A Debate for the Templars

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

Originally posted by old.Turamber
Oh my goodness, what a long thread this turned out to be me - and more twists and turns than a Hitchcock film!

If I had known how to report the character name "Jehovah Witless" then I would have done so. To millions of people throughout the planet the use of the Divine name in a game is very offensive indeed. To add the surname "Witless" and thus have a pop at one of the largest Christian movements/sects is also bad.

Sure, to atheists it seems daft that people get upset about such things -- but please accept that we do get upset about such matters, and respect us, in the same way that we have respect for your atheism, even though it also seems nonsensical to us.

It seems daft? I would like to top that statement by saying it is utterly ludicrous.

Having a go at christianity?
Are we aiming the Big Bertha at mosquitos here?

For Christ's (oho... ban me, please) sake - it was not like Tyraette called the toon Jesus CornholesSaintJohn, was it?
THAT would have been offensive.

I give a shit about religious feelings... day after day the belief in some wooloo wooloo supreme creature causes enough grief for three planets. Perhaps your belief offends 'faithful' atheists? Ever thought about it?

Jehovas Witless... is this blasphemous?
This surely depends on just how tight arsed you are... or how tolerant.

Go ahead and get "Life of Brian", Brannor, and report the whole Monty Python troupe to the Vatican for they truly offend THEIR CoC.

Names... what are names? Smoke in the wind. If someone has a stupid name- I am going to ignore the person. That's how I do it. If the name is REALLY offensive, go ahead report it.

Did you report Geforce on Pryd/Alb? He is using a brandname, isn't he?
I met a RandAlThor during my time on Alb. "Wheel of Time" anyone? Go- report him or Jordan might sue GOA!!! Shock horror!
Tell Big K. before it's too late...

Get a life or at least a fucking grip on yourself...

 

[old.Tyraette]

ok here goes, cos I appear to have opened a far bigger can of worms than was originaly intended.

Right, first off. Jehovah Witless has had his name changed. I have no complaints about that. It was a silly spurofthemoment decision by myself, and I regret if I caused offense to anyone. Assurances that this will not happen again, as stated previously, this character wasnt played for about 2months, partly cos I was starting to think about the name. Apologies to all those who took it any other way to how it was intended.

What I do object to, is this email I received just now:

Recently you requested personal assistance from our on-line support
center. Below is a summary of your request and our response.
We will assume your issue has been resolved if we do not hear from you
within 48 hours.
Thank you for allowing us to be of service to you.


Subject
---------------------------------------------------------------
Character name change


Discussion Thread
---------------------------------------------------------------
Response (CS) - 08/02/2002 03:23 PM
Greetings,

One of your character had a last name going against the Code of Conduct of Dark
Age of Camelot - Europe and had to be changed.
Character involved: Shaeffer Shex
Character new name: Shaeffer Shaox


Naturally, I am not too impressed at this, and to be perfectly honest, I am going to take one firm step towards Aelthalastan <forgive spelling, filled with Unholy Rage> with regards to enforcing the naming policy across board.

If GOA are going to modify something as petty as Shaeffer Shex, which personally I dont think anyone has so far found offensive, both ingame and on here, then frankly theyve set an interesting precedent for themselves. Whilst I can understand how people can be offended by Jehovah as a name, and yes I agree completely and have no complaints about that being changed, I cannot really see how anyone can find Shaeffer Shex offensive.
If a name such as this is going to be banned, then to be honest you may as well go through the entire database and purge every name that is not in the templars, cos almost anyone somewhere will be offended.

In fact, lets make a start for you all:

Marl Boro (I have a friend who died from cancer, so I'm offended at this reference to a product which may have given him lung cancer)

Spanky JoyJoy

Geforce (brand name)

Fattus Gittus (I remeber once how it was deemed offensive to call people 'fat' rather than obese. Also, gittus can be construed as Git, which is a swearword that a parent would look down on their child for using)

Alla Kazam (if goa wants to change shaeffer shex or hugh erectus or whatever, then spelling obviously doesnt matter a jot. Therefore, this name can be construed as being a religious reference and should be banned also, without regards for intent)

Rudolph Hukker (to be honest, I dont know of anyone who actualy got this, still the best ive come across)

DontTouch Metits


Aurian (character of a book, and Copyrighted Book Title toboot)

In fact, on that last one, lets ban every character who has appeared in any book..anywhere, regardless of intent. I'm sure if I could be bothered to look hard enough,even Brannor may well be a copyrighted character from a book or film, and since I very much doubt youve checked for copyrights, your name may be illegally acquisitioned, and therefore banned.

