theworldofdreams.com

As Ramius said, the admins have always listened to the players here on the boards. That's why the boards exist. They don't always change things because of what they read, but they usually listen.

I'm sure a few of you remember the big 'recall doesn't work the way it does on OSI' debate that raged all those years ago. Dundee held to his guns and the WoD was not destroyed by the changes. Similar things have happened many times.

Marius the Black wrote:There can be a ShadowStone, but not a TopKnot.

Actually, it's "Shadowstone". The name used above used to be my name until it was changed

REQUIREMENTS OF A CHARACTERS NAME UPON ACCEPTING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF HOLDING AN ACCOUNT IN THE WORLD OF DREAMS

0.1 Herein the preceeding is the following list of requirements a name must adhere to in absolutity.

1.1 Failure to comply with these rules is a breach of the Terms of Agreement all player (or players) agree to upon acquiring an account.

1.2 A breach of one (or more) of these rules may result in the name (or names, whether whole or in part) renamed by the Administration. Judgement is case-by-case, and no precedence (other than the rules contained herein and any future amendments) is considered when defining if a name is potentially in breach of this accordance.

1.3 Unless otherwise specified [by the Administration], a name must be whole and complete (where whole and complete refers to a name that adequately satisfies all requirments of this law, and where adequately is under the direct judgement of the administration) and all names must adhere completely and wholly to the following:

2.0 A name:

* may consist of any characters from A through Z.

* cannot have a number (or numbers) or any other character (or characters). Characters excluded from this rule are any that are reasonably and justifiably used to construct a name (hypens): where reasonably refers to remaining wholly and completely in accordance with the rules presented and justifiably means under the judgement of the Administration.

* may not include titles whether prefixes or suffixes, in whole or in part (e.g Sir, Queen, the Black) in their names upon generation; these titles will be conferred upon as appropriately deemed by the Administration.

* cannot be readily identifiable by the Admin as a historical or fictional proper noun, whether whole or in part (e.g Julius Caesar, Gandalf the Uber, Bat-d00d).

* must be a reasonable proper noun. A proper noun is a noun which names a specific person, place, or thing, wherein reasonable refers to 'in accordance with all other rules of this agreement'. This includes correct capitalisation, which is limited to the specific first character of a name or names, inclusive of surnames and any appropriate characterisation (hypens).

* as understood by the societal trends of the current Admin, 'common modern' (e.g Smith, Jones, Bob, Tom) names (sur- or first) are inappropriate, whether whole or in part. Where common is defined as 'occuring frequently within the bounds of society' and 'modern' as 'within the present time'.

* Surnames already in use by another account-holder must be used with express permission by the said account-holder, or else not at all.

* must not consist of any abusive, desultory or racist word, term or slang, whether whole or in part.

* must be sensible. "Sensible" is defined as a name immediately assumed to be feasably given to a child by parents at birth, culturual differences notwithstanding, which adheres to all the rules presently outlined.

* must be at least two characters long. Surnames are not a requirement of having a whole and complete name, as of the publication of this document.

All player names are subject to the authority of the Administration, who hold the exclusive right to interpret, change or otherwise modify these rules.


-M

All hail the mighty rule maker in all his glory. Ummm gimme a break lol.

That's the same name policy the WoD already has, you just covered it in legalese.

Longshadow wrote:

Tamla Tamara wrote:Sasha, Liam's Regulars

I've still got that blue cloak laying around here somewhere.

What's The Captain up to these days?

Stand Tall and Be Proud!

heh. I just went back and read that story I wrote about the first captain. Those were fun times.

Oh my! I remember those cloaks! Do you still play there? I'd like to read your story :O) I remember we used to hang on the bank roof in NJ, I miss that music and goofing off on the bank with an occasional oopsie death. Used to "joust" with our staves haha!

Longshadow wrote:That's the same name policy the WoD already has, you just covered it in legalese.

He must be a lawyer.

A blood-sucking lawyer. (Isn't that the only kind?)

We have the Application review board why not the Naming review board?

Every time a new character is made they can suggest their name, in the mean time they will get issued a temporary mundane name like Irma or Herb. (This is a suggestion, I just I don’t want Ima Newb to run around for a few days while the board is trying to Vote)

Every few days the board will get a list/gump of the suggested names. On the list they can write little comments on the questionable names. The comments can’t be something like I don't like the name Clint or Gethlek. The comments would be for stuff like this name is the name of a minor character in this Book, Movie, Etc. or this is a phonetic spelling of this word and what that word means. Names without comments are approved. Any names with a comment need to be voted on. If the name gets rejected then the character keeps their mundane name and can apply for a new name lets say in a week. (This way they aren’t always hassling the board. Also the more blatant the suggestion, like trying to say Dakon Darkblade then they get to keep their mundane name for a month or 12)

What do you all think?

Also, I Know this will win me some fans, there needs to be a retroactive vote on names because frankly some of the names we have here now shouldn’t be here.

A list of Current characrter names should be made cause many people get upset when someone else has a name similar to their's.

no, just no, stupid idea

Myr wrote:What do you all think?

Simon wrote:no, just no, stupid idea

I am Sorry Simon, I should have been clear. I was asking people's opinions, not for some troll to come along and try to make a funny.

