A clarifyying ruling would be useful.
I will note, however, that though debates about manner/content did come up in the aforementioned thread (which I re-read in its entirety before reporting the message in question), that debate was certainly not resolved.
I will explain my reasoning here. In keeping with the "Reworking the Vulgarity" feature thread, I interpreted, in this case, the vulgarity tool to be about upholding standards of nobility. In that thread, it seemed to me that the position (with which I disagreed) was that vulgarity is a semi-OOC tool for upholding RP standards. Under that basis, my character reported Athena as vulgar, given that he perceived her comment (in collaboration with many other comments; it's a debate that's been going back and forth for a long time, longer than the player of Elroy is probably aware) as expressing atheism.
Also, it is worth noting that another character (Kerwin Perth) also interpreted her message as at least reasonably hinting at atheism. Athena's stated reasons for adhering to no faith (she has since ICly clarified her position) was that she believes being in a religion makes it impossible to be a fair judge. Though under the position I believe is appropriate (namely, that any vulgarity should be used on any non-Medieval-noble-ish action) that would be vulgar as well, I did not report it, because I desired to only report things that seemed vulgar under the definition advocated by others.
I observed that another player had gleaned the same thing I had. I observed numerous messages hinting at the same thing. So I reported it. The fact that it was ruled as vulgarity (apparently) suggests, to me, that my interpretation was not atypical. At least some other players believed it was vulgar.
I'll also add: religion wasn't the only reason. She also referred to Cyrilos as "Cyrilos" instead of his proper title, "Royal High Priest Cyrilos." Even "Sir Cyrilos" would have been acceptable. But in a dispute about the state religion's legal status in relation to the law, you don't usually ignore the title and rank of your conversation partner.
Finally, I wish to point out a jurisprudential to the Magistrates, and I will do so here instead of the backroom as, naturally, I am recusing myself: you are not able to police this effectively. The only reason this was tied back to me was because:
1. It was a message to few people
2. I confessed to it publicly
You aren't going to be able to police your ruling on this more generally without Tom going into the database every time, if you rule that what I did (reporting something that isn't quite vulgar by your standards) is vulgar. By ruling that "false reporting" or "reporting for marginally incorrect reasons" is abuse you are going to "criminalize" (for lack of a better term) a large number of players, a routine behavior, and, vitally, a highly debatable behavior which you cannot effectively police.
Finally, if you rule that this is abuse, or not abuse but still not an ideal or desirable action (something we have ruled before), the burden is on the Magistrates to offer useful guidance on appropriate use; and, given the experiences many of us have had with the vulgarity feature, I suggest that guidance needs to be exhaustive in nature, because this is evidently a feature perceived wildly differently by different players.
---
To sum up, I make two arguments:
First, my reporting in this case, I believe, was justified under even a very narrow interpretation of the vulgarity feature given that multiple other players perceived her remark as getting at atheism, and atheism is clearly outside the RP atmosphere of BM, and thus an appropriate target for vulgarity. It was appropriate not only because of hints at atheism in the letter, but a larger context of IC political roles relating to religion, and also because of the totally separate issue of Athena's refusal to address Cyrilos by his title which, especially in the context of a power struggle between two court officials, is definitely "vulgar" in that it is hardly subtle or noble.
Second, if the Magistrates uphold a narrow interpretation of vulgarity (which I believe is the wrong course), they should do so aware of the near impossibility of policing such a ruling, the radical departure in the use of the feature it will imply for numerous players, their own departure from the decisions of whatever players ruled on this (i.e. their overruling of game mechanics, which the Magistrates, as far as I can remember, have never done before), and the likelihood of their creating a substantial new caseload. Given that possibility, it is necessary for the Magistrates to produce clear, detailed, substantial guidance for players to use with regards to the vulgarity feature. Ideally, the Magistrates should produce wording for Tom to add to the vulgarity page in order to clarify its use.
