I see that someone has registered "Yahweh" "Elohim" and "Allah" (and probably others) as user names to prevent other people from doing so.

I can appreciate that some people might be offended and that is the motive.

Other people might be offended by a user name such as "Satan" or "Hitler". Yet others by one involving rude words.

I would like to suggest though that the decisions about what names are allowable be in the hands of the people who actually run KGS not some self-appointed anonymous censor.

_________________
John Collins

No one can stop anyone from registering any name but the admins can step in and remove any account name which is deemed inappropriate. I don't know if it is still done but it was when I was an admin long ago. If you feel strongly about it the only option you have it to e-mail the admins and see what reaction you get.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

None of these user names appear as a registered user when I use the 'find a user' form. If they are indeed not available, it does not appear that 'self-appointed', ordinary users have preempted the names.

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

Look again. The user Yahweh was registered about a year ago and the user info says



I am not sure why only the middle eastern religions have been targeted. Christ and Buddha were not hijacked. I have my suspicions as to who may have done it but as that is all they are I will not share them in case I am wrong.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Because it is actually very political.

I'll have to take your word for it. This is what I get...(same thing with a search on 'yah*')

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

You have to look on KGS. This thread is in the KGS forum. I've made that mistake myself, many times, because I don't usually look to see which forum a post is in.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

@ez4u: If I understand correctly, this is about KGS usernames. obsolete
________________


And some people should really get a life. I’d bet that for ANY word in ANY language you’ll find some other language where it is a curse or a “holy” word or something, and especially some fundamentalist fruitcakes who will feel offended when they see it. (And no, I’m NOT advocating deliberate use of known “offending” words for usernames.) (And then there was this — psychotic, it turned out — friend of mine who wouldn't eat natas because it’s “satan” backwards.)

I’ve read that there’s a lot of fun (and problems) in product naming for an international market … be it cars, sweets, medicine, whatever

Also, this:

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

I dislike this suggestion. We are a community run by volunteers. Instead of complaining that somebody really ought to fix that, the anonymous censor took proactive action, which I applaud.

I really don't see the harm that 'Yahweh' is currently not available to be somebody's username. What exactly is the harm? Is the harm really that self-appointed censors will go around registering every possible sensitive word? That is projecting a very small trend a very far distance.

This is going to become a very political discussion now. The harm is that one or a small number of people are deciding what is offensive and not offensive rather than making a clear and simple universal rule that applies to all. Free speech today competes with the new liberal progressive ideas of "offensive language." Where the line of free speech ends and offense begins is not meaningless and should not be considered arbitrarily. Why does one person's offense infringe on my right to choose the name "Yahweh"? Which, by the way, is "the national god of the Iron Age kingdoms of Samaria and Judah" according to wikipedia (who knew?). Why would that be offensive to anyone and why someone arbitrarily decides it is offensive is a bit, to be frank, offensive.

Personally, I think the rules should apply as universally as possible to usernames and not arbitrarily decided by a single member of the community.

As you wish, I have arbitrarily decided that 'meat' may unsettle vegetarians and pre-emptively registered it. Now two members have registered a extra few names in addition to the 57,190 that have already been registered.

These are usernames, not words in the dictionary. By their very nature, they can be used by only one person. It is not a freedom of speech issue. In the U.S., we have the right to guns. Just because I buy a gun which lowers the number of available guns by 1, it does not mean I have restricted the guns right of any person.

And so, I have not restricted the freedom of speech of anybody just because I registered the account 'meat'. If you wanted that account, you should have beaten me to it.

I knew this would be your response, and I do not disagree. It is the same as if I wanted to use the name JoeSmith and it was already taken. I don't think that was my point, and I don't think it is the OPs point either. I think it is the reason that the person wrote in the description and their clear intent. If they just registered it and used it, no one would really care. They made it political.

You are making an argument by saying, simply, your argument is irrelevant not on the basis of the philosophical/political argument but because of the relative unimportance of the case to which it is applied. I agree that this case is really unimportant, but it does not negate the principles discussed.

If a 24 kyu registered 'Allah' and played honestly, yet ineptly, no one would really care? No one would think it disrespectful?

Well, you might be right. You might also be wrong. I am not confident that you are right.

I understand that when some people argue on the internet, they often find a small snippet of text and dispute that for the entire argument and then claim victory. I never said no one would be offended. I said no one would care in the way that the OP cares - that someone is arbitrarily choosing some words to single out as offensive but not other religious words that might also be offensive.

It is not about whether someone finds it offensive or not. It is about whether someone can arbitrarily disallow the use of it because someone might (or does) find it offensive. There is probably someone out there who actually does think the word "meat" is offensive. I knew a guy who used to eat only raw fruits and vegetables for his diet. He was offended by meat. There are people who are offended by everything.

I teach in university. I offend people probably every class I teach because my topics sometimes deal with sensitive issues. The rules about what I am and am not allowed to say in class are not applied arbitrarily. They are applied universally to all of us who teach at the university. And there are some standards which are set down, which draw the line about what is and what is not acceptable. This line is not decided by one member of the faculty, or one student, or even a group of students. This is decided by the entire faculty as a whole in some bureaucratic system. Although this system is not perfect, I would take it over arbitrarily handing the power to one or a small set of the community.

If that is not clear, I am not sure how to make it any clearer. You don't have to agree with me. Perhaps you prefer a small minority to dictate what is acceptable speech and what is not.

All rules on KGS are enforced by a small group of admins. This is nothing new. What is acceptable in terms of usernames, profile pictures, and banning is not subject to objective review. It's up to the admins to decide what they think is right.

Users are also allowed to register whatever accounts they'd like, and there is no requirement to play. They just have to log in every 6 months to keep the account. Whatever motives someone has for creating an account are up to them.

What's complicated about it?

_________________
be immersed

I remember laughing when it happened to you. Now it's my turn to get caught!

_________________
Dave Sigaty
"Short-lived are both the praiser and the praised, and rememberer and the remembered..."
- Marcus Aurelius; Meditations, VIII 21

I don't really care what people register as. If it's a name I wanted and they beat me to it that's my hard luck. When I first registered on KGS I wanted to be just "toad" but that was taken. Later that timed out and I grabbed it. Maybe I should change my name here.

What seems silly to me is registering a name which you never intend to use in any way to play or even chat with just to block other people from using it.

_________________
John Collins

Hi Tom, is that Portuguese egg tart ?

Go_Japan, may I ask what you teach ?

My trouble with the very religious people is that they are less tollerant than they expect from other people.

I do not like when dogma restrict the freedom of others. Therefore, I will create an account "Allah1" or "Yahweh1" for playing when I'm drunk.

Go for Yahweh666. Much more fun.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).