Board Game Arena

wrldtrvllr wrote: ↑13 May 2022, 16:10

wrldtrvllr wrote: ↑10 May 2022, 07:29 If you try to create a username containing the word "god", you see the message "Sorry, because of our moderation policy your username cannot contain `god`." So what exactly is the "nuance" here, in the view of the moderators, that makes "g0d *" an acceptable username? How does it not violate the prohibition on triumphalism in the code of conduct, which the filter seems specifically designed to apply to?

*Moderation Edit: please do not use the Forums to call players out by name, this is what the Moderation Reports are for. The Forums should remain a general discussion. You have been warned about this before.

I was not calling anyone out by name in this post. I was making a general point. In case it needs restating: the moderation policy *specifically* forbids usernames containing "god" but the simplest possible evasion of that policy is apparently "fine". Such illogical and inconsistent moderation destroys any sense of fair play and I have cancelled my subscription as a result.

It was explained here. The problem isn't the word 'God' in itself, but it may be problematic if it is combined with certain other common words.
But because it is downright IMPOSSIBLE for a BGA admin/moderator to constantly check all newly created usernames, they put a wordfilter in place to stop any sensitive words, such as 'God' is.

We(in general, I am not a BGA moderator or anything) understand you did not mention the name of that particular user to report him of things, but as an example to enquire on things. And that username was deemed not offensive, thus allowed, even if it contained a revised spelling of the word 'God' which is blocked by the filter. But to safeguard people, individual usernames are always removed if they are associated in a negative context.


What BGA should change is 'how' to communicate refused names, and to allow a way for people to have usernames validated if the word filter does not approve them.

I have not seen here any explanation or clarification of the relevant policy. I encountered a username that I found to be triumphalist and provocative, in violation of the code of conduct; I could see that the username was obviously designed to avoid a filter; I investigated and found that usernames with "god" in it cannot be created because the moderation policy *specifically* forbids them. The message is "Sorry, because of our moderation policy your username cannot contain `god`." There is no nuance or ambiguity in that statement. And yet "g0d" is declared to be "fine" with no explanation provided. That is illogical and arbitrary. That is not compatible with a sense of fairness.

It's an automated message that says moderation policy because it's in the word filter. Otherwise they'd have to create 2 lists to display 2 different messages. One with strictly outlawed words, and the other with 'iffy' words, with 'god' being the latter.

Having 2 word filters is not productive, thus they don't use it.

So, you are saying that the message which says "Sorry, because of our moderation policy your username cannot contain `god`" is not true, and the moderation policy does not in fact mean that you cannot have a username containing "god"? How exactly would you, or anyone, know that? Is the exact policy written down somewhere? And if a username containing "god" is in fact fine, then what is the point of applying that filter at all?

Read back to what Xate wrote.

You sound like a pigeon trying to play chess.

What a scummy thing to write.

Wrldtrvllr, what do you want from this discussion?

A BGA staff member has made a clarification. An explanation has been made as to why the filter message may not be completely accurate. Suggestions have been presented as to better ways to handle the situation in the future.

wrldtrvllr wrote: ↑13 May 2022, 17:56 I encountered a username that I found to be

Did you report this username using the appropriate channels, or did you just come on the forums to complain?

wrldtrvllr wrote: ↑13 May 2022, 17:56 That is illogical and arbitrary. That is not compatible with a sense of fairness.

Welcome to the world of human-written laws.

For virtually every way to state a situation so a computer can understand it, there will be someone who figures out a way to work around it. Most modern browsers support the full 144,000+ unicode characters. Trying to code just for all possible circular shapes would be an incredible task. Even limiting to just the 255 ASCII characters doesn't limit circles. It is much more effective to have users report offensive usernames through a defined channel. If several usernames exhibit a definable characteristic a filter can be put in for that. And someone will find a way around that filter as well...

You ask if I reported the user. Please, read my posts - I made it very clear that I did.

And you ask what I want from this discussion. I want to know why a triumphalist and provocative username, which is forbidden by the code of conduct, and which cannot even be created without obfuscation, is considered "fine" just because the user replaced an "o" with a "0". Exactly what sort of usernames is the filter designed to prevent, if not triumphalist and provocative ones?

wrldtrvllr wrote: ↑16 May 2022, 12:13is considered "fine" just because the user replaced an "o" with a "0".

That is not what I understood. What I understood is that that particular username, with an "o" or a "0", is considered acceptable, and other usernames containing "god" (maybe something like "G0d4lmighty", if I had to guess) would not be allowed, even if they pass the initial filter (although someone would have to report it in that case).

Do you find the username offensive? Then you did fine by reporting it. The response was that it is not against the policy, so in this particular case you may consider that maybe you are too sensitive.

wrldtrvllr wrote: ↑02 May 2022, 17:31 Usernames containing the word "god" are not allowed. But usernames containing "g0d" are allowed. What is the point in that? A policy so weak that the simplest possible evasion of it is "fine" is no policy at all.

I think this is a valid point.
I don't know why BGA would allow people that are actively trying to get around their system and find loopholes. That's not a way to deter cheaters and the like. And they probably wasted more time than they'll save by having a filter that doesn't work.

If you don't like god in the username then don't allow it.
If you don't mind god in the user then allow it.
I can't see what's so hard.
If it's all in the context then just leave it to the report button.