If this is the kind of pettyness that we are going to bring ourselves down to, then at least go through every single name on that database and ensure that your naming procedures are enforced all the way. If brannor or goa have banned my name on the basis of having 'seen' it, then they have now also seen the above. If these names are not removed, then I would like to know why, as it would be apparent to me that brannor/goa are being selective over who they change. If this is the case, then is there another motive? ie, that is me because i have questioned naming regulations? Does this therefore mean I am being discriminated against for my views?


And what exactly is a sexual reference anyway? does this mean that a /kiss can be determined as being a sexual reference, and hence anyone making a kiss can be banned?

At this particualr moment in time, I am considering appealing (for whatever little good it does) with regards to this name change. I may not be able to get it changed back to what it was, but it is at least worth exploring. If i am lucky, I may be able to change the surname.

However, at time of writing , I am unsure as to what Shaeffer Shex is perceived as by the majority of players. Is Shaeffer Shex (ok lets say it ... Safer Sex) a sexual reference?, is this the context in which Goa meant to uphold when they constructed this charter? I would have expected that this was put in to prevent younger players from coming into contact from encountering aspects of our society at that current age. With recent public trends (in britain anyway) for teenage pregnancies, schoolkids as young as 7 are being taught about safe sex. Whilst I agree that sexual words should be banned, in Safe Sex, this is now not a taboo to be giggled at by blushing schoolchildren, it is a factor of our society that has become necessary in recent years. Under this light, does Shaeffer Shex, a cunning mispell, deserve to be banned under this argument? Would those young enough for it to affect were it a sexual reference, be able to unravel it from the name? I know that most people dont even get it anyway.

Would be most interested to hear your views

Shaeffer Shex (on these boards at least)

 

[old.Tyraette]

One thing I will give you guys credit for though, is changing Jehovah to Meamor Witless....as in Me More Witless...most amusing. I meant that genuinely by the way, nice to see you guys have a sense of humour. If it was intended :/

 

[old.Tyraette]

Do I really care for your opinion Chesnor? No.



Then why should we care for yours? The function you are performing is to moderate names that may cause offence to other players, under the guidelines set up by the CoC. If you do not care for other peoples opinions, who are exorcising their right to free speech, then are you performing the task to the best of your ability? How can you determine whether a name is offensive to players, if you care not for everyone elses opinions on the subject?

By divorcing yourself from other peoples thoughts and opinions, what are you using as a yardstick? your own opinions? is this not how most politicians turn after a time?

 

[old.chesnor]

I despair for the game, especially on the UK servers, when people like Brannor have positioned themselves as people with influence. Brannor, you are self-opinionated, arrogant and intransigent. With E & E like you, this game is in big trouble.

You should learn to live and let live, try not to enforce your bizarre opinions and attitudes of how you feel this game should be onto the community as a whole. You appear to get a kick out of wielding your almighty stick of righteousness in this game, and pissing alot of people off who are slightly more relaxed about life in general, and this game specifically, than you are.

One question, why ?

 

[Turamber]

Sickofit, if you had read all of the messages in this thread you will see that various messages went off the original topic - religous names in an Arthurian game - and turned into "how dare people want their religious beliefs to be respected" ranty posts.

It was to those posts I was replying in particular.

You really are a very tiresome little troll man with no concept of what is being discussed here. In fact your presence here is actually some evidence for evolution. Except its working in reverse as you continue to devolve into a silly muppet like creature...

Go play the game, you would have less time to spout your nonsense.

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

The whole E&E "program" is a joke in itself...

