1967 Cleveland Guardians?

[twins_34]

Originally Posted by doors11

Has anyone edited the teams.csv file to change the Indians back and posted for dl Scared I might not be able to do it TY

I changed mine back to Indians and I am Native American so, I don't care what anyone thinks lol and if you changed it back, I would support you because you have freedoms and I am sorry, history is history and you can never change it and if you try, that's just wrong. We have to remember what was done in the past good or bad.

[twins_34]

Originally Posted by uruguru

dude, we should not recommend someone change it to '*********' because the MLB license forbids OOTP from distributing a game with that name. If people start commonly modding that restriction out, then who knows? The ability to edit those files might be removed. I mean, look what happened with the league that shall not be named.

People should change it to Spiders or whatever else they want. Let them connect the dots. I don't want the OOTP devs to get forced into a bad spot.

They can not distribute it with Indians. However you have all the right in the world to change it if you want. The thing with the Japan league is way more of a copywrite issue and IP issue and that's the reason it can not be used in any way and in any form that you can't even make it yourself. But changing a team name, unless the MLB states (You can not allow people to do that) then there are no issues and being Native American I think it's wrong that it's being erased from history. I also was NOT offended by the name and growing up, was one team I liked. Now I don't like them anymore. I am more offended now than I was before the name change.

[twins_34]

Originally Posted by uruguru

no, I just realize that when it comes to stuff like this, you and I and OOTP are not calling the shots. All it takes is one guy who happens to have contacts within MLB to get triggered by players finding easy ways around their stupid name restrictions to end up with more pressure on the OOTP devs to clamp down on this even harder.

i.e. the first rule of Cleveland Indians club is don't talk about Cleveland Indians club

No, if the MLB wanted the name Indians to vanish forever from the MLB, they would not allow the MiLB teams, Indianapolis Indians and the Spokane Indians, to keep the name! However, the name is still in the MLB system. We have the right to change it and only posts like this, will make it so that we can never change names of teams ever again. people need to just stop getting offended that some people like to keep history the same and not force your views on everyone cause that's just as bad. We have freedom in this country and it's being stepped on every single day in the name of being politically correct, so how about we take politics out of it and allow people to do what they want as long as it does not violate any laws, and that's where the Japan league comes in as it violates copywrite laws since they don't have the license to use that Intellectual property. Using the name Indians only goes against people being offended, not laws.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by twins_34

However you have all the right in the world to change it if you want.

Trust me, I understand that. But MLB could exert pressure for OOTP to make it not so easy to change names (as it is now), or even force them to write code to prevent you from naming any team "Indians".

Will they do that? I don't think so. But then a few years ago I never thought they'd force historical name changes either.

[Cod]

Originally Posted by uruguru

dude, we should not recommend someone change it to '*********' because the MLB license forbids OOTP from distributing a game with that name.

The MLB doesn't own the license to the team name and can't forbid the use. The Dolan family owns the license/trademark for the Indians name and came to a private agreement with MLB to stop using the name. This is why MLB couldn't force the change sooner, though they tried.

Regardless, I agree that we shouldn't recommend changing it because we could end up in another "league that shall not be named" situation where things get modified under the hood.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by uruguru

dude, we should not recommend someone change it to '*********' because the MLB license forbids OOTP from distributing a game with that name. If people start commonly modding that restriction out, then who knows? The ability to edit those files might be removed. I mean, look what happened with the league that shall not be named.

People should change it to Spiders or whatever else they want. Let them connect the dots. I don't want the OOTP devs to get forced into a bad spot.

I've been wondering about the inconsistency of mentioning the name of a certain league on the board while allowing a poster to use Chief Wahoo as his avatar. It's the logo more than the name that got Cleveland in trouble.And he wasn't even a chief. He had only one feather.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Trust me, I understand that. But MLB could exert pressure for OOTP to make it not so easy to change names (as it is now), or even force them to write code to prevent you from naming any team "Indians".

