The Mana World Forums

So what are considered Bad Names? And is this now officially a new rule? That you can't have BAD Names?

I don't own any of the ones that have been banned, but i'm just wondering.

I think names which include profanity, racist slurs or which mock other players in some other way are sufficiently covered by the "do not abuse other players" rule.

But it might be worth to add a rule which forbids to impersonate other players (and most importantly impersonating developers or game masters).

I think we need to remember that kids might play this game. That doesn't mean to ban all the "bad names" but we need a way to determine which name we can tolerate and which we can't. Of course, as Crush said, if the name is insulting someone, or is racist, we are having a rule for that. I am totally agreeing with what Crush suggested about the impersonalisation.

doors

I don't agree with this "kids" logic and the history of the game hasn't pandered to the concepts of censorship, but rather is for fair play. I'd like to see this line of thinking end.

The names will be dealt with on a case-to-case basis as they've always been. No need for policies on this, IMO.

Wombat wrote:I don't agree with this "kids" logic and the history of the game hasn't pandered to the concepts of censorship, but rather is for fair play. I'd like to see this line of thinking end.

Exactly, words are just words. But wait, why stop there? We must remove all sharp pointy weapons at once! And don't forget to remove the monsters and replace them with teddy bears.

True freedom is the freedom of expression, and for an open source project to envelope itself in censorship is not only sad, but hypocritical, and contradictory to the very meaning of the word freedom! If kids don't like it, then they are quite welcome to leave. No one is forcing them to play this game, and they are not required to. This is a Free and Open Source game, not an after school special on T.V.

It is not up to us to say what is "right" for these children to hear, and I for one do not want to be a kid's babysitter without someone paying me. Parents need to get off their lazy asses, actually parent their children, and learn that words are just simple words and will not hurt anyone. If I say ass, does anything bad happen? No.

We should, however, keep pornography out of the game, so that we stay legal with certain jurisdictions that have decency laws for minors.

Exactly, words are just words. But wait, why stop there? We must remove all sharp pointy weapons at once! And don't forget to remove the monsters and replace them with teddy bears.

The game isn't really that violent, it doesn't even have blood (unless you have the blood-patch) and even the most scary monster is rather funny and innocent in demeanour. Either way I completely disagree with your point here. There's a huge difference in-between protecting our younger players from foul-words/racism and overly sexual content as opposed to protecting them from sharp weapons and monsters.

True freedom is the freedom of expression, and for an open source project to envelope itself in censorship is not only sad, but hypocritical, and contradictory to the very meaning of the word freedom!

Not at all, this is not a freedom-issue. The fact that this project is open source has to do with copyrights and usage and so on. Anybody is free to make a more adult branch, or host private server where their are different rules. But when people log on to the current server they should abide by the rules here. There's nothing hypocritical about that. And there's no logic behind your claim that anything open-source related should be completely law-less and chaotic. The only thing that is truly sad, is when people blatantly abuse the word "freedom" in places where it doesn't belong.

If kids don't like it, then they are quite welcome to leave. No one is forcing them to play this game, and they are not required to. This is a Free and Open Source game, not an after school special on T.V.

I think that is neither here nor their. The devs wanted to create a game that is appropriate for kids to. If people don't like that, they can go and make a more adult game. I bet they'd even get help from the devs if they can't work out how.

It is not up to us to say what is "right" for these children to hear, and I for one do not want to be a kid's babysitter without someone paying me. Parents need to get off their lazy asses, actually parent their children, and learn that words are just simple words and will not hurt anyone.

Again I disagree, the children of our society are every-bodies responsibility. This attitude of "it's not my problem" is exactly what's wrong with modern society. Responsibility is nothing something that is free to take by whomever wants it, but is something you have by default once you enter a certain position. Like for example, once you create a free game, it's your responsibility to either make it child-friendly, or alternatively ban children from playing. Whether you like that responsibility or not. As another example, if you notice one of your classmates has psychological issues, simply the act of noticing gives you the responsibility to try and talk to him. If you see sombody dying on the street, simply being there gives you the responsibility to try and help them in any way you can. Responsabillitie is nothing something yuo chose to take, but something that you get without choice. The only choice that you have in the matter is wheter or not to act upon your responsibilitie. If only more people could realize that, perhaps their wouldn't be so many tragic events in real life, like high-school shoot-outs and the like. By the way, nobody is asking people here to babysit, all we are asking people is to behave/be descent. If people consider that by itself a burden, then perhaps they need to reconsider/reassess their habitual behaviour.

If I say ass, does anything bad happen? No.

Perhaps it's debatable whether or not ass is a profanity. Be that as it may, something bad does happen when children are constantly exposed to profanities. Namely they get the idea that it is "ok" and acceptable. Personally, I would prefer building on a society where diplomacy and courtesy is rated with higher value. However messed up society might already be, what kind of person are you if you're not attempting to make it any better?

PS: Kronos, I'm not trying to attack you personally. My apologies if I'm coming on a bit strong. I just strongly disagree with your opinions, nothing personal.

5t3v3 wrote:

If I say ass, does anything bad happen? No.

