Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

911 Excellent

About Goodwood_Alpha

  • Rank
    Lieutenant Commander
  • Birthday 09/11/1979
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    SE Michigan
  • Interests
    Sci-fi and military/historical fiction (reading and writing), World and American History, and various feats of engineering.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,908 profile views
  1. USS Dallas

    Unless I'm missing some pre- or early-alpha information, the Cleveland was never at Tier VIII; she was always a Tier VI ship. It's just that in the alpha and beta days, she could and did see Tier IX and X matches.
  2. Submarines (here comes the hellfire)

    Is that the ginger in the engine room? She was my pick for "regular" females. Of the mental models, I'd take Hyuuga any day.
  3. How to report really offensive names

    Wait, what? Talk about a non-sequitur. In no way, shape or form does saying "My race is superior to that race" come anywhere near to advocating for any kind of violence, let alone racial.
  4. How to report really offensive names

    I have already stated, multiple times, that WG has that right. It's their platform, after all. Actually, nobody has the "right" to advocate violence. This is one of the very few constraints on speech and expression that I accept. A strict constructionist approach, but as I have stated, the principle behind freedom of speech and expression should include other realms. If you say objectionable things while you are on the job, then yes, the organization you work for has the ability to fire you—they should not, and most of the time they do not, have the right to fire you for things they don't like but that you have said during your time off. And naturally, it is within everyone's right to expel someone who is a guest in their house or on their property for any reason, and not just speech, but it is actually against the law to evict someone from property they are renting from you for any speech acts they have committed. Or, at the very least, it should be.
  5. How to report really offensive names

    Which two bits? You've marked out three different clauses in red, so I'm legitimately confused as to what you're trying to say. Anyway, I'll try to give an answer to the best of my ability. The principle of freedom of speech is meant to insulate the speaker and their audience from criminal, economic, and societal consequences—i.e., you can't be arrested, fired from your job, or ostracized from your community (i.e., evicted from your house or apartment) for things you have said. This does not apply to interpersonal consequences, in that someone is free to discontinue a friendship based on something you might have said, whatever that might be. This is also the justification upon which private enterprises can regulate what might be said using their platform. So yes, WG does have the right to censor usernames they deem unacceptable, and punish users of their product within the confines of their product and service for what they might say using that product. This is actually also true for Twitter and Facebook, but those are separate arguments that are mostly based on the principles those two companies were originally founded upon—they have, in a sense, gone back on their word over the years. In the end, there are different kinds of consequences that can affect us differently. I have no desire to be banned from the WG forums, or get slapped with chat bans in the game, so if I have something to say, I do make the effort to be polite and efficient with my words. I certainly don't go spouting epithets for the sake of it.
  6. How to report really offensive names

    In essence, I am arguing for people to not make a mountain out of a molehill. Screencap, report, then move the [edited] on.
  7. How to report really offensive names

    I could have sworn I've addressed this point already, but fine, we'll have another go: Yes, responsibility and consequences are a part of speech, even free speech. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute, and needs to be talked about whenever the subject comes up, is when one or more persons decide that they have the right, privilege, responsibility, or whatever, to attempt to dictate what others can and cannot say. Compelled and curated speech is the sure path to tyranny, and too many people are eager to jump onto that bandwagon already. Free speech isn't just about our right to speak, but about others' rights to hear us. You certainly do not have the right to put your size 14 foot up anyone's backside because of what they say to you.
  8. How to report really offensive names

    Aidspig 101: Take an opponent's example of a thing being what they said it was, and twist it into their motivation for even making the argument in the first place. Look, I get it, you're triggered by that word and want to bring attention to people who employ it in their username or toss it around carelessly in conversations. Great, wonderful, you're doing a bang-up job. Keep clutching at those pearls, because that's all you're doing at this point. Nobody, least of all me, is saying that it is okay to use [edited] in a username; I just don't let it get to me. Have you reported this issue to WG? If yes, then they'll get to it when they can. If not, what on Earth are you waiting for?
  9. How to report really offensive names

    Intent is a tricky mistress at the best of times on the Internet, so IMHO it isn't as big a determining factor as it might be in real life. Still, it is our choice to get offended, to allow whatever knee-jerk reaction we might have to a thing to morph into full-blown umbrage. And good for you at taking such with regard to some of those names; what do you want, a badge or a chest to pin it on? I set myself against anyone who threatens to dictate what I can and cannot say. Even the church ladies.
  10. How to report really offensive names

    Congratulations. Except that was the premise for a stillborn debate, not the conclusion I was trying to draw—there is actually a specific way that a debate topic should be constructed when engaging in formal rhetoric. I agree that the choice should be down to the individual, however.
  11. How to report really offensive names

    Point 1. It doesn't matter what their motivations are or were, we're certainly not going to find out. Point 2. It isn't our, or even WG's, place to determine why; all they can and will do is rename the users if and when they choose. Point 3. Ibid. Point 4. Ibid. Point 5. Who the hell cares what Kotaku might say? Kotaku are a glorified blog that abandoned any semblance of journalistic ethics and integrity years ago. Point 6. WG could do with a bit more press, IMHO; I seem to recall someone saying a while back that WoWS isn't marketed particularly well in the NA region. Yes, the act of [edited] is bad. Nobody is going to stand up and say that it is a good thing. Rapeseed is a legitimate name for a legitimate shade of yellow, but thanks to triggered SOCJUS types, that word is now verboten. Were they right to agitate for an ultimately silly and pedantic change? I don't think so; I think they were just looking for an excuse to virtue signal, so that everyone else can see what good people they are because they campaigned against a thing.
  12. Submarine Watch - Update

    Nothing that has been stated by the pro-subs crowd in this thread has done anything to overturn the historical, tactical and game-based facts of the matter—submarines were as useful in fleet combat as tits on a fish.
  13. How to report really offensive names

    Admittedly I didn't really go on to state what that unwarranted assumption was (it's different to the OP's, but that's no excuse). IMHO, you were assuming the intent of the people who made those names; it is possible they were only trying to be edgelords, and it is also possible that those were bot accounts or made for some other reason. So you're right, in that I didn't go far enough to make my case, and because of that I did come off as a bit silly. Your point about ordinary consequences for voluntary acts is well-taken, it's just that beyond WG ever deciding to enforce the rules in the form of a name change is something that should be left for them to do on their own good time, and not necessarily something that we as individuals should raise a hue and cry (in the legal sense) over. On the other hand, it does not necessarily follow that the masks we wear provide insight into our characters; often they do, but thanks to the Greater Internet Dickwad Theory (see the link in my signature), we know that following this premise can in fact lead to false conclusions. Part of being an effective troll is having a trollish persona, and a significant part of establishing that in the first place is deciding upon a provocative nickname.