Take Para Medic for an example. Someone pissed him off in-game (mostly Mid-players because they owned his sorry arse in RvR) and he flamed the wits out of them... on the official boards...

Brannor - sure you do have your points. But your general "holier than thou" attitude won't get you anywhere.

Any more illoustrious E&E's?
Eyes and Ears.. feels like the block warden thing the Nazis did... yes, I do exaggerate on purpose here...

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

Originally posted by old.Turamber
Sickofit, if you had read all of the messages in this thread you will see that various messages went off the original topic - religous names in an Arthurian game - and turned into "how dare people want their religious beliefs to be respected" ranty posts.

It was to those posts I was replying in particular.

You really are a very tiresome little troll man with no concept of what is being discussed here. In fact your presence here is actually some evidence for evolution. Except its working in reverse as you continue to devolve into a silly muppet like creature...

Go play the game, you would have less time to spout your nonsense.

Oh... I did read all the messages actually. Wow, eh?

I always find it amusing when people like you try to belittle me.
"little troll", "reversed evolution", "go play the game" etc. crapcetera. ... har har.

Let me explain it to you Barney style: I give a shit, Turamber.

I voice my opinion. If you can't stand it- don't read it, Mr. Darwin.

Now go play the game blablabla...

 

[Myshra]

aw come on, you cant rename my Suzie Quattro, everywhere i go in cam hills everyone sings to me! and come on, Dixie Normous (shamelessly ripped, if smokemeakipper illbebackforbreakfast is allowed, so is diexie ) my soon to be surnamed sorcerer aint causing much trouble, see the amusing side. the people who made amusing names are just playing for fun, get a grip!!

now play nice kiddies and stop throwing your toys out of the pram

and armitage shanks has the best name bar none

and if any of you have good memorys you will recognise Suzanne Charlton cif you dont know what she looks like, http://members.aol.com/istewjoat/PHOTO/london2.jpg (shes the one on the left ) michael fish was her mate a long time ago

 

[aethtemplar]

Originally posted by Myshra


and if any of you have good memorys you will recognise Suzanne Charlton cif you dont know what she looks like, http://members.aol.com/istewjoat/PHOTO/london2.jpg (shes the one on the left ) michael fish was her mate a long time ago

You mean Suzanne Charlton plays the game !!??!! Blimey, I always wondered what she did after finishing with the weather forecasts.

 

[Garris-]

Its another sad day on the planet.

Insane, Rampant Political Correctness: 1
Logic: 0

 

[Turamber]

I'm sorry Garris, we are guildmates and all, but I can't agree with you.

Taking religion seriously maybe insane to you but its not to many people in this world, or to many people down through the centuries. Just because you do not share that belief does not make it insane - unless its your standards that should define society?

I like to think that I respect others, even when I do not agree with them, and if I was doing something - or had named my character in a way - that caused offence to others then I'd do something about it.

Hopefully the world is becoming a more civilised place, and though the "political correctness" lobby make a few blunders they get a long of things right too.

This is an extremely emmotive subject, as can be seen from the amount of material in this thread. And that should be enough evidence in itself for not calling characters by religious or political names.

Let's get back to playing a game, eh?

 

[Garris-]

Turamber, I respect you and your right to believe whatever you like.

I may be atheist, but my mother is a devout mormon, so I do see both sides of the story from time to time. I'm not saying its "insane" to be offended - some people are offended more by some things than others, and I can respect that, I'm just saying that religion shouldn't get any more legal protection than anyone elses beliefs.

I think there should just be one law, a freedom of thought and speach, and we should stick to that. That way people are free to believe what ever they like, and religion does not become such a taboo subject.

Religion need not be a taboo subject. As I see it, a religion is another way to lead your life - and there is nothing wrong with that. But people who chose that way of life should not recieve more protection than people who don't believe such things. I think everyone has to fend for them selves a little, and everyone gets offended from time to time.. I get offended when my mum shoves me in front of the missionaries and tries to convert me - not because I hate mormonism, just because that isnt my thing.

Jehovas Witnesses are an ironic example - I used to live next to one of their centres and nearly every month we would get people knocking on our door and trying to press their beliefs on me. This is ok.. because.. thats right.. thats their religion.

