DBG VICIOUS NAME REMOVAL

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by JustGotSuspended, Dec 20, 2020.

  1. JustGotSuspended

    Anyone playing on Connery will regularly see SexualVirgin, one of the coolest medics, and one of FUoC's best V5ers. That was, until yesterday, where our poor comrade logged on only to see his ASP 100 main character's name got changed. Idk what's so offensive about that name, and why it wasn't addressed in the very beginning, instead of letting the guy grind all this way just for his unique name to be zapped from existence. Seriously, it's a low-blow for DBG, who banned this guy's name viciously for no reason. There's plenty of people with actually offensive names that play, but it's not a problem because apparently names like COXX or DIKZ are perfectly acceptable.

    Once again, they never cease to surprise me....not in a good way. Thankfully, the guy was able to email them about it, and he was lucky to actually email a human from CS, who gave him a 25$ name token to rename his char something other than SexualVirgin and RenamedPlayer90000. I guess that's some consolation for getting your main expunged.:(


    https://www.reddit.com/r/Connery/comments/kgmjcu/sexualvirgin_is_no_more/

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Connery/comments/kh7j2h/look_at_how_they_massacred_my_sexual/
  2. InexoraVC

    • Up x 1
  3. Johannes Kaiser

    I will be real, I report people for bad names in all games I play (only recently "Analustherapist" in Eternal Crusade). But if their policy is to follow up on those reports, they need to do it with all of them, not just some. Simple rule of fairness. And compared to what I report, "SexualVirgin" isn't that bad, to be honest.
    In the (somewhat unlikely) case that they do follow up on every single one I can only imagine there is a threshold of so and so many reports for one name before taking action, but I can not see how some of the others haven't been reported multiple times over...(although I will admit I personally had never heard of Bandera, and I guess I am not the only one).
    • Up x 3
  4. JustGotSuspended


    Exactly.

    There's an outfit on connery called DIKZ, there's a player that has the name eatadicknoob, the name COXX, etc. These players have been playing for so long they are ASP. I don't like names like that, that are insulting to other players. Telling someone they suck or to do something explicit is just disrespectful and I agree that parameters should be in place for this. I even agree that since people are creative, hard-coded name restrictions must continuously be kept updated, and that won't be enough to catch everyone - human follow up is necessary.

    That said, "SexualVirgin" isn't anything offensive or explicit really, and apart from a chuckle I don't see what other reactions players have at that name. The guy's super cool in game too, he's a whale, he helps the game, helps players and he's one of Connery's top medics. He's been playing really long, and he's got other sexual/sensual alts that have not yet been banned/renamed. Again, I just don't see why his main name should be removed without even a warning, while much worse names are kept unchecked.
    • Up x 1
  5. DarkQuark


    First off, the name change mentioned by the OP is obscenely ridiculous given the names I saw just a bit ago from just playing for an hour.

    Secondly, to Johannes Kaiser, i find your statement above very conflicting. One part of me wants to say good so that games can be safe for the younger folk. But another part of me thinks you are just a karen. I am not saying you are wrong, to the contrary, I find my reaction interesting in that we have situations now where we think people in games need to be protected (and to some degree they do) while at the same time having to many overly sensitive people.

    My own take on this paradox is that we need to protect the young from the idiots and the malicious, but that needs to be tempered with a healthy dose of live and let live. I find that currently PS2 is mostly live and let live and I am fine with that.
  6. RabidIBM

    Wow, this after however many times it took The Wild Cards main platoon mass reporting "Ballsdeepina3yearold" and kicking him from platoon before he finally stopped showing up....
    • Up x 1
  7. Exileant

    :confused: His name is not offensive, in fact it is looked highly upon if it is a life choice up until marriage. So I am not sure what happened there, especially since the F word is now alright to be aired in our favorite shows. o_O The peoples names that need to be stricken, they let ride. Like Vanu's "Ngga" That is the most offensive name you could possibly place on a character. I shot down a Liberator named "WhitePrivilage2" today with great pleasure.... You have a lot of holes on this planet.
    • Up x 1
  8. DarkQuark

    I find this selective enforcement very interesting. You make great points. My guess is they probably don't actively patrol names unless they get complaints.

    But personally, while I agree with force changing some names that are just plain wrong, I disagree with the whole "it's offensive" so lets ban xyz. That is because "offensive" is subjective so that can be a slippery slope.

    For example, you mention "Ngga" is the most offensive name/word possible. Yet it's used in mainstream music and movies on a daily basis. So again, not saying you are wrong but the whole thing is based on perception and is subjective.

