CommanderData211
   |
Posted - 2010.11.25 11:29:00 -
[1]
He is right, to a certain degree. When in communication with another player in EVE it becomes unrated. But, it is technically rated teen and by virtue of that fact, the precious sensibilities of a teenager could be destroyed by looking at a profane name in local, without having agreed to any sort of comunicae.
However, he is not even really arguing about profanity specifically because he states many times, quite fervantly, that he does not want to expand the catalog of the profanity filter. He is arguing that the petition system be changed in such a way so that he can press on with his crusade to protect the innocent and uphold the law (EULA). Now if we look at it from this standpoint we can ignore the profanity discussion altogether and focus on the real reason that he is the only one supporting his topic.
Plain and simple it will waste the GM's time. He seem to scoff at the very idea that this could actually eat up more time than he is willing to believe. In his original post he states "I decided to petition in realizing it was literally pointless after-words". He never stopped to question just why exactly it was pointless.
I assure you Gallion that the reason that it was pointless was because the GM's have to address literally thousands of petitions every day. There is a well defined reason that there is a cap on active petitions. Because it takes up time. Now I know that you believe that there are plenty of smart and capable people at CCP (and there are) but they are doing a lot of things all at once and they cannot prioritize naming conventions over game destabilization, even if those names in question breach the EULA.
You have stated unequivocally that raising the active petition limit will in no way hinder the process of EVE's development, but what numbers do you have to support that claim. Almost everyone here has elicited concerns over the GM's time management in regards to the amount of petitions they receive. Why do you disregard that immediately? Is it because you really believe that they could withstand any amount of work just because they are smart and capable? Or is it that you believe all of us opposed to your idea are simply trolling it and attacking you?
To be clear, I believe this to be a well thought out and cogent argument against your proposal, and in no way should it be construed as a troll or as an attack. I just think that there are ramifications beyond your well-intentioned idea that you have not or are unwilling to consider.
On a side note however, I must ask, what did you find particularly offensive about the word crotch? I don't mean to pull this back into another vague discussion of syntax, rather the word itself. It does not actually refer to a part of the human anatomy, vulgar or otherwise. Now, you have a crotch on your pants, and technically you have one between your legs, but the male and female reproductive organs are not a part of it.
Sorry everyone for the wall of text.
|