Accounts being suspended over appropriate names

Paralyse

When in doubt if something is a ToS violation, don't do it.

Having a name you prefer to use that may put you at a risk of a ban is not worth it.

By the way, naming your toons after real people (celebrities, athletes, politicians, authors, etc) is also a violation, and subject to disciplinary account actions as well.

From what I know, ZOS also takes any prior disciplinary actions into account when considering complaints or violations. In other words, if you've been warned / suspended / banned one or more times previously, that can make any future punishments more severe, even if they are for unrelated violations (e.g. 1 year ago you got a 72 hour ban for zone chat, then 6 months ago you got 7 day ban for something, if today you have a name violation they can treat it as a 3rd offense and not a 1st offense.)

Alinhbo_Tyaka

Ratzkifal wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Whatever the motive of the player who reported another player for their name is, it doesn't change the fact that a player created a name that violated the ToS.

That being said, I think banning is pretty harsh unless the name was hate speech or vulgar.

To be fair, that's a very loose interpretation of the code of conduct because 6.1 reads

6.1 You will not post, transmit, promote or distribute any dynamic or static user-created or custom content which is not wholly owned by the account owner. Names or material protected by copyright, trademark or other intellectual property rights cannot be used at any time except by the rightsholder. Rights ownership must be established prior to use on any ZeniMax Media, Inc. site or service. Any use of material protected by intellectual property rights that is not wholly owned by the account owner is a violation of the Agreement, including the Code of Conduct.

If you want to go with the literal interpretation then TES family names are also "technically a violation" even if ZOS just clarified that they are allowing it. It certainly would also prohibit writing fan fiction too, which we have an extra forum section for...
To me 6.1 looks like it's intended to prohibit the use of 3rd party copyright because that's what could get ZOS and the player in trouble if they allowed it. I do not see the point in disallowing someone to call themselves "plague doctor" just because ZOS named an item set like that.

I also interpret it as a way to control their content on third party sites. As and example darcy_twitch and franky_youtube stream their game play in which you can see the ZOS copyrighted content on ZOS systems with its implied attribution. This is ok because nothing in their account names infringes on section 6.1. However if they change their account names to darcy_tharn and franky_telvani or use similar IP to promote their streams they are now in violation of 6.1 because they are using ZOS owned IP for their personal profit without permission.

JavaRen

Pelican wrote: »

JavaRen wrote: »

Again, read Gina's last comment. This ban WAS NOT JUST for having an improper name. It was for a history of ToS violations, the last of which was the name.

The last of which? This player had the same names for ages BEFORE they even committed the other offences you mentioned. They didn’t name change to it after lol. Kinda weird why they only decided to punish them for it now AFTER the other violations almost like they want the player gone no? Why wasn’t the issue of the character names raised up when zos was looking into their previous offences?

So the proper sequence of events would have been action taken concerning the improper names whenever ago (most likely nothing but a forced name change) and then the last of their other offenses would have had the weight of enough prior ToS violations to warrant a permaban. I guess I don't see why that distinction should worry decently behaved folks, but you are entitled to different views and concerns.

Alinhbo_Tyaka

Ratzkifal wrote: »

Greasytengu wrote: »

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Hey all, we'd like to provide some clarification here based on what was said earlier.

First, we typically don't ban an account for a bad character name if there is no other TOS history on the account. We will simply just have you change the name. Now, if there is an extensive TOS history, there may be situations where your account could be suspended or banned for a character name that breaks the TOS.

We also want to clarify that using Tamrielic house names or other lore-friendly names is fine and isn't breaking the TOS. What we don't allow is using the proper name of major characters, bosses, etc. For example, you can't name your character Abnur Tharn but you could name a character Gina Tharn.

Hope this helps, but please let us know if you would like additional clarification!

What Id like to know is if parody names are ok.

Examples: 'Molag Ballin' , 'Radal al-Saranwrap' , 'Minimarco' (IDK if any of these are actually in use)

People like to riff on established characters, its just part of getting immersed in the lore and I've seen examples of it in just about every MMO ever.

