Abuse of Vulgarity

[Indirik]

The fact that you choose to explain it does not mean that you have to explain it. I think that several people have already illustrated the point quite well.

[Velax]

Further thoughts on this matter:

It is hard to classify this as abuse, since two out of four other randomly selected players agreed that the message in question was vulgar.

Not really relevant. I can guarantee you there are people that will "agree" that a reported message was vulgar just because they don't like that player, or even because the don't like the realm the player is in.

Vellos had no control over the outcome of his report

This argument baffles me, as it was also used in the other thread where Vellos had abused the Vulgarity mechanic - that because he couldn't guarantee that his actions would hurt someone else, it excuses his deliberate attempts to do so. Like if I throw bricks off the top of a tall building in a deliberate attempt to hurt someone, it's totally cool because neither I, nor anyone else on the roof, can see where the bricks land, and so will never know if I actually hurt someone.

[Indirik]

Not really relevant. I can guarantee you there are people that will "agree" that a reported message was vulgar just because they don't like that player, or even because the don't like the realm the player is in.

+1 on this. I am completely mystified as to why some people choose to report some things, or agree with things, or reject things. Vulgarity report results are almost a crapshoot sometimes.

[fodder]

did he clicked vulgar before the clarification? then what does it matter what the clarification was? can't unclick vulgar, can you?

[Indirik]

can't unclick vulgar, can you?

No. You are also not ever told what the final result of the report is, either. You click the link, confirm it, and then as far as you're concerned, it's done. The only way you ever hear a result is when the reported person chooses to bring it back in game and make an issue of it.

[egamma]

Perhaps the Vulgarity page should be updated with links to the SMA and Magistrate pages, and an explanation of why a player should choose which of the three?

[James]

Click the vulgarity link and it takes you to a very nice set of text that explains clearly (so it seems to me anyway) what the purpose is of that link. You read that and, if you still think the message deserves to be reported you confirm by clicking again.

Click on the vulgarity link yourselves and read the text (just don't confirm it if the message was just one to test!). Being used the way it was here was not correct.

[Anaris]

Regarding the point that was mentioned earlier:

It strikes me that the difference between simply inaccurately reporting a message for vulgarity and abuse is intent. Someone who knows that the message they are reporting is not, by the common standards, vulgar, but reports it anyway—particularly someone who makes a pattern of this behaviour—is committing an abuse. Someone who simply misunderstands the feature, and truly believes that what they are reporting would be considered vulgar—or, at least, could be considered vulgar—by people in general, and not just by them or their character, is not committing abuse.

Unfortunately, in the general case, that's not easy to tell.

Fortunately, in this case, it was, and all the Magistrates have to rule on for now is this case.

[Vellos]

Many people are talking about a clear definition.

You're wrong. It's not clear. [...] Or, you've already stopped playing BM as a game with friends. I'll explain.

You see that numerous players disagree with your interpretation of the rule. I am the only one willing to speak up about (and given the abuse I've gotten, notably from Velax and Elroy, but not exclusively them) I understand why people aren't willing to speak up: to do so is to suffer blanket IC discrimination. But the fact remains that my interpretation is evidently common.

If the interpretation advocated by people posting here is so obvious, then that implies that other players are, by and large, in their usage of the vulgarity feature, stupid and/or malicious. [...edited...]

Given widespread misunderstanding about the feature (evinced by the frequency of reports that others on this thread apparently disagree with), the only obvious conclusion about vulgarity is that its use and definition are not obvious.

I will reiterate what Kale said, in that I do not believe manner and content are separable, or even different.

For example, in the "!@#$ you" versus "Good my lord.... etc" the content IS different. They are semantically different things. One of them refers to a cultural taboo (violent sex with an offensive connotation), the other contains items of cultural respect (titles, ladies' dignity, etc, etc). That's a difference of content.