    I prefer the hands off approach to going ban crazy and over patrolling the situation. Striking the proper balance on this stuff is difficult but clearly there is room for improvement.

    “If all printers were determined not to print anything till they were sure it would offend nobody, there would be very little printed.”

    ― Benjamin Franklin
    • Up x 1
  9. JustGotSuspended


    I agree. There's been a huge wave of name removals this week apparently, very loyal players have had their mains removed, some names like dingleberriesinmypanties, fuzzydonkeyballz, etc have been wiped out.

    I don't like this, and based on how pissed these loyal players are (some cancelled their membership and don't even want to play anymore), i'd say it's not healthy for the game. Either ban early or don't ban at all, unless it's something that really must be banned, in which case we'd like some clearer outlines of what is and isn't acceptable. Also a bit of a warning would be recommended, instead of just silently renaming a character.
  10. Johannes Kaiser

    Quite so. I try to make sure the people I report for names are ones that simply noone should be allowed to run around with (see the above example from another game). This is maybe a report a year or so. There are just too many dumb but not overtly annoying names around to make a big fuss about them. Heck, I have seen a person recently with the name "ifureadthisurdumb", who with that insulty literally everyone who reads their name. But it is also slightly funny and not harmful, extreme or criminal. So imo no need to report. Really BAD names are from what I have seen relatively rare. There is a large number of people who run around with nicks that are just bizarre and throw their choices and taste into question, but that does not mean they have to be stricken from the records. Because if "dumb" gets to be the threshold for naming, that would be a lot of changes or bans indeed.
  11. Exileant

    :confused: The N word has been used to classify slaves, and it is a word that still carries with it a ton of hate. This stupid idea of trying to take it back is fueling its continuation. Given what is happening, this word should not be listed under perception. And I find it odd that it is. The Swastika was a good luck symbol used in religions, and I like the look of them, me running out in public with one on the back of my jacket in an effort to "Reclaim" it would be insanely disrespectful. o_O It is the same thing. People who use the word are ignorant. Even in Black culture, the N word in ANY variation, means nothing good. My people mainly use it for insults, or as a classification of underlings. Take the time to listen to the lyrics of the music you listen to. None of this race related crap needs to fly because millions of people have died and continue to die as a direct or indirect result of it.

    :eek: Besides, you just quoted a slave owner who ran notices of slave sales in his paper.... :rolleyes: Of coarse he would say some mess like that.... Evil has to at least TRY to find a way to justify itself.
  12. JustGotSuspended


    Evil and good are just perceptions. Of course we are going to try to justify our actions through good, while those that contradict us will be perceived as evil. It's something I'm sure would make a good philosophical debate, perhaps in a more appropriate context.

    You're right though, I would believe such words to be "more offensive" than SexualVirgin or DrCoatHanger, but the latter were renamed, while many other names/outfits I would consider to be "more offensive" were not.

    I agree there should be some sort of restrictions surrounding naming, but I also believe anyone can get offended by anything, and a lot of people entertain themselves through drama, so it's better practice to let each individual control their censorship. There's already ignore, disable tells and profanity filter features, we could add another "blackout" feature that will function like ignore, but will prevent a player's name from being displayed, by simply blacking it out, along with their outfit name. Simple, would cost DBG less resources, and would better cater imo to the ever-evolving needs of the community. Doing targeted crackdowns at names that have been around for years is a great way to lose the playerbase's trust, support, and I'm not sure there's a great positive return of investment. And that's skipping the part where people are jealous because 'why is my name offensive but not his', and the big headache of trying to clearly establish what's right and wrong. Just give the players who care about censorship the tools to do so at their will, and call it a day.

    I mean, people seriously have me ignored on all 3 of their characters because I killed their kobalt bus twice in a row. I'm sure for issues they actually find serious, they can take a split second to do the same.
  13. DarkQuark



    I was not trying to "take it back" or make light of the word. My only point was the use of the word and what is offensive is often times very subjective therefore making things like name filtering somewhat tough and a practice where someone will always be unhappy.

    You can play that game of gazing at the past through the lens of the present. All you will end up doing is condemning all of history and hating everything.
    • Up x 1
  14. DarkQuark



    Only if you believe morality is subjective. As I see it, there is either a standard for human behavior or there isn't. Once you make it subjective it no longer exists.

    But I agree with you that it does make for a intriguing philosophical debate.