Going off of what Gina said those names are perfectly fine.
But interpretting the code of conduct by the letter, then these are technically not allowed because you are using copyrighted material you do not own or have a licence to, and you are trying to circumvent a rule by intentionally misspelling something - so again technically a violation but probably allowed.

Parody and humor have certain exemptions in regards to copyright law so the question becomes are they considered parody which means ZOS cannot enforce their copyright or not parody where they can? Neither ZOS or the player legally get to decide, that as it is the jurisdiction of the courts where it is fairly common for the copyright owner to lose. However is it really worth the cost over an in-game name should it ever come up? No.

Ratzkifal

SilverBride wrote: »

silvereyes wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Whatever the motive of the player who reported another player for their name is, it doesn't change the fact that a player created a name that violated the ToS.

The question is not whether a technical ToS violation occurred. The ToS and Code of Conduct are written by lawyers to give as much power to ZOS as possible. They are intentionally broad, and often self-contradictory. They must not be interpreted literally at all times, or you end up with nonsensical situations, like the ToS being violated every time any player creates an account (see references in spoiler).

1. Section 1 of the Zenimax TOS says "By creating an Account, You agree that You do not own the Account, any user names created on the Account, any Content stored or associated with an Account (such as digital and/or virtual assets, achievements, virtual currency, and other Downloadable Content), or related data associated with the Account."
2. Section 6.1 of the Code of Conduct says "You will not post, transmit, promote or distribute any dynamic or static user-created or custom content which is not wholly owned by the account owner."

The Code of Conduct must be interpreted to avoid these nonsensical situations. For this, we look to official communications from ZOS for clarification of what they see as acceptable behavior.

The outrage in this case stems from what seems to most as an overly-broad interpretation, coupled with fears that this interpretation could lead to large swaths of the legitimate player population getting caught in the same net.

The point I was making was that it doesn't matter what the reporting player's motive was. If the player's name was seen as a violation the reporting player's motivation won't change that. ZoS isn't going to say "You made a name that we feel violates our ToS, but since the player reporting you did so out of spite you won't have to change the name or have any action taken against you."

I have read too many posts blaming the person reporting and stating that they are exploiting the player reporting systerm by reporting something they see as a violation.

A report made in bad faith that isn't questioned can result in things that should be allowed to be punished anyway...
Since I think this interpretation of the code of conduct is a bit too loose, the report alone could have resulted in this becoming an actionable offense when it previously wasn't.
There is already an automatic system in place that stops you from using the names of major npcs, so it was to my understanding that any name accepted by the system would be allowed (provided it doesn't violate any other rules). Is it time to feed that system the name of every single item set now too? Maybe? I'd rather they let us have the names of major NPCs and item sets though...

p00tx

SilverBride wrote: »

silvereyes wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Whatever the motive of the player who reported another player for their name is, it doesn't change the fact that a player created a name that violated the ToS.

The question is not whether a technical ToS violation occurred. The ToS and Code of Conduct are written by lawyers to give as much power to ZOS as possible. They are intentionally broad, and often self-contradictory. They must not be interpreted literally at all times, or you end up with nonsensical situations, like the ToS being violated every time any player creates an account (see references in spoiler).

1. Section 1 of the Zenimax TOS says "By creating an Account, You agree that You do not own the Account, any user names created on the Account, any Content stored or associated with an Account (such as digital and/or virtual assets, achievements, virtual currency, and other Downloadable Content), or related data associated with the Account."
2. Section 6.1 of the Code of Conduct says "You will not post, transmit, promote or distribute any dynamic or static user-created or custom content which is not wholly owned by the account owner."

The Code of Conduct must be interpreted to avoid these nonsensical situations. For this, we look to official communications from ZOS for clarification of what they see as acceptable behavior.

The outrage in this case stems from what seems to most as an overly-broad interpretation, coupled with fears that this interpretation could lead to large swaths of the legitimate player population getting caught in the same net.

The point I was making was that it doesn't matter what the reporting player's motive was. If the player's name was seen as a violation the reporting player's motivation won't change that. ZoS isn't going to say "You made a name that we feel violates our ToS, but since the player reporting you did so out of spite you won't have to change the name or have any action taken against you."

