Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you believe "inflexible and unadaptive" are also traits of "being a jerk"?Only if they are capricious and arbitrary.
There are many rules that are inflexible and probably unadaptive, but they are also clearly defined and apply to all.
Counterexample:
"Sorry, but by policy we aren't allowed to reverse any of the effect of you not maintaining password integrity.""But I didn't do anything wrong: Here's the security vulnerability on your end which allowed the hack to bypass the authentication entirely, and I see that you've already fixed it, like you should. Now please undelete my characters."
"Sorry, but by policy we don't reverse any of the effect of you not maintaining account security. This is to prevent people from sharing their passwords with others and avoiding the consequences of the actions of the people they shared with. Was there anything else I could help you with today?"
But Decius, we don't call context-appropriate variability "capricious" or "arbitrary." In usage, those words have an evaluative function, to signal the speaker's negative appraisal. Whereas in other contexts, American English speakers use words like "flexible" or "adaptable" to make positive appraisals. Language use hinges on remembering and repeating usage patters like "brave" is positive and "reckless" is negative--that's the basis for Natural Language Processing for pragmatics and stance. The software environment I use to analyze large text corpora produces very reliable, stable results because unigrams like "arbitrary" signal negative standards of behavior, and phrasal n-grams like "I suppose" signal self-disclosure.
So you're quite right that variation in the application of standards could be good or bad. But if it's "flexible" vs. "arbitrary" it means something completely different.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think limiting the number of characters per account would do anything in this scenario; the name squatter would just make another account if he really wanted to take the name (assuming he can just start up another account with no greater cost than making a new character, which might not be the case). I don't like limiting players on their characters per account to some arbitrary number, personally, but if it can fix other issues I suppose it could be something considered.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think limiting the number of characters per account would do anything in this scenario; the name squatter would just make another account if he really wanted to take the name (assuming he can just start up another account with no greater cost than making a new character, which might not be the case). I don't like limiting players on their characters per account to some arbitrary number, personally, but if it can fix other issues I suppose it could be something considered.
I understand the game client will be sold. Character slots after 3 or 4 will be probably be in cash shop. At $10 a pop you are probably better off buying domain names.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you believe "inflexible and unadaptive" are also traits of "being a jerk"?Only if they are capricious and arbitrary.
There are many rules that are inflexible and probably unadaptive, but they are also clearly defined and apply to all.
Counterexample:
"Sorry, but by policy we aren't allowed to reverse any of the effect of you not maintaining password integrity.""But I didn't do anything wrong: Here's the security vulnerability on your end which allowed the hack to bypass the authentication entirely, and I see that you've already fixed it, like you should. Now please undelete my characters."
"Sorry, but by policy we don't reverse any of the effect of you not maintaining account security. This is to prevent people from sharing their passwords with others and avoiding the consequences of the actions of the people they shared with. Was there anything else I could help you with today?"
But Decius, we don't call context-appropriate variability "capricious" or "arbitrary." In usage, those words have an evaluative function, to signal the speaker's negative appraisal. Whereas in other contexts, American English speakers use words like "flexible" or "adaptable" to make positive appraisals. Language use hinges on remembering and repeating usage patters like "brave" is positive and "reckless" is negative--that's the basis for Natural Language Processing for pragmatics and stance. The software environment I use to analyze large text corpora produces very reliable, stable results because unigrams like "arbitrary" signal negative standards of behavior, and phrasal n-grams like "I suppose" signal self-disclosure.
So you're quite right that variation in the application of standards could be good or bad. But if it's "flexible" vs. "arbitrary" it means something completely different.
Is there a word that means "subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion" which does not have the negative connotation of 'arbitrary', or one which means "subject to unpredictable change" without the negative connotations of 'capricious', or a phrase that means "use one's best judgement without limitation, and that might change over time" that has different subtext from 'arbitrary and capricious'?
Is there a word that means "subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion" which does not have the negative connotation of 'arbitrary', or one which means "subject to unpredictable change" without the negative connotations of 'capricious', or a phrase that means "use one's best judgement without limitation, and that might change over time" that has different subtext from 'arbitrary and capricious'?
Oxymoron?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Decius, words like "context-dependent" and "flexible" might work. A simple explanation like: "Because disruptive in-game behavior is context dependent and situational, we reserve the right to exercise good judgment and be flexible in applying principles like 'don't be a jerk'" would likely get across the point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Decius, words like "context-dependent" and "flexible" might work. A simple explanation like: "Because disruptive in-game behavior is context dependent and situational, we reserve the right to exercise good judgment and be flexible in applying principles like 'don't be a jerk'" would likely get across the point.