    I think all this seeing the same thing differently (which is fine we all have our opinions) is why something like name filtering always leaves someone unhappy or angry.
    • Up x 1
  15. DarkStarAnubis

    With all the problems of the game like hacking and exploiting, poor performances, Zergs, population aging and dwindling, lack of contents, bundles full of expensive crap, copy-pasta weapons, bad meta, players harassing other players (TK on purpose) DBG is investing energy in banning people according to their names !!???

    I just don't get it.
    • Up x 2
  16. DarkQuark



    I don't agree with everything in your list as an issue, however you make a good point. It probably has something to do with society being super sensitive about everything right now and because name changing takes little effort.
  17. JustGotSuspended


    Again, a subjective perception susceptible to changes and revision. What is morality? Who defines it? Who sets the standard, what is the standard, what are exceptions? The standard itself is set by humans, in which case it's subjective by nature.

    A random but interesting example:
    Some societies promote cannibalism. If you read Unbroken (the memoirs of an American WW2 pilot), the protagonist comes from a society that wouldn't tolerate cannibalism, perceived as evil. That same character is stranded on a lifeboat for weeks, where they[him and his surviving crewmates] are forced to eat their fellow dead soldier in order to survive. Were they evil for doing so? Were they following human behavioral standards? If we believe the ultimate goal of human behavior is to survive, then societal standards are all fine and good, provided they don't compromise our own survival.

    Again it's a rabbit hole with no clear right or wrong, and can be subject of interesting debates I'm sure.

    And yeah in the end when we start dragging philosophical matters into these things, everyone's a loser because of the simple grey nature of the topic. I agree filtering names on this basis will always leave room for jealously and perceived unfairness.
  18. DarkQuark



    First off, great discussion. I very much appreciate and respect your opinion here.

    However, to answer your question I believe God sets that standard. I understand that is still fraught with what ifs and maybes but for me that makes it all clear and straight forward. Does that keep me from never doing wrong? Nope. We all fall as humanity is weak and imperfect.

    To one of your points, which is, is morality situational. Well yes of course. Killing someone is wrong and illegal, but doing so when that person is trying to kill you is not.

    All any of us can do is try. We will never be perfect but the struggle towards being a better person is what counts.

    Does this apply to name changes? Yes. As we agreed the whole process is fraught with risk and downside. But so long as DBG is trying to move in a positive direction out of good intentions I think it's in a good place.
  19. JustGotSuspended


    Thanks, I also appreciate dealing with someone professional and objective, as I try to do the same.

    From my side, I'll admit since I believe that God(s)/figures of worship are the result of humans trying to label symbols to their beliefs, those God(s) are subjective themselves, and try to embody the norms and beliefs of those that created them. For example, early forms of democracies like the romans or vikings would have worshipped multiple gods, that take part in some sort of democracy similar to those practiced by their society. Other societies like aboriginals, which lived alongside nature would associate their gods to such nature, for their society revolved entirely around it. I know it's a bit more complicated than that, but hopefully you get where I'm coming from, and why I would argue the standard god sets is the same as the humans who created and worship him/them, and why those standards are therefore subjective.

    Again I'm really just trying to wrap my head around the many different perspectives, as I believe this truly is a complicated topic. I agree, we must try to live by the standards we believe, or the society we have chosen to be a part of abides by, to the best of our abilities. And again, I agree we all make mistakes, and that the serious/less serious mistakes based on those norms should have consequences. I also believe it's fair that everyone be treated as equally and objectively as possible, and this is where I was trying to raise the issue. DBG obviously isn't applying such fairness, regardless of the degree of acceptability in the names they are banning. Certain players were banned, others renamed. Some were renamed into RenamedPlayer[insert number here], others were renamed something random, some were asked to pay a token to rename their renamed character, others were given one upon contacting CS, others were contacted, discussed their renaming and came up with a compromised name with the CS and were renamed to that.

    I get DBG can do whatever they want, but since I enjoy the game, and I feel it's playerbase are part of my experience, it's important to voice my concerns regarding the consistency and result of their actions.
  20. DarkQuark



    I very much disagree with you about God. But hey, that is fine. We all have our take.

    You are really correct about DBG's actions on this topic. They have really used an uneven hand. That makes a tough situation FAR worse. The topic will always rub some the wrong way but being unfair about it or uneven will just make it 100x worse.

    They are obviously going through the servers now and renaming people. I was killed a few times this morning by someone with a renamed player. That is the first time I have noticed that ever.
    • Up x 1