Report username inappropriate

[MrBandes]

So i see that one week has passed and you guys still did find this alias offensive enough for some reason.

That person is playing with it happily ever since then.

[Stubbe-Unibet]

44 minutes ago, MrBandes said:

So i see that one week has passed and you guys still did find this alias offensive enough for some reason.

That person is playing with it happily ever since then.

Fixed 🙂

[P0kerM0nk]

Child lurer in Dutch, sad people out there.

[Samba]

Kind wish we couldn't change usernames all the time as it would fix this, or atleast you could maybe warn people/revoke their ability to use the feature?

 

[Andy-Relax]

15 hours ago, P0kerM0nk said:

Child lurer in Dutch, sad people out there.

Removed

37 minutes ago, Samba said:

Kind wish we couldn't change usernames all the time as it would fix this, or atleast you could maybe warn people/revoke their ability to use the feature?

 

I'm creating a list of the worst offenders and this account has joined the list given their alias history

Only one country exists on the list.

[dc10FTW]

4 hours ago, Andy-Unibet said:

Removed

I'm creating a list of the worst offenders and this account has joined the list given their alias history

Only one country exists on the list.

which country is it?

[GR1ZZL3R]

3 minutes ago, dc10FTW said:

which country is it?

There's no way he's going to tell us. If he did I'd claim it was racist, Livertool would claim I'm whining, Wudu would claim Trump is the second coming (or he is) and things could get very ugly. Let it lie. 🤨

[dc10FTW]

i was thinking netherlands considering  the language being used, but i wanted to make sure.

Edited December 19, 2022 by dc10FTW

[Andy-Relax]

13 hours ago, dc10FTW said:

which country is it?

 

12 hours ago, dc10FTW said:

i was thinking netherlands considering  the language being used, but i wanted to make sure.

It's not the Dutch. Even though that removed alias was Dutch above, the account did not contain multiple inappropriate aliases so is not on my list.

Maybe once I have a bigger sample size I can release the naughty list 🙂

 

[Purps]

13 hours ago, dc10FTW said:

which country is it?

"Hunter" is a Russian/Ukrainian living in Finland apparently.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=57958510&postcount=29661

What an idiot though... 🙄

Edited December 20, 2022 by Purps

[Ja-z-Polszy]

1 hour ago, Purps said:

"Hunter" is a Russian/Ukrainian living in Finland apparently.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=57958510&postcount=29661

What an idiot though... 🙄

 

[Samba]

2 hours ago, Purps said:

"Hunter" is a Russian/Ukrainian living in Finland apparently.

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=57958510&postcount=29661

What an idiot though... 🙄

Excellent find, good to see some of his other nicknames too, I know a few more but I won't say incase it's against terms or something. I've been destroying this guy for the last 2 weeks he will be leaving soon anyway.

[GotKot99]

Hi guys,

(WARNING - YOU ARE ABOUT TO ENTER INTO A VERY BORING MESSAGE 🤦‍♂️😴)

I think it was only yesterday that I first started to look this whole topic. Very interesting and important too.

In my opinion, truly offensive nicknames shouldn’t be allowed. At the same time, it is sometimes hard to draw a clear line between acceptable and unacceptable. This is true especially when we live in times when it seems that being offended by almost everything is considered little short of mandatory (speaking in general terms here; not referring to anyone of you).

I myself am a moral absolutist which in ethics/moral philosophy and in short means that there are certain moral principles that are universal. Hence, we can have categories of wrong and right. Okay, not interesting - bla, bla, bla…

In practical terms, what I’m getting at is the following: do we have some sort of ground rules set for (morally) acceptable nicknames? This might help to solve the problem. It can also create problems, if the rules become too limiting. Lastly, as I mentioned earlier, there will probably always be cases that could be considered debatable (I.e., how some nickname is to be interpreted; what is the original intent of the nickname; have the creator of the nickname even understood what some nickname means etc.)

In summary: (1) There are clear cases of nicknames that are morally offensive and unacceptable, and hence should be removed. (2) In all probability there are nicknames that might be interpreted to be morally wrong, but necessarily are not. (3) Some ground rules concerning the nicknames could be establish to alleviate the situation (but it can also cause some problems of its own too).

Have a nice day - signed by Judge GotKot

😎😉

 

[Andy-Relax]

1 hour ago, GotKot99 said:

 

At the same time, it is sometimes hard to draw a clear line between acceptable and unacceptable.

 

If you think there is a >1% chance it'll be deemed unacceptable, don't create that alias. It's a pretty clear line. There are millions and millions of number, letter and symbol combinations that are not going to offend anyone, just choose those. 

Nobody is accidentally creating offensive aliases.

[Livertool]

19 hours ago, GR1ZZL3R said:

There's no way he's going to tell us. If he did I'd claim it was racist, Livertool would claim I'm whining, Wudu would claim Trump is the second coming (or he is) and things could get very ugly. Let it lie. 🤨

I really don't see what the country got to do with this? Racism depends on which county it is from, not what is being said 🤔

It was obviously nono nick and rightfully removed but that is far away from everything being racist like, idk, posting numbers of domestic violence from some country. If someone has difficulties to understand this then it is their problem not mine.