Will they do that? I don't think so. But then a few years ago I never thought they'd force historical name changes either.

Yes. And the MLB license required OOTP to give up player suspensions for drugs and domestic violence. I remain shocked MLB allows OOTP, through the owner goals section, to depict owners as baseball ignorant and socially maladjusted in the sense of "don't confuse me with the facts, just give me want I want."

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack

Yes, because the injustices of the past should be addressed by whitewashing the past.

What do you think should be done?

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Brad K

What do you think should be done?

Acknowledge mistakes and learn from them. If you erase the mistakes of history, you are guaranteed to repeat them.

[jcard]

Invoking Santayana in a debate over a sport franchise nickname is a tad bit overwrought.

[Thundercrack]

Originally Posted by Brad K

What do you think should be done?

I was being sarcastic (ironic?). The Cleveland franchise should historically be referred to as the Indians. However, as you pointed out, Chief Wahoo should be demoted to his proper one feather position

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Acknowledge mistakes and learn from them. If you erase the mistakes of history, you are guaranteed to repeat them.

So that means you think they should have kept the team name and logo?

[Thundercrack]

Originally Posted by jcard

Invoking Santayana in a debate over a sport franchise nickname is a tad bit overwrought.

Definitely. Also, Santayana was a Cubs fan

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Brad K

So that means you think they should have kept the team name and logo?

You can change the latter while retaining the former. (Changing team logos every few years is common now, no doubt for cynical merchandising reasons.)

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the word "Indians." It's just a noun. The logo being outdated or no longer appropriate is a separate matter.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by twins_34

. . . and that's where the Japan league comes in as it violates copywrite laws since they don't have the license to use that Intellectual property.

Whose copyright laws? Japan's or the United States'?

It's well established under U.S. copyright law that you cannot copyright facts. You can copyright specific arrangements and presentations of facts, but not the facts themselves. Player names and statistics are clearly facts. Team and league names are also facts, but they may also be trademarks. Trademarks are a separate matter.

[uruguru]

None of this has anything to do with copyright law, guys. You can call the teams whatever you want and no one can stop you. But the Cleveland MLB team is not a public entity and they can use the MLB licensing arrangement as leverage to ensure games representing their team meet their guidelines. They have already done this and there's nothing anyone in this forum can do about it if they want to do more.

And yes, OOTP could absolutely be modified by the devs to prevent you from using certain words and phrases in team names if MLB wanted to flex their muscle over it. If faced with banning a few names or losing their MLB license, of course they would ban the names and just start censoring players who constantly gripe about it.

So all I'm saying is that we (as OOTP players) shouldn't be openly encouraging people to change things in their OOTP saves that might raise the ire of a corporate entity that has already shown the willingness to tell the OOTP devs what they can or can't put in their game.

That's it. Common sense, guys.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by twins_34

I changed mine back to Indians and I am Native American so, I don't care what anyone thinks lol and if you changed it back, I would support you because you have freedoms and I am sorry, history is history and you can never change it and if you try, that's just wrong. We have to remember what was done in the past good or bad.

Thats interesting.
To be honest i have never thought of any of the names as derogatory.
I always took the names like Braves and Warriors to be strong and well brave.
I don't even know why a team would name itself after something it did not respect or like.
It would be like the KKK member naming a kid after Martin Luther King.

I guess i could see maybe the Redskins or Chief Wahoo but even then
Redskins never seemed like a joke or something you didn't respect.
Course i grew up in the 70s and 80s so maybe their success had something to do with the respect.
Also i though i read that some Native Americans wanted the name changed back and some didn't like the Indians name changed to Guardians.
Did they even do a vote or was it just the Cleveland owner deciding if the majority was offended?

As for Chief Wahoo yeah its over the top but aren't all mascots?
I never thought it ment Native Americans were dumb any more than i thought Brooklyn Dodger fans were bums.