I have read too many posts blaming the person reporting and stating that they are exploiting the player reporting systerm by reporting something they see as a violation.

No, reporting a name for what someone views as a violation (aside from really heinous names) makes someone an insufferable Karen. Reporting someone in PvP to get them off of the playing field, or in Murkmire because they took your safebox, is exploiting the reporting system.

maxjapank

Pelican wrote: »

JavaRen wrote: »

Pelican wrote: »

JavaRen wrote: »

Again, read Gina's last comment. This ban WAS NOT JUST for having an improper name. It was for a history of ToS violations, the last of which was the name.

The last of which? This player had the same names for ages BEFORE they even committed the other offences you mentioned. They didn’t name change to it after lol. Kinda weird why they only decided to punish them for it now AFTER the other violations almost like they want the player gone no? Why wasn’t the issue of the character names raised up when zos was looking into their previous offences?

So the proper sequence of events would have been action taken concerning the improper names whenever ago (most likely nothing but a forced name change) and then the last of their other offenses would have had the weight of enough prior ToS violations to warrant a permaban. I guess I don't see why that distinction should worry decently behaved folks, but you are entitled to different views and concerns.

[snip]

What you know is hearsay. No matter how much you like or respect the other player. In the end, only the player and Zos can reach a conclusion.

[edited to remove quote]

Ratzkifal

Alinhbo_Tyaka wrote: »

Ratzkifal wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Whatever the motive of the player who reported another player for their name is, it doesn't change the fact that a player created a name that violated the ToS.

That being said, I think banning is pretty harsh unless the name was hate speech or vulgar.

To be fair, that's a very loose interpretation of the code of conduct because 6.1 reads

6.1 You will not post, transmit, promote or distribute any dynamic or static user-created or custom content which is not wholly owned by the account owner. Names or material protected by copyright, trademark or other intellectual property rights cannot be used at any time except by the rightsholder. Rights ownership must be established prior to use on any ZeniMax Media, Inc. site or service. Any use of material protected by intellectual property rights that is not wholly owned by the account owner is a violation of the Agreement, including the Code of Conduct.

If you want to go with the literal interpretation then TES family names are also "technically a violation" even if ZOS just clarified that they are allowing it. It certainly would also prohibit writing fan fiction too, which we have an extra forum section for...
To me 6.1 looks like it's intended to prohibit the use of 3rd party copyright because that's what could get ZOS and the player in trouble if they allowed it. I do not see the point in disallowing someone to call themselves "plague doctor" just because ZOS named an item set like that.

I also interpret it as a way to control their content on third party sites. As and example darcy_twitch and franky_youtube stream their game play in which you can see the ZOS copyrighted content on ZOS systems with its implied attribution. This is ok because nothing in their account names infringes on section 6.1. However if they change their account names to darcy_tharn and franky_telvani or use similar IP to promote their streams they are now in violation of 6.1 because they are using ZOS owned IP for their personal profit without permission.

Oh yes, that too.
I just don't like how it calls the use of Elder Scrolls related material within the confines of the Elder Scrolls games into question - whether it's set names, major NPC names, minor NPC names, location names or anything, so long as it stays ingame or on the forum it should be allowed.

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

Whatever the motive of the player who reported another player for their name is, it doesn't change the fact that a player created a name that violated the ToS.

That being said, I think banning is pretty harsh unless the name was hate speech or vulgar.

Yeah. I don't see why this wouldn't be handled by a forced name change instead.

SilverBride

Ratzkifal wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The point I was making was that it doesn't matter what the reporting player's motive was. If the player's name was seen as a violation the reporting player's motivation won't change that. ZoS isn't going to say "You made a name that we feel violates our ToS, but since the player reporting you did so out of spite you won't have to change the name or have any action taken against you."

I have read too many posts blaming the person reporting and stating that they are exploiting the player reporting systerm by reporting something they see as a violation.

A report made in bad faith that isn't questioned can result in things that should be allowed to be punished anyway...
Since I think this interpretation of the code of conduct is a bit too loose, the report alone could have resulted in this becoming an actionable offense when it previously wasn't.