And to someone who is concerned about rudeness and whispering, here is hint: if you are going to put words to others mouth then have decency and balls to quote or tag them so they are notified about it and they can either ignore or reply what is claimed without searching every thread of community to see who claims and what 😉 

[GotKot99]

1 hour ago, Andy-Unibet said:

If you think there is a >1% chance it'll be deemed unacceptable, don't create that alias. It's a pretty clear line. There are millions and millions of number, letter and symbol combinations that are not going to offend anyone, just choose those. 

Nobody is accidentally creating offensive aliases.

I think the logic given 👆 will suffice within this context. I’m also thinking likewise, that at least the vast majority of people will not create offensive aliases by accident (strictly speaking, “nodoby” maybe too strong a word to use - but let’s not go too philosophical here 😄).

However I would argue, since we have different worldviews and values, the concept of “offensive alias” is not so black and white (and this will not contradict moral absolutism - but again - that is another discussion 😄). I’ll take one practical example: There are a lot of poker aliases with respect to different kinds of sexual behaviour/inclinations. To some they are not at all offensive, but rather funny. But to others they are offensive, by the very virtue of their more traditional sexual ethics, for example.

Summa summarum: I think most of the offensive alias cases are clear. But there are still many aliases that are not so clear in terms of offensive/inoffensive. The moral judgment of the aliases (in general) depend upon our worldviews and the core values we have. And as we live in a pluralistic world, we will have disagreements over what is wrong and what is right. But as I have already said, I think the practical logic outlined above is most likely sufficient for the intents and purposes. These other points are simply my personal more philosophical ramblings.

Thank you 🙂

[psrquack]

1 hour ago, Andy-Unibet said:

If you think there is a >1% chance it'll be deemed unacceptable, don't create that alias. It's a pretty clear line. There are millions and millions of number, letter and symbol combinations that are not going to offend anyone, just choose those. 

Nobody is accidentally creating offensive aliases.

You have this avatar from the beginning.

This is quite similar to this picture:

What do you think, does Unibet reached the >1% offensive hurt for players who's relavites suffered in the Eastern block after 1945?

[Livertool]

8 minutes ago, psrquack said:

What do you think, does Unibet reached the >1% offensive hurt for players who's relavites suffered in the Eastern block after 1945?

It ain't actually about the race but what western consensus thinks. Ewhunter pointed out rightfully at 2+2 thread that would for example "russianhunter" be removed? Probably not cause some groups are ok to be spitted at no matter if they had anything to deserve it or not, western moral posers thinks it behalf of us so sheeps know what to bleat.

[Andy-Relax]

It's an avatar of a man with a moustache and some hair. Just because it looks a bit like Stalin doesn't mean it is Stalin or was based on him. 

[Andy-Relax]

7 minutes ago, Livertool said:

It ain't actually about the race but what western consensus thinks. Ewhunter pointed out rightfully at 2+2 thread that would for example "russianhunter" be removed? Probably not cause some groups are ok to be spitted at no matter if they had anything to deserve it or not, western moral posers thinks it behalf of us so sheeps know what to bleat.

Hunter with wildcards before and after it was added to the blacklist at the same time as everything else. It doesn't auto remove any already active aliases so if anyone sees them I'll be happy to remove them.

[psrquack]

9 minutes ago, Andy-Unibet said:

It's an avatar of a man with a moustache and some hair. Just because it looks a bit like Stalin doesn't mean it is Stalin or was based on him. 

But you have written if there is >1% more concern, then it's better not creating it. And now you have confirmed there is a similar look. Now I'm very confused what the guideline is.

[Andy-Relax]

I said alias creation, not avatar creation.

 

[Livertool]

14 minutes ago, Andy-Unibet said:

It's an avatar of a man with a moustache and some hair. Just because it looks a bit like Stalin doesn't mean it is Stalin or was based on him. 

Sure both have mustache and hair but which one do you have more resemblance to Stalin or brings Stalin to mind?

I don't care which are removed or not, i'm quite immune of hurting my feelings over avatars. Hunter showed really bad taste knowing the history and rightfully removed but some of requests are just so funny and based over nothing but personal virtue signalling.

[Stubbe-Unibet]

8 minutes ago, Andy-Unibet said:

I said alias creation, not avatar creation.

 

If those two pictures look anything alike, then I guess alias and avatar are the same thing as well 🤣

[psrquack]

7 minutes ago, Andy-Unibet said:

I said alias creation, not avatar creation.

 

Yes, exactly. I was curious if there is a higher standard for players or if Unibet demands the >1% hurting standard then the company accepts that standard too or make excuses for itself. It seems it makes.

Btw I agree with Mr. Tool. There were avatars those very offensive in my language but who cares. Winning against them feels better to me.