It seems to me very likely that someone who was reprimanded based on that statement of principles would turn around and describe that "good judgment" as "capricious and arbitrary". Isn't there value in stating up-front that "yes, we know it will look capricious and arbitrary, and we're not going to get drawn into stupid arguments about that"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Decius, words like "context-dependent" and "flexible" might work. A simple explanation like: "Because disruptive in-game behavior is context dependent and situational, we reserve the right to exercise good judgment and be flexible in applying principles like 'don't be a jerk'" would likely get across the point.It seems to me very likely that someone who was reprimanded based on that statement of principles would turn around and describe that "good judgment" as "capricious and arbitrary". Isn't there value in stating up-front that "yes, we know it will look capricious and arbitrary, and we're not going to get drawn into stupid arguments about that"?
I think it's quite likely as well. However, positioning yourself as doing the wrong thing seems like an odd strategy to ward off being accused of doing the wrong thing :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
However, positioning yourself as doing the wrong thing seems like an odd strategy to ward off being accused of doing the wrong thing :)
Is it really the "wrong thing"? I don't think so.
It's wrong to hurt people, especially children. However, saying "this is going to hurt" before pulling a thorn or something similar doesn't seem at all "wrong". It's the right thing to do in context.
I think it's impossible to have a system based on human judgment instead of hard-and-fast rules that doesn't also qualify as "capricious" and "arbitrary". It seems more a recognition of an inescapable reality, while at the same time being appropriately confrontational to the folks who are most likely to end up on the wrong side of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems to me very likely that someone who was reprimanded based on that statement of principles would turn around and describe that "good judgment" as "capricious and arbitrary". Isn't there value in stating up-front that "yes, we know it will look capricious and arbitrary, and we're not going to get drawn into stupid arguments about that"?
I think that Ryan's very first usage of "capricious and arbitrary" did include wordage that said something like, we expect to be accused of being...
I think Mbando's point is valid, because the original usage didn't immunize Ryan from the accusation, it just made the accusation inevitable. And like entirely too many things in these threads, some people® have thrown out the context and focused on a couple words.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no problem with GW saying they will make the rules and enforce them as they see fit. It's their game. However, if those rules are being kept purposely fuzzy at the edges so that their enforcement is likely to seem arbitrary to some, then they need to be ready for players calling foul when player A gets zapped for an action when player B doesn't, though B performed the same action. Hopefully the complaints won't be large enough to hurt the reputation of the GMs and the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... when player A gets zapped for an action when player B doesn't...
I think it's actually important that they consider the relative "social value" of Player A and Player B. If Player A has gotten "zapped" for umpteen million other things already, and Player B has never been "zapped", it's pretty obvious how that should play out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, positioning yourself as doing the wrong thing seems like an odd strategy to ward off being accused of doing the wrong thing :)Is it really the "wrong thing"? I don't think so.
It's wrong to hurt people, especially children. However, saying "this is going to hurt" before pulling a thorn or something similar doesn't seem at all "wrong". It's the right thing to do in context.
I think it's impossible to have a system based on human judgment instead of hard-and-fast rules that doesn't also qualify as "capricious" and "arbitrary". It seems more a recognition of an inescapable reality, while at the same time being appropriately confrontational to the folks who are most likely to end up on the wrong side of it.
Yes Nihimon, American English speakers use words like "arbitrary" and "capricious" in a negative sense so regularly that it can used reliably in statistical language analysis. So positioning yourself as doing something understood to a negative social standard of conduct, would be a pretty whacky strategy :)
The point isn't that exercising judgment is good/bad in and of itself, it's that speakers use language to represent the world around them. I can say "Nihimon tries to...attempts to...makes and effort to..." or I can say "Nihimon shows...he demonstrates...he makes clear..." My language choice (my stylistics) don't come from the reality of the events, but from my appraisals and intent (pragmatics).
So anyway, a stylistic choice to portray yourself as doing something wrong might possibly make sense, but I can't see how it makes sense here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just catching up. Is a violation of the proposed naming convention a "You have a terrible name, so now you are banned from the game" or "You have an unacceptable name, here is your non negotiable request to change it"
From the tone of the conversations, I am beginning to think I might have missed some context by not reading far enough back. GM's asking characters to change names is not very rare in MMO's. Banning someone for a goofy name however might be cause for alarm.
