EPTBeta Access Revoked - Dopeman - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Ganondorf
Italy600 Posts
| ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12224 Posts
On May 19 2010 07:16 Kratisto wrote: They should set up a system whereby you are allowed (read: forced) to change your Character name to something else, and if it happens a second time, they delete the character and its stats. Immaturity and stupid names on the internet needs to be tolerated seeing as... well... internet. This will probably happen. They don't need to have a second-chance policy for beta because they have hundreds of thousands of people playing and it's fucking beta. They're going to be more lenient and forgiving toward people who pay $60-100 for their product. | ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
Because I guarantee about half (if not more) of the employees there smoke marijuana. It's what artists and programmers do. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17920 Posts
i fucking lold To add something : they need to do it like WoW and send you a warning for it, rather than just outright banning | ||
|
phlamez
United States96 Posts
| ||
|
PokePill
United States1048 Posts
It's going to be funny with this policy that 53% agree with, some get banned randomly 2 years losing all their achievements, valid game license, friends list, etc. because 1 person found their name offensive | ||
|
Zaphid
Czech Republic1860 Posts
| ||
|
Kinslayer
United States129 Posts
Now...about Dopeman as a name. It's a reference to Dope (drugs). That is inappropriate for a game that they are trying to push as not "Mature" rated. That means that everything in the game has to not be of a mature rating. Yes, that includes players names as well. Why? because a kid could pick this game up and play it and be "exposed" to names that are inappropriate for his/her age. Having your game rated Mature is pretty bad for business. If the game is NOT rated M, then they have a responsibility to make sure it does not cross that line. | ||
|
Kantutan
Canada1319 Posts
| ||
|
Galleon.frigate
Canada721 Posts
I realize that you didn't expect 'dopeman' to be banned. It sucks you lost your key. Are you really in a state of mind where you don't see why they banned 'dopeman?' This is the beta, they have to implement a naming policy but they don't want to take the time or effort to staff people to monitor it. We're not live they haven't hired the community staff yet. So ... they use a heavy handed policy to try to push people into not screwing around. It's not hard... just pick a name you wouldn't mind your bud calling you while a cop pulls you over.... @RRated I agree it's silly to censor swear words while people are being blown up... but have you ever watched tv? The hypocracy isn't Blizzard's its the general population's. People are shot in every other tv show, but one tit or f^&k and all hell breaks loose... thats why I love America... and live in Canada  | ||
|
rS.Sinatra
Canada785 Posts
Think about Blizzard as a company that wants to sell a game that to an audience. Obviously, the larger the audience the better (more money). Restrictions such as "18+" rating or "contains drug content" or "explicit language" or "nudity" narrows an audience. While it may be true that many of us are exposed to... see above... the fact of the matter is, some parents don't like their kids exposed to it. Therefore, to have the largest audience possible and have a game that can appeal to the largest audience possible, restrictions are put on the game itself rather than influencing the audience's or audience's parent's decision to purchase the game. So before you go out and say that Blizzard is going to be all controlling and freedom restricting (very American of you) stop and think of it as a business decision first and ask "Why?" instead of making some garbage pole about whether people find it offensive or not (polls like those give zero useful information other than inflame the discussion). Either way, I doubt my inability to create user names like "child pervert", "dope man", or "fuck tard" will deter me from purchasing the game. Afterall, I buy the game to play it, not as a means to be an "online billboard" per se. I guess since you also don't have beta anymore, you decided you had nothing better to do than to come on here and inflame a trivial discussion that will go nowhere. P.S. Blizzard already said they are implementing chat channels for battle.net 2.0 after release. So get your facts? | ||
|
IrT4nkz
229 Posts
Besides, some of the names aren't even offensive at all, I guess it's to please the parent's so it will be in-line with their goals of expanding the e-Sports scene if parents accept the less 'violent' use of language in the game I suppose? | ||
|
SichuanPanda
Canada1542 Posts
| ||
|
Sayam
United States34 Posts
On May 19 2010 07:37 Kinslayer wrote: Now...about Dopeman as a name. It's a reference to Dope (drugs). That is inappropriate for a game that they are trying to push as not "Mature" rated. That means that everything in the game has to not be of a mature rating. Yes, that includes players names as well. Why? because a kid could pick this game up and play it and be "exposed" to names that are inappropriate for his/her age. Having your game rated Mature is pretty bad for business. If the game is NOT rated M, then they have a responsibility to make sure it does not cross that line. I've never seen any ESRB ratings that take into account what an online playerbase might do with said game. All games that have online component seem to include a statement that gameplay may change online next to the rating requirement. I can only imagine WoW being rated based on what guild chat says in some guilds. | ||
|
DreamShake
Peru120 Posts
On May 19 2010 07:38 Kantutan wrote: Not offensive, but dopeman is quite a stupid name. Hardcore stoners are so bloody annoying. Fail? Its a reference to a song, I haven't smoked weed in over 9 years. If hardcore stoners are bloody annoying perhaps you should relax? Maybe smoke a joint? | ||