If Chief Wahoo was real he would be one of the mascots i wouldn't mind hanging out with. Seems rather freindly to me.
I'm not telling any Native American they shouldn't feel offended as that is their right.
Just saying thats not the way i saw Chief Wahoo but i would not argue against them.

I use Indians because that was the team nickname.
When they were the Naps i use Naps and when they change to Guardians i will use Guardians.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Whose copyright laws? Japan's or the United States'?

It's well established under U.S. copyright law that you cannot copyright facts. You can copyright specific arrangements and presentations of facts, but not the facts themselves. Player names and statistics are clearly facts. Team and league names are also facts, but they may also be trademarks. Trademarks are a separate matter.

1. One group of people unilaterally choosing to use their perceived identification of another group of people is problematic, more so if this is based on some attributes monolithically ascribed to that group

2. This is true even when the embodied traits are putatively positive

3. And even more so when those characteristics are ones commonly represented by natural (Lightning, Heat, Hurricanes, etc.) animal (Panthers, Wildcats, Predators, etc.) or abstracted archetypes (Spartans, Warriors, Titans, etc.): aggression, battlefield courage, violence, destruction, etc..

[thehef]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Thats interesting.
To be honest i have never thought of any of the names as derogatory.
I always took the names like Braves and Warriors to be strong and well brave.
I don't even know why a team would name itself after something it did not respect or like.
It would be like the KKK member naming a kid after Martin Luther King.

I guess i could see maybe the Redskins or Chief Wahoo but even then
Redskins never seemed like a joke or something you didn't respect.
Course i grew up in the 70s and 80s so maybe their success had something to do with the respect.
Also i though i read that some Native Americans wanted the name changed back and some didn't like the Indians name changed to Guardians.
Did they even do a vote or was it just the Cleveland owner deciding if the majority was offended?

As for Chief Wahoo yeah its over the top but aren't all mascots?
I never thought it ment Native Americans were dumb any more than i thought Brooklyn Dodger fans were bums.

If Chief Wahoo was real he would be one of the mascots i wouldn't mind hanging out with. Seems rather freindly to me.
I'm not telling any Native American they shouldn't feel offended as that is their right.
Just saying thats not the way i saw Chief Wahoo but i would not argue against them.

I use Indians because that was the team nickname.
When they were the Naps i use Naps and when they change to Guardians i will use Guardians.

Stop being rational and logical. Don't you know this is 2024, for Pete's Sake!

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Whose copyright laws? Japan's or the United States'?

It's well established under U.S. copyright law that you cannot copyright facts. You can copyright specific arrangements and presentations of facts, but not the facts themselves. Player names and statistics are clearly facts. Team and league names are also facts, but they may also be trademarks. Trademarks are a separate matter.

Originally Posted by jcard

1. One group of people unilaterally choosing to use their perceived identification of another group of people is problematic, more so if this is based on some attributes monolithically ascribed to that group

2. This is true even when the embodied traits are putatively positive

3. And even more so when those characteristics are ones commonly represented by natural (Lightning, Heat, Hurricanes, etc.) animal (Panthers, Wildcats, Predators, etc.) or abstracted archetypes (Spartans, Warriors, Titans, etc.): aggression, battlefield courage, violence, destruction, etc..

I think you cited the wrong quote of mine. I think you meant to quote this:

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

You can change the latter while retaining the former. (Changing team logos every few years is common now, no doubt for cynical merchandising reasons.)

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the word "Indians." It's just a noun. The logo being outdated or no longer appropriate is a separate matter.

Now to my response:

Originally Posted by jcard

1. One group of people unilaterally choosing to use their perceived identification of another group of people is problematic, more so if this is based on some attributes monolithically ascribed to that group.

In your opinion, one with which I do not agree. My position is simple: I wholeheartedly reject all attempts to Newspeak the English language. Any and all Syme types should be resolutely ignored. Languages change naturally on their own, no political sledgehammering required.

Indians is a noun, no different than Italians or Californians or Amish. It has no intrinsic meaning beyond its function as a noun. If you happen to think it does, that's a you problem.