If I were to knock on your door, Turamber, and say "stop your foolish christian ways, be an atheist for x, y, and z!" you would likely be offended, and I could even face legal hassle. This is what I don't like - it might take me a while to get there, but thats my point.

In a true democracy, where religion and politics dont mix, people who ARE religious shouldnt recieve special treatment.

 

[Brannor McThife]

Do you still not get it? I'm not selective. If I see a name I think may be against the CoC, I report it. It's not up to me if it gets changed, hell, I've had a lot turned down. GOA's naming convention is different to mine. I don't dictate who gets their name changed or to what.

You're pissed off with me? Why? Really? All I'm doing is reporting the names. GOA makes the decision, and choses the new names.

So, am I wrong for reporting names? Riddle me that.

-G

 

[Brannor McThife]

Originally posted by old.Tyraette
In fact, on that last one, lets ban every character who has appeared in any book..anywhere, regardless of intent.

Actually, from what I recall, names from books/movies are allowed. I don't know the exact ruling on this, neither do I need to know.

I think copyright involves making money off the name. Since this is in a game and not for commercial profit, they're probably all accepted.

<shrug>

-G

 

[old.Tyraette]

<sigh> ok lets try and close thejehovah thing off.

Jehovah Witless is a name that can cause offence. Some people take offence to it, others dont. With regards to this issue, it is those who DO take offence that need to be listened to. It doesnt matter if there are people whom this would affect, that take it with a pinch of salt or not. There are those who would be offended, and therefore the name should be removed. Subsequently the name was changed. I have no qualms with it, its a clear cut case as far as am Im concerned, and I apologise to those who it offended.

As far as he goes, I got an email from them saying becuase you aint queried it, the status is now closed. Whilst the subject matter can continue, I would personally like to ask that using Jehovah as an example would cease. The debate on the naming policies is good, but that example has now been resolved between myself and goa, and I would like it to remain that way.

If anyone has read my previous post somewhere up there, they will have seen that Shaeffer Shex has been deemed as being against the CoC, and is in line to be changed. Whilst Jehovah is a clear cut case, I personally feel that changing Shaeffer is a tad harsh, to thte point where I have in fact appealed to GOA over it. As people who have played with me recently know, I am now fully in the swing of roleplaying this character in tandem with Ehlias (a Templar)

For the last week or so, we have been having genuinely entertaining roleplaying with groups and people around us. We have both set ourselves up as relaxed scoundrels with an eye for the ladies. Since we are both usually after the same lady, the clashes between us have made the grouping all the more enjoyable, and have (as posted in greater detail in the initial two posts) kept a group going for the entire night hunting for bad exp. The Shaeffer Shex, only comes up in discussion, when someone figures it out (which only seems to happen about once a night) Rather than being offended by it at all, people smile and try and roleplay my name against me, for example saying that they have heard alot about me, but havent ever met me before. This usually prompts some more laughs, and carries the roleplaying on.

Having studied the CoC, I have seen how yes, you could take it down to the extreme and say that it is a sexual reference. My issue is not now with brannor, who love him or loathe him does just put the names forward. However, I am appealing to Goa that this is taking it too far, and that the name itself is both harmless, and disguised also, to the stage where half the people i meet dont even get it! I explained in greater detail on my earlier post up the page on why i think shaeffer shex isnt a complete sexual reference, certainly not worth banning over, and aint gonna repeat myself.

I admit to feeling a little annoyed, and indeed a little sad that with the potential name change, I will be losing some of what makes me the ladies man that shaeffer has become. I personally would be sorry to see him go, and am feeling my love for this game waning over it. If theres any chance that it would help matters, I would like those that agree with this to post on my 'discussion thread' with goa about it, for i fear that whilst I know how I feel about it, there are others who may be able to help me get my points across.

