "god" and "g0d", both with spaces immediately after, are currently allowed. There has been no evidence presented that a name containing "god" that would not be allowed after a moderator looked at it would be allowed, as you claim, simply by changing the "o" to a zero.

Please enjoy your time away from BGA. I won't miss you.

And still you do not understand the most basic facts here. because of our moderation policy your username cannot contain `god`. Usernames containing "god" obviously predate the filter. Usernames containing "g0d" are obviously evasions of it.

[robinzig]

I'm with Silene on this one.

If the word "god" is not allowed in usernames,

We have a direct statement from an administrator stating that this is not accurate. A simple use of the "find a player" function on the community page shows that both "god" and "g0d", both with spaces immediately after, are currently allowed. There has been no evidence presented that a name containing "god" that would not be allowed after a moderator looked at it would be allowed, as you claim, simply by changing the "o" to a zero.

Please enjoy your time away from BGA. I won't miss you.

And still you do not understand the most basic facts here. because of our moderation policy your username cannot contain `god`. Usernames containing "god" obviously predate the filter. Usernames containing "g0d" are obviously evasions of it.

And you are continuing to overlook the most important point here - that a BGA moderator has already replied, to say that while the interface does specifically reject usernames containing "god", in individual cases where the use is clearly non-offensive moderators can override and manually allow the username. You may not agree with the judgement in this case, but that is how BGA do it - and to me it seems a sensible compromise.

So this is NOT about a difference between "god" and "g0d". It is about a specific username where, in context, the use of that word was considered sufficiently inoffensive in the context of a particular username that the username was allowed. You can disagree with that judgement, but please stop misunderstanding what you have been told.

PS this is my first and will also be my last post on this thread. There is nothing more to say, and if you insult me I will just shrug it off and not reply.

[voriki]

PS this is my first and will also be my last post on this thread. There is nothing more to say, and if you insult me I will just shrug it off and not reply.

Same here. wrldtrvllr is too stuborn.

The actual problem is not the string 'god' or 'g0d', but he is making a big fuzz over the automated message of rejection. That the computer says 'no' based on the wordfilter and makes it appear as final say, while it's not. The rejection of username is not final and can be appealed by contacting support directly.
This stupid thing is what he is hammering about. I agree the wording could be improved, or they'd have to add the direct link to file a support claim "if you wish to appeal the rejection of your chosen usernamen, kindly fill out this contactform."

Simple solution. End of discussion.

[wrldtrvllr]

I'm with Silene on this one.


We have a direct statement from an administrator stating that this is not accurate. A simple use of the "find a player" function on the community page shows that both "god" and "g0d", both with spaces immediately after, are currently allowed. There has been no evidence presented that a name containing "god" that would not be allowed after a moderator looked at it would be allowed, as you claim, simply by changing the "o" to a zero.

Please enjoy your time away from BGA. I won't miss you.

And still you do not understand the most basic facts here. because of our moderation policy your username cannot contain `god`. Usernames containing "god" obviously predate the filter. Usernames containing "g0d" are obviously evasions of it.

And you are continuing to overlook the most important point here - that a BGA moderator has already replied, to say that while the interface does specifically reject usernames containing "god", in individual cases where the use is clearly non-offensive moderators can override and manually allow the username. You may not agree with the judgement in this case, but that is how BGA do it - and to me it seems a sensible compromise.

So this is NOT about a difference between "god" and "g0d". It is about a specific username where, in context, the use of that word was considered sufficiently inoffensive in the context of a particular username that the username was allowed. You can disagree with that judgement, but please stop misunderstanding what you have been told.

PS this is my first and will also be my last post on this thread. There is nothing more to say, and if you insult me I will just shrug it off and not reply.

"god" is considered problematic enough to need a filter to prevent the creation of usernames containing. "g0d" is exactly the same word, obviously. The username I reported was not "offensive"; it was triumphalist and provocative. The very fact of its creation, with "0" instead of "o", indicates that a user decided to evade the rules that they had been informed of. The moderator who replied did not explain why evading an unambiguously stated rule should be "fine".

Do you seriously think that a username of the form "God of (whatever game)" is not triumphalist and provocative?

[Silene]

Do you seriously think that a username of the form "God of (whatever game)" is not triumphalist and provocative?

I think there are 2 kinds of what you call "triumphalism".

a) Treating you bad after they won a game against you by pointing out how great they are and how deserved their win was and similar
b) Giving yourself a name that suggest you are very good in something without backing it up

I think only a) is forbidden on BGA. b) however is just childish and nobody takes it seriously anyway. If someone with that name beats you in a game but then treats you well and is friendly, there's no reason to feel bad about it. It's not provocative if they don't add provocative chat to it. They can also lose and still have the same name which means the name is not at all about the individual game that you just played.

[wrldtrvllr]

Do you seriously think that a username of the form "God of (whatever game)" is not triumphalist and provocative?

I think there are 2 kinds of what you call "triumphalism".

a) Treating you bad after they won a game against you by pointing out how great they are and how deserved their win was and similar
b) Giving yourself a name that suggest you are very good in something without backing it up

I think only a) is forbidden on BGA. b) however is just childish and nobody takes it seriously anyway. If someone with that name beats you in a game but then treats you well and is friendly, there's no reason to feel bad about it. It's not provocative if they don't add provocative chat to it. They can also lose and still have the same name which means the name is not at all about the individual game that you just played.

The terms of conduct do not distinguish between types of triumphalism. They just say it is forbidden to "Engage in provocation / triumphalism / defeatism... anything which is not fair play." A username which attempts to declare superiority over all is provocative and triumphalist. It is disrespectful to one's opponent. That is incompatible with fair play.

The wider point remains, regardless of the specific reason for blocking usernames containing "god", it is ridiculous to not also block "g0d". If you allow the simplest possible evasion of a rule, that rule is pointless.