Well I think the admins do enough, spend enough time, money, and consideration to make things here nice for us. And I think they do a D*mn good job of it too. I think having a new board for names would be redundant: they already take care of that in the application phase, and if a new (unacceptable) name pops up, they quietly and discreetly take care of it. Why is it such a big deal?

I think the problem with your suggestion Myr is that it would take too much time. If you wanted to have a board, I don't see why it can't be public in the forums, with a staff member giving the final okay.

Longshadow wrote:I asked you once before to write a clear and consise naming rule. One that admins several years removed from now can read and follow.

That was the point of the exercise. It's not about writing new rules: generally, the rules make sense. What the problem is, is that they aren't clear enough (the interpretation). Already we have issues with "what is a private area" for the macroing 'rule', and there are other issues and the logical step from this is that there will be problems in the future.

I am not a lawyer, but I understand and respect the concept of Justice over pseudo-monarchial arbitration. It is my desire to see that justice in WoD - for all -, and I refuse to accept that the concession that we must give the Admin on the account of them 'donating' their time is a basic contract into denying what is considered a very basic human right. Nor will I refuse to accept the condition that is also assumed "well, if you don't like it, leave" because it is accepted as an undeniable truth, the ultimate argument, where it is a crude, bullying tactic.

What I desire may never come to fruition. What I think is best for WoD may not be the best at all. How I go about what I do may alienate more than inspire. If so, then so be it. I can only do what I believe is right, and trust in my judgement. And so it is that I argue thusly:

"Don't name yourself something kewl" or "Don't name yourself something that is less funny every time you read it" as rules, to me, don't seem like they will hold up to the test of time. Especially when compared to:-

* cannot be readily identifiable by the Admin as a historical or fictional proper noun, whether whole or in part (e.g Julius Caesar, Gandalf the Uber, Bat-d00d).

- for example. However you want to denounce it, the rules I write meet all the expectations you put forward. I urge any and all to put forward any criticisms or comments you have of the rules written above, if any. Certainly, if you can do better, I encourage you to do so. A community that works and builds together is a very positive place to be. Rather than desultory comments and harrassment, I would dearly prefer a well-put-forward argument, a challenging question or interesting perspective on the topic.

No one asks the Admin to do what they do, that is true. But no one asks me to try and help improve something I care about. What difference is there, besides assumed power? What happens when the Admin leave, if there are none to take their place? Do we let WoD die as we cling to these strange customs where people must bend their knee to people no greater than themselves because they hold some imagined authority?

We, the players, have no access or understanding to what the Admin do, so none of us (as players) can be sure of just how much is going on. It could be most certainly true that WoD stands on the shoulders of a determined few, or that there are is a veritable army of souls kind enough to support this unique culture.

In any case, I believe that if we are forced to remain in the position that we are, the Admin should at least become accountable to the players for their actions. But, that is another argument.

-M

I wasn't trolling Scotty. It is a dumb idea. We're here to have fun. No one, no one wants to screen names.

The system we use now isn't broke so why fix it?

Marius the Black wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but I understand and respect the concept of Justice over pseudo-monarchial arbitration. It is my desire to see that justice in WoD - for all -, and I refuse to accept that the concession that we must give the Admin on the account of them 'donating' their time is a basic contract into denying what is considered a very basic human right. Nor will I refuse to accept the condition that is also assumed "well, if you don't like it, leave" because it is accepted as an undeniable truth, the ultimate argument, where it is a crude, bullying tactic. -M

again marius i would ask you since you refuse to accept that the admins control WoD what you are going to do about it? "if you don't like it leave" isn't a bullying tactic it's a statement of fact. if you don't like something or other about wod you can complain about it to the admins. if for whatever reason they decide not to change things to suit you there are really only two choices. decide you can live with whatever it was that annoyed you or find someplace that suits you better. the third alternative being to kvetch endlessly about it which doesn't fly here. well i suppose you could fume about it quietly until you get an ulcer but since that isn't going to annoy anyone but you i think we can ignore that one.

Marius the Black wrote:
No one asks the Admin to do what they do, that is true. But no one asks me to try and help improve something I care about. What difference is there, besides assumed power? What happens when the Admin leave, if there are none to take their place? Do we let WoD die as we cling to these strange customs where people must bend their knee to people no greater than themselves because they hold some imagined authority?
-M

there is nothing imagined about the authority of the admins. when an admin leaves i imagine they discuss whether a replacement is needed and if so who among the current player base would be suitable for ascension (so rarely get to use that word hehe) to admin status.

Marius the Black wrote:We, the players, have no access or understanding to what the Admin do, so none of us (as players) can be sure of just how much is going on. It could be most certainly true that WoD stands on the shoulders of a determined few, or that there are is a veritable army of souls kind enough to support this unique culture.

In any case, I believe that if we are forced to remain in the position that we are, the Admin should at least become accountable to the players for their actions. But, that is another argument.

-M

the number of admins are listed in the manual i think and it's not very many people. on the other hand these people "own" the sandbox we play in. they contribute their hard come by money and scarce time to make sure your sandbox runs efficiently. they are also singularly patient and reasonable souls. I have played in wod for four and a half years now and i have never seen an admin take action that was unreasonable or illconsidered.

when players start moaning about their "rights" it's definitely time for a spanking imnsho.