Any help in this would be much appreciated

I really dont know if its going to let you get access to it, or whether its a private thing between me and them. Would be much obliged and grateful if people could at least give me their comments on my SOS (save our Shex)

http://faq.camelot-europe.com/cgi-b...hp&p_refno=020802-000196&p_created=1028294639

rightnow discussion on shaeffer shex

ive put it twice cos I'm not sure on the whole making links thing. sorry

 

[old.Tyraette]

ok fair enough, I dont know the full legalities involved in copyrighting myself, so aint gonna get involved in the intricacies.

how about the others to which ive mentioned?

Geforce is certainly a copyrighted brand name, by having him run around in a game like this, can be deemed as advertising the product range.

Same applies to Marl Boro and countless other ones ive seen around. i dont smoke, never have, probably never will, but i know the product name and have smiled to myself when i see people ahead of the queue in tesco's ordering them. again the phrase rgardless of intent comes to mind.

fattus gittus can certainly fit into the terms 'insulting or degrading'. by coming down hard on shaeffer shex, the yardstick has been set, and theyve got to uphold it.

for the record, with the names ive mentioned, especially Donttouch metits and spanky joyjoy, and indeed Alla Khazam and fattus gittus (regardless of intent on those last two) , now that i know that youve read them, i fully expect them to be at least submitted to goa, otherwise I would question why youre being selective over who gets submitted.

I'm not being personal over this, i just either want my name back, or at least being treated in the same manner as the other names mentioned.

 

[Turamber]

Originally posted by Garris-

In a true democracy, where religion and politics dont mix, people who ARE religious shouldnt recieve special treatment.

Okay, last post from me in this thread - as the subject area has gone *far* away from being about DaOC.

I agree that religion and politics should be disentangled. If you look into the history of the Christian movement it wasn't until late in the 2nd or even 3rd centuries that Christians would accept roles in local government. For the earliest followers of Christ mixing religion and politics was a definite no-no.

As for "special treatment" I presume you refer to the laws against religious prejudice. These laws may not be complete or even fair - but as long as they stop a repeat of events such as those seen during the Nazi period I for one think they are valid and worthwhile.

Even one person that has to be suffer derision because he chooses to believe in Buddha, or Christ or Alla is one too many.

I found it amusing that people were up in arms earlier in this thread because Ondor poured scorn on roleplayers -- yet the same people find it hard to understand why religious people don't like having their opinions and values laughed at. The question - to roleplay or not to roleplay - is really far less important than questions concerning the nature of existence itself.

Anyway. No more posts from me on this subject, I come to DaOC for light relief -- not theological debate

 

[aethtemplar]

Originally posted by old.Turamber
Even one person that has to be suffer derision because he chooses to believe in Buddha, or Christ or Alla is one too many.

Cobblers. What you're saying here is no-one should ever be allowed to offend anyone by mocking or denying their beliefs. This stance is, oddly enough, even too extreme for fundamenalist Islamic theocracies. Even Iran and Pakistan tolerate the existence of other religions within their borders and provide them with a modicum of state protection for their views (which clearly contradict and deny the prevalent ideology and so offend many of its more devout and less open-minded believers). Personally, I believe Conservative Party policies are offensive. I believe The Sun newspaper is offensive. I believe south London drivers are offensive. According to your statement, all these things should be banned forthwith, because my right not to be offended is more important than the right of Tories, Sun readers and Catford motorists to offend me. Many vegetarians are offended by meat. Should we ban its consumption ? Fundamentalist Christians are offended by Islam, and vice versa - which religion should we ban ? Religious belief is just that - a belief, an opinion, a set of values. If you accept the right of people to form their own opinions and values then you cannot protect the holders of one opinion from taking offence at alternate opinions. The state protects people from actions - be they discrimination in the workplace or violence. It does not and should not protect people from taking offence that someone dares disagree with them and expresses that disagreement. That's the state. GOA are entitled to set and enforce whatever rules they like within their own micro-society.

Originally posted by old.Turamber
I found it amusing that people were up in arms earlier in this thread because Ondor poured scorn on roleplayers -- yet the same people find it hard to understand why religious people don't like having their opinions and values laughed at. The question - to roleplay or not to roleplay - is really far less important than questions concerning the nature of existence itself.