Really, I don't understand what people mean by "manner." You seem to liken it to tone of voice. Well, "tone of voice" in text-based messages would be things like italics, punctuation, capitalization, message type, message length and structure, etc. THAT is the "manner" of the message. In which case I would justified reporting things as vulgar if they are categorized under the wrong message type or have bad grammar: peasants have bad grammar!

Indeed, personally, I find the "manner" rule not only incomprehensible, but discriminatory. As a rule of thumb, I do not report vulgarity on players whose writing (And user page) evince limited grasp of english, despite the fact that some such players' messages are regularly vulgar and fail in even basic things like using titles, avoiding slang, etc. Those messages are vulgar. I don't report them. If the "manner" of the message is the point, those messages should be vulgar. But I don't think they are.

Or consider the equally obvious scenario. If I go into an extended clever discussion of sexual intercourse with a noble's sister, or mother, say (which in fact one of my characters has done, and sadly either nobody ruled it vulgar, or the people reading it were incapable of understanding basic metaphors), it is vulgar no matter how flowery the language. Why? Because some things are just ALWAYS vulgar.

---

Someone asked if I reported the message after Athena's clarification; yes, I did. As far as I recall, her clarification came after her message had already been, apparently, ruled vulgar, but I might have my chronology slightly mixed up. Whatever the case, I did report it as vulgar before I saw any clarification, but after I had seen at least one other message interpreting her message similarly to my perception.

[Vellos]

[bunch of stuff deleted]

To summarize:

You felt disrespected so abused the vulgarity option to retaliate.

Your wiki search did not unearth the difference between atheist and pagan, leading you to abuse the vulgarity option.

Regarding this post, I'm going to ask that this thread be slightly more moderated. The first paragraph is obviously just an ad hominem, and furthermore it misrepresents the facts of the case. (Egamma EDIT: done, and sorry for the delay)

The bullet points are also inaccurate; the player of elroy repeatedly says "You." I didn't feel disrespected until he and other players started hurling OOC insults. At that point, sure (though I have a pretty thick skin generally). I am unsure how I stirred up so much OOC hatred, though a long string of OOC comments by several players in question (often mixed with IC comments) leads me to believe that I may have stirred up some OOC controversy within Eston beyond what I am aware of, or else touched on some historical sensitivity. But crucially, "I" did not feel disrespected by Athena Leather. Cyrilos did. Cyrilos is a bloodthirsty maniac and a prick to boot, though; he gets offended by everything.

I am unsure what the references to iphones and wiki searches refer to, so I'll just let them stand unchallenged, as I just don't know what they are there for to begin with.

And I have no interest in making this case about some kind of personal victory or defeat, so I'll redirect the Magistrates to all of my other comments, which are all germaine to the issue at hand, and ask that they consider them apart from personal attacks being made.

[Geronus]

Many people are talking about a clear definition.

You're wrong. It's not clear. You are living in an imaginary world of your own delusion if you think it is. Or, you've already stopped playing BM as a game with friends. I'll explain.

You see that numerous players disagree with your interpretation of the rule. I am the only one willing to speak up about (and given the abuse I've gotten, notably from Velax and Elroy, but not exclusively them) I understand why people aren't willing to speak up: to do so is to suffer blanket IC discrimination. But the fact remains that my interpretation is evidently common.

I am aware that it's not clear enough and have pointed that out using essentially your reasoning. Help us make it more clear. Unless you simply don't understand it at all, which seems within the realm of possibility.

I will reiterate what Kale said, in that I do not believe manner and content are separable, or even different.

For example, in the "!@#$ you" versus "Good my lord.... etc" the content IS different. They are semantically different things. One of them refers to a cultural taboo (violent sex with an offensive connotation), the other contains items of cultural respect (titles, ladies' dignity, etc, etc). That's a difference of content.

Really, I don't understand what people mean by "manner." You seem to liken it to tone of voice. Well, "tone of voice" in text-based messages would be things like italics, punctuation, capitalization, message type, message length and structure, etc. THAT is the "manner" of the message. In which case I would justified reporting things as vulgar if they are categorized under the wrong message type or have bad grammar: peasants have bad grammar!

