My name is not against ToS/Rules - Yet being forced to change it

[Solakor]

The GM received a report and after whatever behind the scenes stuff happened delivered a verdict. The player in question is free to dispute it yes, but that is extremely unlikely to work and also requires support. The reported player attempted to gain that support from the forums and the forums are filled with people who will both defend and condemn their actions. There's no crusade going on here. Just people saying their thoughts and explaining their positions.

I don't see this thread changing anything about the OP's situation and may actually make it worse. Trying to point fingers likely won't help with that, but good luck in your strategy.

The community at large does not make the rules. SE does. There is nothing in the name that implies it is used in a weird manner and it was allowed through the character creation. Players policing how ppl are supposed to play the game is not in the rules. The only thing the OP wanted was to get noticed by SE support because they don't know what else they could have done. Also them being able to still keep the word loli is enough evidence that it's not against any rule.

[Ysuhli]

The community at large does not make the rules. SE does. There is nothing in the name that implies it is used in a weird manner and it was allowed through the character creation. Players policing how ppl are supposed to play the game is not in the rules. The only thing the OP wanted was to get noticed by SE support because they don't know what else they could have done. Also them being able to still keep the word loli is enough evidence that it's not against any rule.

Look up the scunthorpe problem please for the love of god. The word itself is the 'weird manner' and to say otherwise is to play ignorant just to try and make your point. If making someone change their name from something offensive to inoffensive is 'policing how people play the game' then we're already there. I don't see anyone naming themselves racial slurs or curse words. Hell, Charmin Ultrasoft had to change their name due to covid. More importantly, it's a name. This is not SQE going to their home and breaking their fingers for something, this is not some crazy mass policing. This is 'hey we don't like the name, change it'. Equating that to policing is absolutely blowing it out of proportion.

[Xirean]

The community at large does not make the rules. SE does. There is nothing in the name that implies it is used in a weird manner and it was allowed through the character creation. Players policing how ppl are supposed to play the game is not in the rules. The only thing the OP wanted was to get noticed by SE support because they don't know what else they could have done. Also them being able to still keep the word loli is enough evidence that it's not against any rule.

I'm not sure where I said the community makes rules. Players are free to make reports against other players all they want and GM's are free to act on or ignore those reports based entirely on how their department trained them. Names being allowed should never be taken as a pass on the name in perpetuity. Forced name changes happen all the time and will keep happening. Perhaps the OP hasn't actually changed the name yet? I'm also not concerned with what is and isn't against the rules for this name. I get why people reported and I get why the GM did what they did.

[Solakor]

Look up the scunthorpe problem please for the love of god. The word itself is the 'weird manner' and to say otherwise is to play ignorant just to try and make your point. If making someone change their name from something offensive to inoffensive is 'policing how people play the game' then we're already there. I don't see anyone naming themselves racial slurs or curse words. Hell, Charmin Ultrasoft had to change their name due to covid. More importantly, it's a name. This is not SQE going to their home and breaking their fingers for something, this is not some crazy mass policing. This is 'hey we don't like the name, change it'. Equating that to policing is absolutely blowing it out of proportion.

The problem is that one GM does not police things the same way that another GM does. There is no consistent policy how or what ppl are allowed to name their char. Yes you can report someone for anything in this game and if you are out of luck anything you say can be used against you in someones head. That is the issue. Not the names themselves, even though it is ridiculous they need to be changed.

[strawberrycake]

*I should be able to Violate the ToS because other people are Violating the ToS* Great post fam.

[Ysuhli]

The problem is that one GM does not police things the same way that another GM does. There is no consistent policy how or what ppl are allowed to name their char. Yes you can report someone for anything in this game and if you are out of luck anything you say can be used against you in someones head. That is the issue. Not the names themselves, even though it is ridiculous they need to be changed.

This is far from a situation where anything is unfair or inconsistent? And how is this an issue of GMs being unfair? Their name violates ToS, 'loli' is not allowed nor should be. Trying to turn an argument that 'loli isn't sexual' into 'gms apply their rules unfairly and inconsistently' are two separate issues. Trying to turn this argument about 'loli' into the argument about 'gms being unfair' is going to make you and others who make similar claims look like they're pro-'loli', which isn't a good look for very obvious reasons. And if that is your argument, make it clear that it is, otherwise it's poorly structured since no one can tell what you're arguing about. Motte and Bailey fallacies do no one any good, especially you.