I don't find it hard at all to understand why people don't like to have their beliefs mocked. No-one likes to have their opinions or practices mocked. As I said, I wouldn't go out of my way to mock anyone unless provoked. The difference is, I accept entirely his right to mock, and can confidently shrug it off knowing that he's the one who made himself look stupid (and barely literate). I don't need, and don't seek any special protection from him. That's what /ignore is for. I could even extract a modicum of revenge if I could be bothered (I can't be bothered though) by ordering a Guild ban on any assistance to him and his Guild.

The only point I've made here, and here it comes again, is that if GOA chooses to enforce its naming policy, then it should enforce its whole naming policy, and not just the bit covering religious names. Basically, there's two justifiable positions here. One is Brannor's, which is to report any name which contradicts the naming policy, be they religious, commercial or just plan silly. I suspect this is GOA's general stance it's just that they're being very passive about it, but I can understand and respect the logic behind his approach. The other is to take the Cannabis-in-Brixton line - ie, we have a policy, but breaches of that policy are so widespread that it's just not worthwhile/efficient enforcing it. What is NOT justifiable is a policy which deems those names breaching the CoC with religious connotations to be worthy of intervention, whereas those names breaching the CoC without religious connotations are tolerated.

Me, I take the cannabis line. Roleplayers are a tiny minority on Prydwen. There are far, far more names in breach of the CoC than there are roleplayers, so I don't see I have any right to try and enforce my view on other people. That's why I don't report names. Instead, rather than ask GOA to protect me and like-minded people, I helped establish what effectively amounts to a subset of the DAoC Community in which we have every right to set and enforce our own standards. Seeking protection from offence is precisely what primary schoolchildren do when they run to their mothers claiming "he called me bad names". Until we're all identical clones, there will always be ideas, objects and other people we disagree with. Some we find offensive. That's life. Part of being an adult is dealing with that.

Anyway, this thread is old now, and the last time I had to have these arguments I was in school. I was right then, too. I'm off back to Camelot to see if Suzanne Charlton has any predictions for weather the sun will come out over Campecorentin Forest.

 

[Turamber]

Originally posted by aethtemplar


I could even extract a modicum of revenge if I could be bothered (I can't be bothered though) by ordering a Guild ban on any assistance to him and his Guild.


Anyway, this thread is old now, and the last time I had to have these arguments I was in school. I was right then, too.

As I said in my last post I am not going to add any further material to the religious debates going on here, when people are close minded and self righteous (see above) then there is little that can be said to them ... it's just a waste of words and time. Though I would say you've misunderstood a lot of what I've said, sadly. Probably a little bit over your head

What's this about 'you could order a Guild ban on any assistance to Ondor and his Guild'? Do you really have the power to do that? Must say my opinion of the Templars as a whole just took a nosedive.

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

Originally posted by old.Turamber


As I said in my last post I am not going to add any further material to the religious debates going on here, when people are close minded and self righteous (see above) then there is little that can be said to them ... it's just a waste of words and time. Though I would say you've misunderstood a lot of what I've said, sadly. Probably a little bit over your head

Now you are one arrogant schmuck, aren't you?

If you had read Aethelstan's post carefully and actually comprehended what he tried to say, you wouldn't call him closeminded or even self-righteous.

Originally posted by old.Turamber
What's this about 'you could order a Guild ban on any assistance to Ondor and his Guild'? Do you really have the power to do that? Must say my opinion of the Templars as a whole just took a nosedive.

Did he say: "I am going to put a guild ban on Turamber."?
I don't think so.

Does he have the power? He is a GM, isn't he?
Dunno if guild bans are issued in the <Young DAoC Christians> but it's not uncommon.

The Knight Templars are probably one of the finest guilds on the Euro servers. If their GM can stand up for his opinions- the better.

Now go play the game, my little, christian schmuck...

