Here's the link to the game.
http://WarLight.net/MultiPlayer.aspx?GameID=2519928
His name is Adolf Hitler. We had a noob who left and got booted. After everyone else voted to end he acted like an ass and refused.
I started this thread just to give up guys a heads up. You dont wanna be in a game with this guy. He takes winning too seriously.

I've talked to this person. She is a nice person.

Randy. What in gods good earth allows you to think someone having the name Adolph hitler is appropriate is beyond me. There are some names that should just perish at the owners demise. This. Was one. In saddened every time I came across a name as such.

@BostonBruins
some people in Austria and Germany have the name Adolf Hitler it is legitimate name just because someone who had that name and was a ordered the execution of Jewish people and stated a war doesn't mean the name stops being used and his inappropriate

Iron, outside of neo-Nazis and octogenarians I would wager there are less than 100 people with that name worldwide.

I have to agree with sharpe. No one, in todays world actually has the name "adolph hitler" without some sort of connection. adolph perhaps, but the full name adolph hitler simply no.

And to iron. NO ONE in germany has the name adolph, germany is trying too hard to put this in the past, that that i can't imagine it.

Do I think the name Osama bin Laden is still given out in the middle east, absolutely yes, but do i think it is given out in anything beyond homage, absolutely no.

My name is daniel, my middle name is paul. My parents did not name after St. Daniel and after St. Paul. there is a rather large difference.

my name is paul, middle name daniel. lol

still what am trying to say even though am right is adolf hitler is still being used today and his not abandoned because of hitler did if you paul daniel id something extremly bad should we then stop calling people paul daniel________

|> What in gods good earth allows you to think someone having the name Adolph hitler is appropriate is beyond me.

I see why you'd want to forbid people calling themselves Hitler (or Stalin or Bin Laden for that matter). But once you start blocking those names, where do you draw the line? Would "Rommel" be okay? How about generals from the American Civil War (who happened to fight on the "wrong" side)? Most of the heroes of the Dutch war for independence are probably guerillas / terrorists by Spanish standards, should their names be banned? The same problem goes all the way back to at least Roman times; calling yourself Nero could be highly offensive to, among others, Christians who know a little history. Related issues exist for the other Roman emperors (even if it was just because of their owning slaves).

So, problems:

- Where do you draw the line: megalomaniac dictators, emperors, generals, "common" criminals ("Jack the Ripper")?
- Where do you draw the line: the Second World War, anything people can still relate to (careful, with some people making a hobby out of genealogy, this can be pretty far back!), or all of recorded history?
- Where do you draw the line: do you just prohibit "Adolf Hitler", or also "Hitler" and even just plain "Adolf"?
- Which point of view do you use? In cases like Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hossein it's pretty clear, but how about Napoleon? The French and Slovenians (long story :) ) might like him, but there's plenty of people (regions) where he isn't exactly loved.

I found an article related to this.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/26/hitler-cake-shoprite-oped-cx_re_0127epstein.html

I've copied it below so you don't have to open it if you don't want.

----

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

Romeo and Juliet, Act II, ii, 1-2

Shakespeare's profound insight that the properties of an object are not determined by the names attached to it may supply a decisive answer to the philosophical traditional of nominalism. But his immortal couplet doesn't scratch the surface on the larger question of whether the state should impose any limits on how we name ourselves or our children.

At first blush, this right to name looks to lie at the core of any sound theory of self-identification--a hot-button social issue on which most people hold strong, if implicit, libertarian views.

But a latent confusion on this question raises unanticipated difficulties. The solid part of the naming hypothesis gives each person the exclusive right to name himself or herself, or for parents to name (jointly--another potential can of worms) their children. But it hardly follows that an exclusive right must necessarily be an unlimited one. After all, my exclusive use of my own land doesn't allow me to pollute my neighbors with impunity. Quite simply, there are some names at least that have to be regarded as off limits.

The issue came to a boil in a recent episode reported in the New York Times, in which Heath Campbell vented his outrage that his local ShopRite supermarket did not bend to his will to decorate his son's birthday cake with his first two given names, Adolf Hitler. Popular sentiment turned out to run feverishly hot against Mr. Campbell, and for good reason.

Analytically, names have two distinct functions. The first is to designate one individual to the exclusion of all others, for which a nine-digit social security number will do just fine. But many names carry an expressive content, as by naming a daughter Chastity or a son Jesus. In most cases, the right response is for others to use the name even if they do not like the message it conveys.

Yet there are fuzzy limits. A name enjoys a peculiar monopoly status. It is the only moniker that anyone else can use to designate the named person. It follows therefore that names do impose what might be termed a "soft" externality on other individuals that becomes really hard to bear when the name in question forces people to be respectful to someone whom they rightly hate. No moral relativism allowed. Who wants to be polite to an Adolf Hitler?ca

This distaste gives rise to two sources of distress. In the Campbell episode, parents are guardians, not owners, of their children, and therefore have no right to saddle them with names that are sure to expose them to ridicule, if not physical danger. The long-standing law of abuse or neglect thus has unappreciated virtues in this context.

Yet the objection to the unlimited use of these names cuts deeper. Today, no adult could voluntary take the name Adolf Hitler either. This basic point is explicitly recognized under modern trademark law, which explicitly forbids any person from registering a trademark that consists of "immoral or scandalous matter."

The established case law won't let anyone register a new men's cologne under the name "Adolf Hitler." Forcing other individuals to use odious names is too high a price to pay when literally millions of other names are open to the user.