Someone reporting something that isn't a violation won't change it into a violation just because it was reported. The player either violated the ToS or they didn't. But the person reporting what they see as a violation is not exploiting the system.

The code of conduct is pretty much left up to the individual's opinion and can vary depending on who is making the decision that day. That is why I think bans should only occur in extreme circumstances.

FeedbackOnly

SilverBride wrote: »

silvereyes wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Whatever the motive of the player who reported another player for their name is, it doesn't change the fact that a player created a name that violated the ToS.

The question is not whether a technical ToS violation occurred. The ToS and Code of Conduct are written by lawyers to give as much power to ZOS as possible. They are intentionally broad, and often self-contradictory. They must not be interpreted literally at all times, or you end up with nonsensical situations, like the ToS being violated every time any player creates an account (see references in spoiler).

1. Section 1 of the Zenimax TOS says "By creating an Account, You agree that You do not own the Account, any user names created on the Account, any Content stored or associated with an Account (such as digital and/or virtual assets, achievements, virtual currency, and other Downloadable Content), or related data associated with the Account."
2. Section 6.1 of the Code of Conduct says "You will not post, transmit, promote or distribute any dynamic or static user-created or custom content which is not wholly owned by the account owner."

The Code of Conduct must be interpreted to avoid these nonsensical situations. For this, we look to official communications from ZOS for clarification of what they see as acceptable behavior.

The outrage in this case stems from what seems to most as an overly-broad interpretation, coupled with fears that this interpretation could lead to large swaths of the legitimate player population getting caught in the same net.

The point I was making was that it doesn't matter what the reporting player's motive was. If the player's name was seen as a violation the reporting player's motivation won't change that. ZoS isn't going to say "You made a name that we feel violates our ToS, but since the player reporting you did so out of spite you won't have to change the name or have any action taken against you."

I have read too many posts blaming the person reporting and stating that they are exploiting the player reporting systerm by reporting something they see as a violation.

It would be horrible if roleplayers use this to get back at each other. It's a not a good precedent

Vizima

this is completely unacceptable. there is no interpretation of the the TOS where this ban makes sense for the reason listed which is 2.1-2.5

Skullstachio

I'll be keeping my eyes peeled for similar threads to the OP (and its commentary.) but I have the distinctive gut feeling this cannot be a coincidence...

SilverBride

FeedbackOnly wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

silvereyes wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Whatever the motive of the player who reported another player for their name is, it doesn't change the fact that a player created a name that violated the ToS.

The question is not whether a technical ToS violation occurred. The ToS and Code of Conduct are written by lawyers to give as much power to ZOS as possible. They are intentionally broad, and often self-contradictory. They must not be interpreted literally at all times, or you end up with nonsensical situations, like the ToS being violated every time any player creates an account (see references in spoiler).

1. Section 1 of the Zenimax TOS says "By creating an Account, You agree that You do not own the Account, any user names created on the Account, any Content stored or associated with an Account (such as digital and/or virtual assets, achievements, virtual currency, and other Downloadable Content), or related data associated with the Account."
2. Section 6.1 of the Code of Conduct says "You will not post, transmit, promote or distribute any dynamic or static user-created or custom content which is not wholly owned by the account owner."

The Code of Conduct must be interpreted to avoid these nonsensical situations. For this, we look to official communications from ZOS for clarification of what they see as acceptable behavior.

The outrage in this case stems from what seems to most as an overly-broad interpretation, coupled with fears that this interpretation could lead to large swaths of the legitimate player population getting caught in the same net.

The point I was making was that it doesn't matter what the reporting player's motive was. If the player's name was seen as a violation the reporting player's motivation won't change that. ZoS isn't going to say "You made a name that we feel violates our ToS, but since the player reporting you did so out of spite you won't have to change the name or have any action taken against you."

I have read too many posts blaming the person reporting and stating that they are exploiting the player reporting systerm by reporting something they see as a violation.

It would be horrible if roleplayers use this to get back at each other. It's a not a good precedent

I don't understand what precedent is being set.

SimonThesis

This practice is unfortunately pretty widespread. People have to change their names in an M rated game over anything that anyone could get offended by, this is an area that the report Karens have been winning for a long time. Even names with LGBT+ terms have received bans/ forced name changes recently.

This is an M rated game, but we can't have M rated names seems like ToS needs to be updated tbh.

Aztrias

What if one of your character names is used for a major character in a future dlc, will you be banned or forced to rename, that be pretty <snip> treatment of your players.


I would never use the name of any easily recognizable characters like Mannimarco, Uriel Septim, Talos, Molag Bal etc, but I like to keep my names lore friendly(scandinavian sounding names for Nords, Arabic inspired names for Redguards just as an example) and it would suck if I got penalised for it if some future NPC happened to have the same name as my character.

<snipped filter bypass>

mekops_ESO

I kinda wanna see what parody names people have now. For me the perfect joke is something where the setup and the punchline are almost identical. For instance if I saw someone named Jerkin of Destruction, that would be top tier parody as you didnt really have to change much.

endorphinsplox

Alright @ZOS_GinaBruno I appreciate the clarification, but there are still numerous questions left unanswered here. For example: one of the names brought into question used a family name from another game, but wasn't the name of any characters present in lore, so why was it considered in violation if Gina Tharn would be acceptable? Also, I have a character named Frostbite. Had her for several years now. Blackwood Chapter comes out and introduces a set by the same name. Am I in violation now? What about the person above whose character is Jiren-dar and later found an NPC got added by the same name?

Ultimately I don't think anyone can argue against the ban of the person this thread was initially referencing, but the interpretation of the TOS is extremely concerning and I genuinely believe it should be rewritten.

Ratzkifal

SilverBride wrote: »

Ratzkifal wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The point I was making was that it doesn't matter what the reporting player's motive was. If the player's name was seen as a violation the reporting player's motivation won't change that. ZoS isn't going to say "You made a name that we feel violates our ToS, but since the player reporting you did so out of spite you won't have to change the name or have any action taken against you."

I have read too many posts blaming the person reporting and stating that they are exploiting the player reporting systerm by reporting something they see as a violation.

A report made in bad faith that isn't questioned can result in things that should be allowed to be punished anyway...
Since I think this interpretation of the code of conduct is a bit too loose, the report alone could have resulted in this becoming an actionable offense when it previously wasn't.

Someone reporting something that isn't a violation won't change it into a violation just because it was reported. The player either violated the ToS or they didn't. But the person reporting what they see as a violation is not exploiting the system.

The code of conduct is pretty much left up to the individual's opinion and can vary depending on who is making the decision that day. That is why I think bans should only occur in extreme circumstances.

You see, I do not think it is that simple. Because prior to a report there is no need for a ruling, ZOS has the liberty to change their mind on a whim when a report does come in. I have a character name that could be considered a rule violation. It's a pun name, so that's why I would argue it should be allowed. If I asked a ZOS employee now if that name was allowed (prior to a report) I might get a confirmation that the name is in fact allowed. But if someone started reporting me for it, especially when it's a group of players mass reporting me, then ZOS might feel it's necessary to conform to "public opinion" and prevent outrage, drama and most of all bad publicity that would arise from having this absolutely evil name be allowed. For the record, the name is not actually evil, but I can see people claiming it is even though I disagree.

Tea bagging was considered fine, ZOS even made it an emote, until someone got reported for it and banned. Suddenly it wasn't okay anymore. Then ZOS had to come forward and explain that tea bagging is only not allowed when the player getting tea bagged doesn't like it and asked the other player to stop which they then had to have not done in order for it to become a violation...
It's easy to claim that the rules were always this way after the fact and since we do not know if they did their due diligence in any of these cases, we'll also never know how they came to the verdict they arrived at.
Now we all hope that ZOS did everything right, but at the end of the day they are only humans and humans make mistakes, so the uncertainty does leave a bad aftertaste in your mouth, especially because so many players feel they could be next.

Think about it, before today nobody would have thought a (hypothetical) name like "Plague Doctor Marcus" could be a violation of code of conduct, but now we know that it actually is for the use of the set name "Plague Doctor".

Pelican

Ratzkifal wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

Ratzkifal wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

The point I was making was that it doesn't matter what the reporting player's motive was. If the player's name was seen as a violation the reporting player's motivation won't change that. ZoS isn't going to say "You made a name that we feel violates our ToS, but since the player reporting you did so out of spite you won't have to change the name or have any action taken against you."

I have read too many posts blaming the person reporting and stating that they are exploiting the player reporting systerm by reporting something they see as a violation.

A report made in bad faith that isn't questioned can result in things that should be allowed to be punished anyway...
Since I think this interpretation of the code of conduct is a bit too loose, the report alone could have resulted in this becoming an actionable offense when it previously wasn't.

Someone reporting something that isn't a violation won't change it into a violation just because it was reported. The player either violated the ToS or they didn't. But the person reporting what they see as a violation is not exploiting the system.

The code of conduct is pretty much left up to the individual's opinion and can vary depending on who is making the decision that day. That is why I think bans should only occur in extreme circumstances.

You see, I do not think it is that simple. Because prior to a report there is no need for a ruling, ZOS has the liberty to change their mind on a whim when a report does come in. I have a character name that could be considered a rule violation. It's a pun name, so that's why I would argue it should be allowed. If I asked a ZOS employee now if that name was allowed (prior to a report) I might get a confirmation that the name is in fact allowed. But if someone started reporting me for it, especially when it's a group of players mass reporting me, then ZOS might feel it's necessary to conform to "public opinion" and prevent outrage, drama and most of all bad publicity that would arise from having this absolutely evil name be allowed. For the record, the name is not actually evil, but I can see people claiming it is even though I disagree.

Tea bagging was considered fine, ZOS even made it an emote, until someone got reported for it and banned. Suddenly it wasn't okay anymore. Then ZOS had to come forward and explain that tea bagging is only not allowed when the player getting tea bagged doesn't like it and asked the other player to stop which they then had to have not done in order for it to become a violation...
It's easy to claim that the rules were always this way after the fact and since we do not know if they did their due diligence in any of these cases, we'll also never know how they came to the verdict they arrived at.
Now we all hope that ZOS did everything right, but at the end of the day they are only humans and humans make mistakes, so the uncertainty does leave a bad aftertaste in your mouth, especially because so many players feel they could be next.

Think about it, before today nobody would have thought a (hypothetical) name like "Plague Doctor Marcus" could be a violation of code of conduct, but now we know that it actually is for the use of the set name "Plague Doctor".

Yeah and now you cannot even teabag at all the player you do it to doesn’t even have to tell you to stop you can just get straight up banned with no warning had it happen to a few of my friends, even though in the past they literally said its only against TOS if the player you do it to feels harassed and asks you to stop but you keep doing. Seems like the “rules” are always easily manipulated to fit what they want to happen

James-Wayne

Banned for roleplaying a character you love in a game you love.... WOW, [snip]

[edited for minor bashing]

Ratzkifal

James-Wayne wrote: »

Banned for roleplaying a character you love in a game you love.... WOW, [snip]

Agreed. What's so bad about players playing as Abnur Tharn? I don't wanna out anyone but I've seen some people on twitch with characters that look exactly like certain NPCs and even have similar names. I always thought that was fun, but apparently it's a borderline breach of Code of Conduct...

[edited to remove quote]

SilverBride

Ratzkifal wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I have read too many posts blaming the person reporting and stating that they are exploiting the player reporting system by reporting something they see as a violation.

A report made in bad faith that isn't questioned can result in things that should be allowed to be punished anyway...

...Since I think this interpretation of the code of conduct is a bit too loose, the report alone could have resulted in this becoming an actionable offense when it previously wasn't.

If the name is a questionable violation it is not a bad faith report, even if the player doesn't like the player they are reporting. Just the fact that a name was reported doesn't turn it into a violation if it isn't. More likely than not the name always was a violation but was just never caught until it was brought to their attention.

Jamie_Aubrey

Glad I don't have Molag's Left/Right Bal anymore

SainguinKrist

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

Hey all, we'd like to provide some clarification here based on what was said earlier.