Ultimately GMs police to what the ToS says. If you wanna read through it and try to point out how they're unfair, sure? Maybe? Go ahead, but you can't make that assumption. We don't have the official SQE guidelines on how they're supposed to act. We pay to play their games and agree to follow their rules, not ours. We do not know the standards they are held to nor whether the GMs make the decision or their supervisors do. We can try to make the claim that it's unfair, but we have probably a quarter of the picture on how GM moderation works or is supposed to work. To try and act like we can tell if it's unfair or not is being deliberately ignorant for the sake of deflecting from the original issue of 'lolicon is bad'.

[magtuired]

I can not imagine dying on the hill of wanting to keep a name that implies you like to sexualize children. Regardless of personal intention, words have connotation and meaning and sadly regardless of the fact rhat "Lolita" was a name that had nothing to do with pedophilia and that the novel itself was anti-pedophilia, it has been co-opted and used to indicate sexual interest in children and this is not line we want to be soft about in any community. No pedophilia. Not as a joke. Not as an unfortunate coincidence. No.

[Solakor]

This is far from a situation where anything is unfair or inconsistent? And how is this an issue of GMs being unfair? Their name violates ToS, 'loli' is not allowed nor should be. Trying to turn an argument that 'loli isn't sexual' into 'gms apply their rules unfairly and inconsistently' are two separate issues. Trying to turn this argument about 'loli' into the argument about 'gms being unfair' is going to make you and others who make similar claims look like they're pro-'loli', which isn't a good look for very obvious reasons. And if that is your argument, make it clear that it is, otherwise it's poorly structured since no one can tell what you're arguing about. Motte and Bailey fallacies do no one any good, especially you.

Ultimately GMs police to what the ToS says. If you wanna read through it and try to point out how they're unfair, sure? Maybe? Go ahead, but you can't make that assumption. We don't have the official SQE guidelines on how they're supposed to act. We pay to play their games and agree to follow their rules, not ours. We do not know the standards they are held to nor whether the GMs make the decision or their supervisors do. We can try to make the claim that it's unfair, but we have probably a quarter of the picture on how GM moderation works or is supposed to work. To try and act like we can tell if it's unfair or not is being deliberately ignorant for the sake of deflecting from the original issue of 'lolicon is bad'.

Jumping to conclusions isn't policing the rules it's making them on the spot. Loli does not inherently mean anything bad but you can jump to a conclusion. You yourself are giving a meaning to the OPs name that it does not inherently have.

[Sindele]

This is a clear case of the GM being in the wrong. There was no clear implication the OP was in the wrong about anything with their name and they have a right to dispute this. You guys are crusading here and trying to stifle conversation using every trick in the book you can. One moment you are pointing at every word ppl say and another you try to look calm and collected but the message is always the same. My agenda is right and yours is not.

A basic internet posting lesson for you: the cadence someone assumes in a post is not necessarily a reflection of their emotional state. If anything, I'm actually more amped up now than I was earlier - shoutout to modern pharmaceutical stimulants.

This isn't government legislation or a game of D&D. You're neither on an equal level of negotiation with them nor conferred a legal right to be treated as such. You're playing a service game, and the terms of agreement are invariably transparently clear that the company has the right to do literally whatever they want to your characters and your account at any time and your recourse is to deal with it. Hell, they literally define whether words are acceptable or not with what 'a reasonable person' would think is acceptable - if you made the mistake of reading that as anything other than 'according to our corporate opinion', you're dangerously naive and should consider never signing contracts without a lawyer present, or at least a very good advisor.

GMs are only ever in the wrong with an enforcement action if the company decides retroactively that they were wrong, and I think this thread so far has proven a pretty solid example of why you shouldn't hold your breath for that to happen here.

[LioJen]

se*ual

I would really just like to know why you, and so many other people these days, do this.