I don’t like when people reply to my posts in the style of quote-post-quote-post as it is in my opinion a sort of weak argumentation where someone seem to lack the faculty to comprehend or counter the overall opinion or argument, and resort to chopping it up in tiny bits and attacking each bit out of context with exaggeration, falsehood and dramatization, or have completely missed my point which means I feel I will have to write even longer posts to try and get the message across. And I think I have written more than I should already.
But you are aware of this as I have said it earlier so I can only think you are doing the quote-comment-quote-comment for a specific reason and/or to provoke a reaction.
The overall message being, yes, some people are jerks, and yes, some jerks are jerks on purpose, while others are so unintentionally. Grouping up with likeminded thinkers in a forum thread and sharing all the disliking and egging each other on to utilize the system punish, in my opinion, makes those that do belong to the first group where as the random jerk and has a character name that is basically a hand hitting the keyboard like “lskdjgf” is not being a jerk on purpose or with ill intetions. Intentional jerks on the other hand are worse than unintentional jerks. They actively work together and try to figure out how to inconvenience others.
The criteria on the list I posted was from the previous replies in this thread, so that list is, if you will, a criteria list borne out of the “server identity”, which you are pretending to defend.
I don’t believe the community is limited to the a few people who post on a forum, while they are part of it they are not the whole so the notion of a community identity as being based on the opinions of a few forum posters in and of itself is invalid.
When you write that I am consistently accusing the community of acting in an intolerant and disclosive manner, that in itself is an exaggeration coupled with a falsehood. An exaggeration because it is blowing something way out of proportion for the sake of drama and a falsehood because language is layered. A message can be communicated without being quoted verbatim. I can say that a several members of the community joining voices in a forum thread and sharing ideas of dis-inclusion towards others can be intolerant and be true even though in their conspiracy, to use a Richter exaggeration, have not used the exact word “intolerance”.
Some (not all) people in this thread (NOT the entire community (I feel I have to emphasize this now)) are saying that people who name their characters in ways doesn’t meet their expectations, are being intolerant and inconsiderate and they are combatting this intolerance and inconsideration by sharing of ideas of how little toleration they have of this and of how to report/ignore.
How is one different from the other?
Do you want to be one of the intentional jerks, one of the unintentional jerks or something different altogether?
Also, I still don’t feel we have gotten an answer to what the actual issue is with the naming is. You have said it was not an immersive issue.
People get angry and annoyed when something interferes with their plans or intentions. But your game or play is not really interfered with.
Is the issue that you feel people are not showing you or the community the respect you think you and the community deserve or that they don’t take you seriously when they are breaking easy to follow rules in the environment they and you inhabit?