Perhaps it's debatable whether or not ass is a profanity. Be that as it may, something bad does happen when children are constantly exposed to profanities. Namely they get the idea that it is "ok" and acceptable.

woot? it's not ok?

you try to protect children from things that doesn't hurt at all. it's just becoming hurting because you teach them to be hurt by it.
i'm rather being hurt by "polite" language, i would suggest, this should be banned!



ah well, but don't think i'm completely against protecting ppl (not just children), it's just: the concept of profanity is nonsense. more important is the concept of asperse (hope thats the right english word for what i mean), that ppl should be protected from. like in what crush said, impersonating others, for example (if its not just a joke).

woot? it's not ok?

you try to protect children from things that doesn't hurt at all. it's just becoming hurting because you teach them to be hurt by it.
i'm rather being hurt by "polite" language, i would suggest, this should be banned!

You're completely taking my words out of context. I didn't say that children will be hurt when they witness profanity. That is so not the point I wanted to make. I'm not saying that we should protect them in the sense that they never hear them. I am not naive, I know most children know these words either way. What I was saying rather, is that children will be thought that these profanities are acceptable. Instead we should teach them it is not acceptable and teach them that they are possibly hurting other people when they use profane/racial/sexual comments. What I am saying is, that if we allow children to play here, it automatically becomes our responsibility to teach them good manners. And teaching them starts with setting a good example ourselves.

so youre not saying children will be hurt, but others? o, what a difference! no, we dont need any good manners. prafanities are indeed acceptable.

breeding is cruel.

so youre not saying children will be hurt, but others?

Again, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that children will be thought that it is ok to be hurtfull.

no, we dont need any good manners. prafanities are indeed acceptable.
breeding is cruel.

And with that statement you have lost the right to debate any further. I will not even dignify that with an answer.

You obviously have your viewpoint of how the world should be, and I have mine. Looking at the current rules, and choices in the development of the game, the view of the developers obviously lies closer to mine as opposed to your view. There's not much point in taking the conversation any further than that.

5t3v3 wrote:What I am saying is, that if we allow children to play here, it automatically becomes our responsibility to teach them good manners. And teaching them starts with setting a good example ourselves."

No it doesn't. Child exceptionalism is unnecessary and I'm not here to teach children anything. Individuals will learn from their environment which is passive and unavoidable. Teaching is active and your concepts versus my concepts of good are also incompatible. Player groups can create tighter standards than what already exists, which seems to be "fair play" based.

Language itself is not the problem, it is the context of hostility that borderlines around it's concepts of "abuse" that this game is worried about. This isn't about child exceptionalism, it is about fair play between individuals, be they a child or adult.

No it doesn't. Child exceptionalism is unnecessary and I'm not here to teach children anything.

Actually, your motivations for being here are irrelevant. My point was that regardless of your motives for being here, from the moment we allow children here, it becomes a shared responsibility to keep the server child-friendly. We don't have a choice in whether we want to teach or not. From the moment we set an example, we are teaching by default. the only choice in the matter we have, is what kind of example we set, and hence what we teach. But the process of teaching, albeit merely by example, is inevitable and intrinsic to human interactions.
You seem to agree with me that far, saying: "Individuals will learn from their environment which is passive and unavoidable."
However you then contradict yourself when your follow up: "Teaching is active"
If individuals will unavoidably learn from an environment, then that means it's inevitable that by creating the parameters of such an environment we become in a sense active teachers, whether we like that or not. Setting a policy is active. So the difference between passive and active teaching is really non-existing here. Regardless what we choose, we actively become teachers. Either we try setting a good example, or we set a bad example. Which is good and which is bad is of course debatable. But my point is, there is not a third option that magically frees us from any responsibility and guarantees that we teach nothing.

and your concepts versus my concepts of good are also incompatible.

True, but as I explained to Kinwa, it's the developers prerogative to judge which concept they desire for their game. Merely pointing out that there might be difference in opinion regarding this, is hardly an argument against it.

Player groups can create tighter standards than what already exists, which seems to be "fair play" based.

True, but that's not the issue here.

Language itself is not the problem, it is the context of hostility that borderlines around it's concepts of "abuse" that this game is worried about.

Well I agree with you in the sense that indeed language is merely a medium, and it is the message itself which sets the environment. However some parts of our language are very loaded with messages and emotions that cannot simply be disregarded. Furthermore it is practically impossible to moderate on content/meaning and not on language.

This isn't about child exceptionalism, it is about fair play between individuals, be they a child or adult.

Again I disagree, both should be important, and one doesn't rule out the other.

What is teaching steve? Teaching is active. I have to want to teach someone something to teach them. People can learn from their environment, which isn't the same as teaching...in fact, it is an antonym.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/teach

We don't have a shared responsibility to do anything for children. You are attempting to assign this responsibility upon others. I refuse to follow your standards. We have a "responsibility" to "treat others as you would like to be treated" (rule #6).

On setting examples, do we not set examples to adults as well? Arguments for child exceptionalism is an attempt to impose one worldview of how children should be raised on people that might not share those same values. The attempt to use children in these types of arguments is a "logical fallacy" to impose stricter standards on all people because "children" are treated as exceptions to how all individuals should treat each other.

We probably shouldn't be trying to moderate language, content or meaning without the context of what constitutes "abuse of fair play", which is how the rules of the game have been done. Because there is no strict line for this, as Rotonen was stating in regards to people's names, we should handle each on a case-by-case basis.

Wombat wrote:What is teaching steve? Teaching is active. I have to want to teach someone something to teach them. People can learn from their environment, which isn't the same as teaching...in fact, it is an antonym.

So, the environment is actively trying to teach everyone?

Yout don't have to be actively teaching for people to learn from you.