Namepolcy salting thread

Are you under the impression that Jr. II (the second), or III (the third), aren’t pretty common naming conventions for regular people?

Like, whatever about the nickname no dog in that race, but naming a child after yourself isnt a “royal stuffdoo” its pretty common in a lot of english speaking nations. It’s not just some fancy addendum you add for shits, its an inheritance of a family name, and if there’s a backstory then thats pretty real world-grounded RP.

Figured I’d chime in because it’s certainly not a convention that would raise any eyebrows in north america.


The issue is nicknames and titles (suffixes and prefixes) don’t go on official IDs. The name you put in for your character to be outwardly visible is also your ID.

In this case the character is Fitz Sholl. None of the rest of it belongs in the naming field or ID, but can still be shared with others.

1 Like

I guess the issue is how formal ID badges are supposed to be.
If they reflect birth record of the character, then there’s no reason they cannot include a patronym suffix, since these can be part of a legal name assigned at birth. We’re not talking honorific titles.

As an aside, holy shit it would benefit us to have an alias option on the character settings so that we can set a modified name between ID/Character name because as it is, the badge IS your name. AKA if you remove your ID your name is still identical. It would solve like half of these fairly reasonable disputes.

Edit: The official conventions state

" * All races: Are forbidden from having titles, nicknames and honorifics in their character name. This means “Dr” is not your first name and quoted nicknames don’t go in the middle of official IDs"

The suffix Jr, II, and so on arent any of these. They’re not an honorific, they are not a nickname and they are not a “title”. They are part of a full, assigned name.


you people cant seem to contain your crying so i made you a thread for it.
ban appeals are not the place to be spouting your oppinions about if a rule is shit or not
that is not relevant for the ban appeal


I literally quoted the rule in question, which seemed pretty relevant.
Other than the listed aside, which part is not relevant or off topic to whether a patronym suffix is against the rules or not?

In fact, i don’t think i even mentioned an opinion on the rule being shit or not?

Make ban appeals private or locked to outside participants if you don’t want outside participants - I don’t think either of my posts were off-topic or crying and that’s a pretty insulting way to put it.

The first half of the now deleted post wasn’t completely on-topic of ban appeal, but the second half and entirety of the new post I made exclusively addressed that the character’s name should be Fitz Sholl and how they didn’t need to completely bin the character as they were acting like they were being told to.


I dont think my post is peanut so to say, i stated the current naming rule dont allow those, and the rule is the rule, you have to follow what currently is there, if you want it to change you need to convince the admin staff or the Host, Crossed, to change the rule.

As a former headmin, you should know that isn’t possible. As for the off-topic remark, I disagree. Again, as a former head admin, you should know better. Hell, I even recall having conversations about you being frustrated with people doing the exact same thing you’ve been doing. :person_shrugging:

(The ‘crying’ remark was a bit much, I do agree with that)


I would argue that it is decently relevant when people are civilly discussing it and the fact that the main post itself is an appearance ban appeal due to Bee’s current naming policies

Respectfully, that isn’t the place. Those discussions can happen externally and can even link back to the appeal, but discourse in appeals should be entirely focused on the immediate relevant facts.

Bringing in anything else slows the appeal process down and diverts attention from the person(s) involved.

Appeals ARE NOT open discussion threads. That is not their intended purpose.


Fair, i realized what I was saying was kinda stupid right after I sent it not gonna lie. Mostly the ‘civilly discussing it’ part cause… yeah. its ban appeals. : p

This is why you don’t operate on like 5 hours of sleep my friends

1 Like

Looking back, I think a lot of the confusion likely comes from the heavily outdated “welcome” post in the category.

I’ll get with staff to update that and see if there are any other ways we can better communicate our expectations and the restrictions within those categories.

1 Like

No, I don’t. In fact I do know that it is possible for ban appeals and reports to be private and I still strongly believe that they should be just as I did when I was a headmin.

The only thing I know isn’t possible is that the specific way I requested it to be implemented was imperfect because people could just fish (phusk is the word maybe?) for new threads constantly.

I’m afraid I don’t see how explaining what an acceptable name is and why it is what is expected is an issue. I can only understand issue being taken with the first half of my deleted post.

What I dislike is this:

Examples of stuff that is PROHIBITED:
“I like this guy, he’s cool, unban him”
“Hoes mad, ban too long”
“I feel like this isn’t fair”

And that includes posts simply stating that they disagree with something even being a rule. I again, can see how half of one of my posts could be taken as one of these. If that means the whole post needs to be deleted then so be it, I can accept that and I shouldn’t have included it in the post.

However what I believe I was doing falls under this:

Related posting (quoting rules… etc) is ALLOWED but only if it does objectively contribute to processing. That means:

Explaining what the expected name is and explaining why instead of simply stating that it is what is expected with a stern tone.

Additionally explaining that the person didn’t need to totally bin their character as part of that in the deleted post, to frame that they were over-reacting to being told their name needed to change.

1 Like

There’s nothing in the guideline saying you can’t be Austin Gold II or Austin Gold Sr/Jr since real people actually have those kind of names IRL nor does the rules say you can’t have nicknames in your name.

More reason that the guildelines should be updated if the rule is going to be enforced.

(as an aside, someone should update the ban appeals rule post, it still references council rulings)

1 Like

If you’re referring to PM appeals and the like, it’s not overly practical to operate entirely based on that. It’s possible, but not ideal. To add, there are additional reasons why we can’t realistically make that switch now, which I would expect you to still be aware of.

It’s generally all or nothing. We’re not going to edit down your post to only the relevant/compliant portions. That’s not a fair expectation. You also tend to (probably unintentionally) prompt for added run-away discussion, which isn’t what we want in appeals.

As I said, all or nothing. I’m not going to edit your posts.

Let the admins handle that. Don’t mini-mod.

Yes it does.

Edit: I misread your statement. Apologies. I read into the titles portion more than the rest of your statement.

I specifically reaponded to that portion.

Patronyms are not honorifics , they are not nicknames, and in the case of any ordinary person they are not a title (like a pope or king). They’re just part of their name. It’s way more common in the american south than most places i guess, but it’s not rare or anything.
It even goes on the birth cirtificate.

Right, my bad there. However Sr/Jr or having “II” or “III” are still vaild names judging by the guildelines. Also I still believe an update is in order :person_shrugging:

that’s alright, you were correct about the nicknames though.


I recommend the rules be updated to reflect that normal players should not be participating in ban appeals at all unless it is their own then. That also tremendously simplifies what is and isn’t allowed to be posted in appeals.

I’ll refrain from posting in reports and appeals entirely in any case though. I was unaware that this was considered an issue here as the only person who has ever even hinted at this was Leo when speaking to me after he had stepped down.