|
Makica
Canada180 Posts
| ||
|
Kinslayer
United States129 Posts
On May 19 2010 07:40 Sayam wrote: I've never seen any ESRB ratings that take into account what an online playerbase might do with said game. All games that have online component seem to include a statement that gameplay may change online next to the rating requirement. I can only imagine WoW being rated based on what guild chat says in some guilds. It's a little more detailed than that actually. While you are correct in saying that all games say ESRB rating may be different when playing online, that is extremely specific to the ONLINE experience only. Meaning, when you are playing vs other people, the company making the game can't be held responsible for what those players say to you. BUT... gamertags/nicknames/etc are part of the game's UI. You can completely choose not to play online but browse the leaderboards and you will see inappropriate names. That you can hold the company accountable for. The game's User Interface has to be not M rated including data coming from leaderboards/etc. What happens when you're actually playing online and interacting with other people in real time is a different story. | ||
|
DreamShake
Peru120 Posts
On May 19 2010 07:38 Paramore wrote: Totalitarian? I think this is taken out of context. Think about Blizzard as a company that wants to sell a game that to an audience. Obviously, the larger the audience the better (more money). Restrictions such as "18+" rating or "contains drug content" or "explicit language" or "nudity" narrows an audience. While it may be true that many of us are exposed to... see above... the fact of the matter is, some parents don't like their kids exposed to it. Therefore, to have the largest audience possible and have a game that can appeal to the largest audience possible, restrictions are put on the game itself rather than influencing the audience's or audience's parent's decision to purchase the game. So before you go out and say that Blizzard is going to be all controlling and freedom restricting (very American of you) stop and think of it as a business decision first and ask "Why?" instead of making some garbage pole about whether people find it offensive or not (polls like those give zero useful information other than inflame the discussion). Either way, I doubt my inability to create user names like "child pervert", "dope man", or "fuck tard" will deter me from purchasing the game. Afterall, I buy the game to play it, not as a means to be an "online billboard" per se. I guess since you also don't have beta anymore, you decided you had nothing better to do than to come on here and inflame a trivial discussion that will go nowhere. P.S. Blizzard already said they are implementing chat channels for battle.net 2.0 after release. So get your facts? Child pervert is not anywhere near Dopeman. and I'm not American. Children on the internet should be aware and their parents should be even more aware. Whats to stop someone from saying sexually suggestive stuff? or bypassing swear filter with numbers? Internet in general should have a mature rating. are you really suggesting that they banned my accoutn because they feared names like Dopeman would lead to a mature rating? I sincerely doubt this. For all the flamers, I thanked blizzard in my OP and I am not bitter about the banning (i have other accounts), I wanted to probe the masses. | ||
|
shindigs
United States4795 Posts
I could see why they would ban "dopeman" but I personally don't find it offensive. It's Blizzard's system and they have a right to run it however they want. It's strict enforcement sure, but there's nothing "wrong" with Blizzard being overprotective with its premiere multiplayer system. | ||
|
QueueQueue
Canada1000 Posts
On May 19 2010 07:38 Paramore wrote: Totalitarian? I think this is taken out of context. Think about Blizzard as a company that wants to sell a game that to an audience. Obviously, the larger the audience the better (more money). Restrictions such as "18+" rating or "contains drug content" or "explicit language" or "nudity" narrows an audience. While it may be true that many of us are exposed to... see above... the fact of the matter is, some parents don't like their kids exposed to it. Therefore, to have the largest audience possible and have a game that can appeal to the largest audience possible, restrictions are put on the game itself rather than influencing the audience's or audience's parent's decision to purchase the game. So before you go out and say that Blizzard is going to be all controlling and freedom restricting (very American of you) stop and think of it as a business decision first and ask "Why?" instead of making some garbage pole about whether people find it offensive or not (polls like those give zero useful information other than inflame the discussion). Either way, I doubt my inability to create user names like "child pervert", "dope man", or "fuck tard" will deter me from purchasing the game. Afterall, I buy the game to play it, not as a means to be an "online billboard" per se. I guess since you also don't have beta anymore, you decided you had nothing better to do than to come on here and inflame a trivial discussion that will go nowhere. P.S. Blizzard already said they are implementing chat channels for battle.net 2.0 after release. So get your facts? I understand your point; however, whether the person's online ID is a drug reference, or the chat that is said online is a drug reference is essentially the same thing. You can't moderate the chat completely. This is why most games state that ratings may change during online play. The swear filter is easily bypassed, and in most cases is disabled anyways. So really, Blizzard isn't protecting kids from seeing inappropriate content by limiting people's IDs nor are they impacting the game's rating. | ||
| ||