As far as my opinion on naming conventions, I tend to support vulgar names as unacceptable, but otherwise am neutral on the matter. I am not a huge fan of the hard line on names, as I tend to not like enforced roleplay or immersion considerations.
That said, with little exception (WoW specifically I had some silly named characters) I almost always chose an in character (ish) name for my toons.
I feel like I don't have a dog in this fight.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just catching up. Is a violation of the proposed naming convention a "You have a terrible name, so now you are banned from the game" or "You have an unacceptable name, here is your non negotiable request to change it"
I think the players up-thread have been talking in terms non-negotiable requests to change the name - or maybe in some cases GW just saying "here's your new name." If GW has some other policy for the really poisonous stuff, that's their business.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wheaton's Law
You know, it's a strange turn of events that had the general rule been 'Don’t be a Dick' I wouldn't have nearly as much of an issue with it. Dick means something to me. Killing someone isn't being a dick to them, but it could very well be being a jerk. I believe that the intent behind 'Don't be a Jerk' and Wheaton's Law are close the the exact same, however the language use changes it completely in my mind.
Which is, perhaps, more telling about me than anything else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Leeroy Jenkins?
Leroy Jenkins is a real-world televangelist with a 'laying on of hands' gimmick to his faith healing charlatanry. The Leeroy Jenkins WoW character was named after him because he was a paladin, but for them 'lay on hands' actually works.
As to bannable names, I'm thinking they're more along the lines of Captain Capricious and Admiral Arbitrary.
The first tea bags were hand-sewn fabric bags; tea bag patents date as early as 1903.[1] First appearing commercially around 1904, tea bags were successfully marketed by the tea and coffee shop merchant Thomas Sullivan from New York, who shipped his tea bags around the world. The loose tea was intended to be removed from the sample bags by customers, but they found it easier to brew the tea with the tea still enclosed in the porous bags
LOL, damn u guys now im half-tempted in making a traveling enchanter/bard....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are names I would outright ban a player for attempting to use, no appeal. You can probably think of some.I bet "CEO Ryan Dancey" would be one of them
There was a sort of player-event in Ultima Online where a lot of people went to the castle in Britain and 'protested' the Omnia Absentis Rex (ever-absent king).
During this, I made an impersonator/jester named 'Lard Brutish'. :p|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, if this was my game, this is probably what I would do as the game developer regarding the actual character naming conventions:
Language
Make it clear that the official language for the game is English and that character names (as well as all open communication in public chat channel(s), if any) are evaluated on that basis. Reserve the right to make case by case exceptions, primarily to be able to ban / change names, which are inappropriate in another significant language when they pop up.
Player Instructions
Make it clear that the names actually matter.
Give the players clear guidelines as to what kind names are categorically prohibited (offensive etc., the usual stuff).
Give the players as clear guidelines as possible as to what types of names are generally used within the world. The good people at Paizo probably have this already.
Name Generator
If you could include a reasonable name generator, it could save a lot of players a lot of grief in trying to come up with original but lore fitting names.
Pre-approval
As Ryan has already proposed, have a GM / team member quickly review all names created at least during the early enrollment. Let the players know this review will take place and that inappropriate name may lead to name change or worse.
Retroactive Control
Allow players easy means to report inappropriate names and keep an all-time / weekly / daily "high score" of the most reported ones (not yet dealt with) to allow GMs to quickly take action against the clearest violators.
If abuse of reporting option is detected, allow GMs to ignore reports from players found to be abusing the reporting system (e.g. three strikes within six months and out for six months).
|
Goblinworks Lead Game Designer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've talked some more about naming, so I figured I would resurrect this dead horse so it can be beaten some more. Note I have not read this whole thread, only bits and pieces, but it seemed the best place to post this to get feedback.
Our current naming scheme is:
First Name:
Must start with a capital letter
Only the first letter may be capitalized
May only contain letters (no hyphens or apostrophes in first name)
Last Name:
Is optional
Does not have to start with a capital letter
Any letter may be capitalized, but can only contain up to two capital letters
May use up to two special characters (hypen, apostrophe, or space)
Right now we're looking at each of these having a character limit in the 10-15 range.
We're going to compile a list of Pathfinder specific names that cannot be used (like the names of the iconics), existing characters from other IP we don't want in game (no Legolas or Jon Snow names), and no curse words in English or other languages. Obviously such a list will be an ever expanding project.
