Unacceptable Name?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well sometimes you'll pick a name and wont even know it exists in some kind of washed up soap opera or cartoon. Now i bet you 10 bucks my last name StormHunter is probably taken somewhere, i just hope it's not coming from someone in a soap. :lol:
 
Or in the case of quite a few that I notice but don't say anything about (well I don't say anything about any of them I just try to ignore the person) it's some minor character in a book who only makes a couple appearances. I don't see them getting their names nerfed though heh. I saw a Leet earlier... it was kind of frightening.
 
Personally, I'm one of the more lax on naming policy. Obviously, I won't hesitate to nerf "Leetdewd" but if your name is the third wizard to appear in the Chronicles of Wizardly Wizards, I won't catch it. Also, surnames have considerably more leeway. Stormwolf will never be a problem, unless it's your first name.
 
I'm sure you'll find a great majority of offendees aren't reading anything. You know, the 'READ THIS FIRST' that the folks just blow by because they 'know everything about EQ and there's nothing you can tell them'.

We had someone pop online in Beginners the other day with a blatent 'Irockurworld' sorta name and once everyone told him 'it was in the document' he went back and changed it.

The only way you'll catch those folks is to force them to read a EULA style popup before they enter a name. And even then... well, they're clueless.
 
Fury said:
The only way you'll catch those folks is to force them to read a EULA style popup before they enter a name. And even then... well, they're clueless.
Click to expand...

The EULA already gets popped in ur face every time (tough it aint the WR one). And I try to kill that1 as fast as i can to!
 
Well, no titles could just as much mean "no titles in first name". While "no titles in first name" make perfect sense, "no titles" in surname makes no sense at all..
So the correct guess is that Jack The'Great is all ok ?
 
Nergul said:
Well, no titles could just as much mean "no titles in first name". While "no titles in first name" make perfect sense, "no titles" in surname makes no sense at all..
So the correct guess is that Jack The'Great is all ok ?
Click to expand...

Policy aside, that would be a retarded name anyway :brow:
 
Jack The`Great would not be okay because you cannot give yourself titles. Titles are awarded through GM events and other such things as a status symbol.
 
Nergul said:
Well, no titles could just as much mean "no titles in first name". While "no titles in first name" make perfect sense, "no titles" in surname makes no sense at all..
So the correct guess is that Jack The'Great is all ok ?
Click to expand...
You can't be that dumb.
I think you are just trying to be contrary and difficult.
 
LoL I know that name is stupid, but I just took the same example to illustrate.
Btw surnames in the medieval times are all titles, that's where the surnames came from (for exemple to differenciate two guys named "Jack" since surnames didn't exist at that time), so I think I'm not the dumb one :brow:
(since it's all about medieval fantasy).
 
You're the only one who thinks you aren't the dumb one, if you think "The'Great" is an acceptable surname because the rules dont state explicitly that titles arent allowed as names.
Not to mention, not all surnames were titles. Some were, but more a way of identification than a 'title'.
 
Nergul said:
Well, no titles could just as much mean "no titles in first name". While "no titles in first name" make perfect sense, "no titles" in surname makes no sense at all..
So the correct guess is that Jack The'Great is all ok ?
Click to expand...

If there is a broad, general rule saying "No titles", how do you figure that a sub-category that is covered by that rule is excepted when no such exception is mentioned in the rule itself?

The only reason we have to enforce rules 98% of the time seems to be because the brain train left town an hour before roughly half of humanity had a chance to hop on.
 
I thought in medieval Titles were assigned to people, not people giving themselves titles, Actually that hasn't changed for these days too.
 
Nuncio said:
Not to mention, not all surnames were titles. Some were, but more a way of identification than a 'title'
Click to expand...
Well, yes. That's what I meant. You don't have to be that aggressive.
Also Jack The'Great is probably one of the last names I would take. Did I ever said I wanted that name ?
Bah.

@Melwin: Well I thought those rules were about first names, not surnames, that's all. Thanks for clearing things out.
 
Nergul said:
Nuncio said:
Not to mention, not all surnames were titles. Some were, but more a way of identification than a 'title'
Click to expand...
Well, yes. That's what I meant. You don't have to be that aggressive.
Also Jack The'Great is probably one of the last names I would take. Did I ever said I wanted that name ?
Bah.

@Melwin: Well I thought those rules were about first names, not surnames, that's all. Thanks for clearing things out.
Click to expand...

An acceptable naming policy is just that, an acceptable naming policy. "Whose the dumb one?" Ok, can we stop slinging excrement here? Not all medieval surnames were titles, hell, not all of them even really served a purpose. I can trace my families genealogy back that far and our surname makes absolutely no litteral or significant sense. In fact, many surnames in that time period were Geographical locations, a persons last name indicated which tribe, or which village/city he was from.

If you're going to blatantly point out facts, at least do the research to back them up. :roll:
 
mkay so how is a geographical location as a surname not a title ?
I think the problem is maybe just my bad english.

Could'nt we chill down a bit ? :eek:
 
Nergul said:
mkay so how is a geographical location as a surname not a title ?
I think the problem is maybe just my bad english.

Could'nt we chill down a bit ? :eek:
Click to expand...

Good idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom