is this a violation?

[chucky chuckaluck]

Is it a violation to use a username that is most likely to be taken as slang for genitalia, even if there is a lesser known meaning for the same term?

[matthew]

Most likely. Without specifics, it is difficult to give a more complete/certain answer.

[chucky chuckaluck]

For example, could a large fellow named Richard have "big_****" as a username?

[matthew]

With the likelihood of spending many years being teased about the name growing up, I sincerely doubt he would. In any case, no. We would get complaints left and right and the energy it would take to explain ad nauseum would outweigh the need to use the name when other options exist.

[chucky chuckaluck]

so then, what would be the proper way to report such a violation?

[matthew]

Report one of the user's posts with a note that the report isn't about the post, but about the username.

[chucky chuckaluck]

ok, thanks.

[chucky chuckaluck]

With the likelihood of spending many years being teased about the name growing up, I sincerely doubt he would. In any case, no. We would get complaints left and right and the energy it would take to explain ad nauseum would outweigh the need to use the name when other options exist.

i've been thinking about this. while the solution you suggest is wildy practical, it might actually be the wrong thing to do. if some big guy named richard, who may even get a kick out of being called 'big ****', or has been called that innocently, without it ever dawning on anyone what it could be mistaken for, isn't considering the use of such a username a violation just adding more insult to injury? the username that made me think of all this appears to be that person's actual name. that being the case, i've decided that it would be wrong for me to report him.

[matthew]

Fair enough.

For what it's worth, there are a minimum of two ways to look at any of these sorts of issues. There is consequentialist ethical theory and deontological theory. The consequentialist would look primarily at what works best and, in the Rawlsian school especially, would also look at what makes the most people happy. A deontological effort would concentrate on what is most correct without respect to other considerations. I tend to try to explore both, and a few other, trains of thought while looking for the most reasonable option in a situation.

Really, that's just a long way of saying that I understand the tension you describe. It is also why I don't particularly favor a hard and fast interpretation of rules, but prefer guidelines with some flexibility for specific situations.

[chucky chuckaluck]

Really, that's just a long way of saying that I understand the tension you describe. It is also why I don't particularly favor a hard and fast interpretation of rules, but prefer guidelines with some flexibility for specific situations.

unless one can find a rule that is correct in all instances, some flexibility is required. however, the more flexibility allowed, the more likely subjectivity will replace objectivity, even when it is still possible to be reasonably objective. (side note: that's why i don't like things like gymnastics and ice skating in the olympics. there's little room for gray in the 100meters.)