Exactly how far this trademark prohibition runs is an open question. Washington residents will be well aware of the continuing, if unavailing, 16-year struggle on the part of American Indians to set aside the Washington Redskins trademark as racially offensive and therefore conveying "immoral or scandalous matter."

At this point, the necessity to draw some line in uncomfortable places becomes painfully clear. The Indians' charge rang true with the many college teams that have dropped their Indian mascots voluntarily. Today Palo Alto plays host to the Stanford Cardinal, not the Stanford Indians.

But professional sports teams serve a different clientele, which shows no similar change of heart. Thus far the courts have rightly been unwilling to allow the affected sensibilities of some to ban a trade name that works as a positive symbol to so many others.

These vexing controversies should remind us that even limited governments have to worry about externalities that go beyond the use of force and fraud. By all means keep a strong presumption against invoking state power to veto personal or trade names. But this libertarian says, don't make it an absolute rule.

----

As for my opinion, I think that first and foremost parents must consider how the name will affect their children's life.

They must also take into consideration what images/feelings/thoughts the name evokes. RvW mentioned Jack the Ripper. If I meet someone called Jack, I don't immediately think of Jack the Ripper. There are loads of famous Jacks and it is such a common name that nobody else really enters my head when I meet someone called Jack.

I only know of one Adolf though, so of course my mind will make the connection if I meet someone with that name.

For me, Jack would be at one end of the scale (no connection to anyone bad) and Adolf at the other. Other names could be somewhere in the middle, with a meaning for some but not for others, far less black and white and far too complex an issue for me to talk about.

I think it's common sense for parents not to give the name Adolf as there is no doubt that the vast majority of people who meet their child will make the connection. And calling them Adolf Hitler, as the parent had done in the article above, leaves no doubt as to the inpsiration behind the name.

But if the parents show a lack of common sense and really want to name their child Adolf Hitler, then I agree with the New Zealand Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages, who basically said "no, you can't".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017670/New-Zealand-bans-Lucifer-Adolf-Hitler-baby-names.html

Why risk causing grief to people sensitive to something from history by choosing a name that will clearly evoke a reaction?

And why create problems for your child when there are more than enough non-offensive names to choose from?

the above poster made an interesting point.

There is a difference from an irish catholic point of view in the name adolph hitler, to the name robert E. Lee. At least to me, Robert E. Lee could be given sympathy. Adolph Hitler masterminded one of the word's greatest genocides its ever seen. I gather perhaps the difference is trying to protect a way of life to masterminding killing a way of life. But there is a very fine line. Perhaps it is indeed a matter of time, as so thought, its too recent to be calling a child adolph without some of connection immediately. Bin Laden as well. Do I imagine that parents do call their children such things, absolutely yes, do I think because of the connection yes. Does this mean that in a 1000 years the connection will still be there, no probably not, but in today's society it absolutely is and it is inappropriate and perhaps that in itself is enough to ban such names.

To iron, will you name your child Adolph Hitler, or Bin Laden, or some such thing without realizing the connection to the name and how the public will receive it? Do you think friends will name children such?

My parents did with a name that has a thousand years of history to it. Daniel, Paul, to whatever combination of the two you may have it still has roots. I am unsure he name adolph hitler will ever be used harmlessly ever again.

my name it Hidolf Adler. I've always felt as though I dodged a bullet

boston bruins many people have committed atrocities from the beginning of time just because people committed atrocities with the names there are given doesn't mean they can't use the name that pleases them also i can't call my children osama bin laden because am not Muslim have no Arabic family connections,don't like the name that much,can think of better names.Can't name Hitler because i have no German or Austrian family connection,don't like that much,and can think of something better my surname is not Hitler nor bin laden

@RvW

The Poles and Italians also love Napoleon :)

Will all the players who swore on that game be suspended or warned? Fizzer can obviously see, but nobody has reported anything. Just curious.

Arun, They would need to be reported for any action to be taken. You can't expect Fizzer to be aware of every comment or chat, even if it is on the forum.

My assumption would be that it would merely be noted and a warning/suspension issued if the same player was reported for multiple instances. Of course, that would also depend on just what was said...

didn't there exists such a topic in one of the olden forums?

oh, upon my views, I find no fault with the name Adolf nor Hitler. Now, I'm not fond of genocide, nor I'm I an anti-semistist, but Adolf Hitler is simply a name with letters a,d,o,l,f,H,i,t,l,e,r. Thus should be tolerated. Surely we have freedom of speech?

I think people use the name in games like these just to get attention,but if someone actually has the name its an entirely different story

Freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to like what somebody else decides to do with it.
Saying that a name is inappropriate of disrectpectful isn't the same as arguing for banning it.

Yes, you have the right to say what you want, but others have the right to judge you for it.

I don't know why people think Hitler was so bad. I mean sure, he committed genocide but he wasn't nearly the worst. Stalin makes Hitler look like an amateur if we are talking recent. However if we go back in time a bit the Spanish Conquistadors killed nearly 19 million Aztecs and Mayans. Is Hitler bad? Sure, but he was a child when it came to genocide.

--------------

Blah blah blah, I'm offended blah blah blah. Suck it up. This is a war game and Adolf Hitler was a pretty good general. I'm surprised we don't have more of them.

Heres a hint: don't feed the trolls by saying you are offended. If you don't like their name blacklist and walk away.