 

[old.Tyraette]

<sigh>

this has gone far enough. getting a little silly now, my flameretardent suit just failed.

it seems to me like you both have good points about it, and also that youre not going to convince the other that you are 100% right. so why not just forget about the whole bloody thing before it breaks down even further.

what started as a questioning post about guild naming policies, rapidly descended into religious arguing, goa naming policies, and now flame laden replies. just accept that you have differing views on the subject and move on.

i shall personally hunt out whoever makes a post on this particular offtopic friend, and issue an emoticon slap or three as appropriate. and those who have been on the receiving end will certainly tell you that this is not a good thing <grins>

 

[aethtemplar]

I just want to be clear - Tanya is GM of the Templars. I am joint second-in-command with Lamont. The other officers are Shamara, Nikademus, Cirwan, Cawen and Eowen. As with most other Guilds, we reserve the right to make Guild policy on any and all game-related matters. So theoretically we could set a policy to cease to assist a person or people if we wanted. That we don't is because we see that as a bit petty. Someone would have to really go out of their way to seriously piss off a lot of Templars before we'd so such a thing. Certainly more than just throwing a few harmless childish insults like Ondor did. Life's too short to get worked up over such things.

 

[Turamber]

/em reads Sickofits latest rant

/em yawns and wonders when he'll get some new material

 

[Uncle Sick(tm)]

/uses his Red Tractor(tm) to turn Turamber into a writhing mass of pulp.

Wee

 

[Turamber]

More like a yawning one

 

[ivan_tribbiani]

Originally posted by sickofit...


The Knight Templars are probably one of the finest guilds on the Euro servers. If their GM can stand up for his opinions- the better.

Now go play the game, my little, christian schmuck... [/B]

...Errm Knights Templar <not knight templars> managed to become one of the finest guilds due to carefully designed CoC and steep hierarchy. Admittedly they have the best craftsman and siege engineer in Albion < we all know and love this merc >, but that has nothing to do with the guild itself <apart from sponsorship [winks at Nik and Graham]> No matter how good a guild can be, every single one has at least a problem <as any organization does>. All guild problems should be solved internally in order to avoid badmouthing the guild in question, if any outsider has a problem with the guild, post it on the guilds homepage forum... Two recent cases of threads turning into flamefests would prolly back me up on this one.

Either be reasonable or GMs will soon resent to making you sign nondisclosure agreement ehem.

PS: want to point out that what initially started as a post related to recruiting policies of a guild is now covering a wider issue only partially relevant to the case.

 

[Garris-]

Ugh. This is getting old. Lets just agree to disagree, shall we?

 

[fatgit]

Originally posted by old.Tyraette


fattus gittus can certainly fit into the terms 'insulting or degrading'. by coming down hard on shaeffer shex, the yardstick has been set, and theyve got to uphold it.

for the record, with the names ive mentioned, especially Donttouch metits and spanky joyjoy, and indeed Alla Khazam and fattus gittus (regardless of intent on those last two) , now that i know that youve read them, i fully expect them to be at least submitted to goa, otherwise I would question why youre being selective over who gets submitted.
.

Please feel free to submit it you village idiot.

The SS Great Britain sailed from Liverpool to Sydney Australia in the 1840's with a passenger with the surname Gittius.
In addition, the Oxford Endlish Dictionary has the following definition for "git" which you call swearing :
git
/gt/ noun slang silly or contemptible person.

now unfortunately they don't allow searching for the definitions of actual swear words, otherwise I could paste the definition of twat, which would (as the printed versions do) display it thus :

twat
noun *vulg see old.Tyraette

Now, seeing as swearing is not searchable at http://www.askoxford.com, and git returns a definition, it is therefor NOT swearing.

There are further US definitions meaning Gate,unpleasant person etc.

Now, fattus is not in the oxford firstname search, but I'm pretty sure you cannot find a vulgar definition anywhere either.

You bring me into this discussion by threatening me. You want a flame war, you can have it.

Oh, and in case you wonder, my irc nickname - fatgit - yes, I chose it because I'm an overweight grumpy sod, and you just pissed me off bigtime.

 

[Amanita]

It was nothing personal fg (Sorted that out now ^^) Tyr was just miffed off about his lovely pune (or play on words) name was changed, while it didn't seem particularily offensive. He pointed out my name as well, which has got me watching my e-mails anxiously