First, we typically don't ban an account for a bad character name if there is no other TOS history on the account. We will simply just have you change the name. Now, if there is an extensive TOS history, there may be situations where your account could be suspended or banned for a character name that breaks the TOS.

We also want to clarify that using Tamrielic house names or other lore-friendly names is fine and isn't breaking the TOS. What we don't allow is using the proper name of major characters, bosses, etc. For example, you can't name your character Abnur Tharn but you could name a character Gina Tharn.

Hope this helps, but please let us know if you would like additional clarification!

Can I please get clarification on my name specifically?

It's technically a major NPC but my name is NOT a TES creation.

Will I have action taken against my account or it ONLY names that completely unique to TES?

I don't want to lose the name I've used for almost 2 decades because ZOS decided they own a word from the middle ages.

Jamie_Aubrey

Valion wrote: »

I am really looking forward to see some green comment here.

Granted but its "We removed xx comments"

LiteEmUp

Paralyse wrote: »

By the way, naming your toons after real people (celebrities, athletes, politicians, authors, etc) is also a violation, and subject to disciplinary account actions as well.

so what if i name my character Harry Potter, Magneto, Sorcerer Supreme, or even Scarlet Witch, are these bannable name choices?? what about from other games like master chief, geralt, yennefer, gordon freeman, are these bannable too??

i understand if you choose a racist, mysoginistic, or even sexual names are bannable... but zos needs to be clear on what else kind of naming are bannable...

Itoq

I see a bunch of people jumping to emotional reactions based on partial information, not reading between the lines and not excercising critical thinking.

Ratzkifal

LiteEmUp wrote: »

Paralyse wrote: »

By the way, naming your toons after real people (celebrities, athletes, politicians, authors, etc) is also a violation, and subject to disciplinary account actions as well.

so what if i name my character Harry Potter, Magneto, Sorcerer Supreme, or even Scarlet Witch, are these bannable name choices?? what about from other games like master chief, geralt, yennefer, gordon freeman, are these bannable too??

i understand if you choose a racist, mysoginistic, or even sexual names are bannable... but zos needs to be clear on what else kind of naming are bannable...

Yes, those are not allowed because they are the copyright of others. Now J.K. Rowling could make an ESO character called Harry Potter, because she has the rights to that name but you are probably not her, so you do not. This however isn't bannable, it will just result in a warning and force a name change (unless you've already received prior warnings).
The other things you listed are also not allowed, but they might result in a ban depending on the severity and whether or not you have committed more offenses of that nature. There was this one incident where a group of people all dyed a certain robe white... It didn't end well for them regardless of whether they had a prior warning or not, I wouldn't be surprised when it comes to names of that nature things might be different and you'd get the immediate ban.

silvereyes

ZOS_GinaBruno wrote: »

First, we typically don't ban an account for a bad character name if there is no other TOS history on the account. We will simply just have you change the name. Now, if there is an extensive TOS history, there may be situations where your account could be suspended or banned for a character name that breaks the TOS.

Hi Gina.

It's good to hear that character names alone don't cause a ban. I'm still nervous about the details, though. Could you provide a little more clarity about a situation in which a character name report would trigger a ban?

The line on what constitutes an unacceptable character name is pretty fuzzy. I remember some pretty prominent streamers in years past who had every single one of their characters named as some parody or homage of a celebrity or TES NPC. It's all subjective, and what amuses one player may offend another. Forced name changes seem to be the appropriate response if the names lead to a report.

Furthermore, there are also a ton of silly reasons for a player to have a TOS history, especially on older accounts or very visible accounts. It's a social game, and players don't always agree. Feelings get hurt. Reports get filed. Sometimes entire guilds or social media abuse the reporting system to target someone they are mad at. In years past, even something as benign as PC players using the Multi-Craft addon - now a base game feature I'd like to point out - lead to temporary suspensions.

If there is an "extensive" TOS violation history, why would the player still be in the game? If the previous activity wasn't enough for a ban, why would something as small as a non-derogatory player name be the last straw?

Thanks in advance for the clarifications!