Self-appointed user name censors

[DrStraw]

If they wanted to discourage squatting on a name, I suppose they could make a requirement that an account has games played on it with some established frequency, but I imagine that would generate quite a few complaints from existing users. Some people have good reasons for taking a lengthy break from KGS while wanting to keep their account active.

It certainly would. I have been DrStraw on KGS almost since it started and I do not recall playing a rated game with it for well over 10 years. I do play the occasional teaching game but that also is very irregular and most of the time if shows no games at all in the list. I keep the account because that is how everyone knows me. I have another account, which no one knows about, for playing rated games.

[jeromie]

If they wanted to discourage squatting on a name, I suppose they could make a requirement that an account has games played on it with some established frequency, but I imagine that would generate quite a few complaints from existing users. Some people have good reasons for taking a lengthy break from KGS while wanting to keep their account active.

It certainly would. I have been DrStraw on KGS almost since it started and I do not recall playing a rated game with it for well over 10 years. I do play the occasional teaching game but that also is very irregular and most of the time if shows no games at all in the list. I keep the account because that is how everyone knows me. I have another account, which no one knows about, for playing rated games.

You're the person that came to mind when I was writing that statement.

[Bantari]

What i find silly is the attitude that says "lets block whatever we can before somebody gets offended." Well, what if nobody gets offended? Why block a bunch of good names for nothing? I understand good intentions, but I think - in real life - most who behave like that become pests rather than saviors.

My personal opinion: people who block names like that are on a desperate quest for self-aggrandization. Get a life.

We all should get a life.

[DrStraw]

What i find silly is the attitude that says "lets block whatever we can before somebody gets offended." Well, what if nobody gets offended? Why block a bunch of good names for nothing? I understand good intentions, but I think - in real life - most who behave like that become pests rather than saviors.

My personal opinion: people who block names like that are on a desperate quest for self-aggrandization. Get a life.

We all should get a life.

I suspect most, if not all, people don't care. I also said in an earlier post that I suspect who the perpetrator is. If you hang around the ECR and EGR long enough you may form the same opinion.

[UnclMartin]

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.

I was an admin when KGS admins received a request to have a policy of blocking names regarded as very sacred by some. The admins discussed it, not without some controversy. In the end, it was decided against having such a policy.

As for user names consisting of rude words, or simulations of rude words, it has long been a admin policy to block such user names. When discovered, a senior admin typically locked the account. Names like "Stalin" or "Hitler" would similarly be treated. In general, when we came across a KGS user name that was also the name of a historically infamously bad person, we would have discussed how to handle it. For a hypothetical example, if someone registered the name "Manson", we might have discussed it. A big part of our decision would be based on what we perceived the user's intent would be. If we thought, in this example, the user was trolling based on Charles Manson, we would have blocked the name. If we thought the user chose that name because he liked some other person named Manson or was named Manson himself, we would have left it alone.

The person making the request did so after Muhammad cartoons controversy, and mentioned that in his/her request to us. In addition, this person pointed out that the user of one account, which had a name sacred in Judaism, had put swastikas in the personal information area.

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.

Firstly, neither the names "Christ" and "Buddha" are regarded as sacred, even by followers of those religions. Normally, the admins would leave such names alone, unless the owner uses them for trolling.

Secondly, the person who took these names is the same person who made the policy request I mentioned above. He/She decided to take the accounts after the admins decided to not implement the requested policy. He/She took only those accounts which he/she felt were very sacred to some. This person had no list of "sacred names", the only names taken were accounts that had previously been registered. The taker had to wait for the accounts to expire for disuse. This person took 4 or 5 such accounts this way, in order to protect those names.

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.

I do happen to know who the person who made the request is. He/She has said that he/she is not religious. I am certain this person is not acting out of feelings of religious righteousness or dogma. However, he/she has very strong feelings about respect for different cultures, ethnic groups, and religions.

[UnclMartin]

I suppose we should be glad there aren't more serious problems in the world to complain about than username squatters on KGS /s

If you want to see a mysterious username censor, try to register vvms: you can't and it says in use, but if you try to view that user it doesn't exist. My guess is wms (KGS creator) banned it due to the similarity to his username.

I was told WMS, at one time, added a user name check to block new usernames that were visually similar to existing usernames. If true, that would explain the mystery. But, its ability to detect visually similar names seems to be limited.

[Darrell]

I was told WMS, at one time, added a user name check to block new usernames that were visually similar to existing usernames. If true, that would explain the mystery.

Indeed, username 'darreII' (capital-i's instead of lower-case-L's) is not available.