Indeed, personally, I find the "manner" rule not only incomprehensible, but discriminatory. As a rule of thumb, I do not report vulgarity on players whose writing (And user page) evince limited grasp of english, despite the fact that some such players' messages are regularly vulgar and fail in even basic things like using titles, avoiding slang, etc. Those messages are vulgar. I don't report them. If the "manner" of the message is the point, those messages should be vulgar. But I don't think they are.

Or consider the equally obvious scenario. If I go into an extended clever discussion of sexual intercourse with a noble's sister, or mother, say (which in fact one of my characters has done, and sadly either nobody ruled it vulgar, or the people reading it were incapable of understanding basic metaphors), it is vulgar no matter how flowery the language. Why? Because some things are just ALWAYS vulgar.

If this is your belief then I think you've missed the point entirely. This isn't about literal definitions and the use of synonyms. It's about how you express ideas at a very basic level. It's about a rhetorical standard. This game is about medieval nobles, and accordingly, people should try to communicate like them (or at least adhere to some relatively strong rhetorical standard), which precludes the use of obvious profanity, for example. As I pointed out to Perth, you can be offensive without resorting to profanity. No, I would not literally be telling someone to %&@# off, but I can communicate exactly the same idea using completely different words and phrasing. For the record, it's entirely in keeping with the standards of medieval nobility to discuss intercourse using clever metaphors. That's exactly how they did it, when they did it, at least when they were trying to maintain any pretense of good breeding in the process. I would never consider a conversation such as you have roughly described as being vulgar unless you got a little too blunt or specific.

Reread the posted guidelines and ask yourself which of them justifies reporting a comment about religion simply because it is a comment about religion. Again, it's not about the idea being expressed, it's about how it is expressed. And yes, I recognize that this could be construed as unfair to our non-native English speakers. I believe the entire point of this feature however is to rely on the community to regulate itself, and there is a line somewhere about respecting the fact that not everyone has perfect English. You are and have been exactly in the right to cut non-native English speakers a break. Ultimately, the entire system relies on the judgment of players to make the right choice and be fair and considerate to each other. In my experience, very few messages I've seen should truly be considered vulgar, and I do not hesitate to say that if you find yourself using this feature a lot that you are probably not playing this game as you would a board game with friends. Do you constantly call your friends out on every little mistake they make and hold them rigidly to the letter of the rules in a game? Are you that guy who is always out to win no matter what and can't cut your friends any slack at all? Then you're a guy I don't really want to play games with, frankly. I strongly suspect that this is why you have encountered such negative reactions to your behavior in this area, as your attitude about it is quite merciless if not downright cynical. No one likes to play games with a guy who's going to be a jerk about every little thing.

I do not believe that this case justifies a guilty verdict, but I will say that I believe that you misused the feature. Which leads me to ask you, what do you believe the intent of this feature is? How do you think it is supposed to be used?

[Vellos]

I am aware that it's not clear enough and have pointed that out using essentially your reasoning. Help us make it more clear. Unless you simply don't understand it at all, which seems within the realm of possibility.

I do not know a way to make your position, as I perceive it, more clear, except by saying, "Vulgarity is a purely OOC tool for policing OOC offensive language," except that such cases can be Magistrate cases anyways. And the vulgarity option is NOT available for OOC messages. Because any IC interpretation of vulgarity will boil down to, "Does my character view this as vulgar?"

If this is your belief then I think you've missed the point entirely. This isn't about literal definitions and the use of synonyms. It's about how you express ideas at a very basic level. It's about a rhetorical standard.

I do not understand this comment.

This game is about medieval nobles, and accordingly, people should try to communicate like them (or at least adhere to some relatively strong rhetorical standard), which precludes the use of obvious profanity, for example.

I wager medieval nobles cussed. See, I don't think we should use vulgarity to police things "nobles wouldn't do." That's SMA reports. We should use vulgarity to police things "nobles would look down upon." And if others don't rule with you, then it isn't generally frowned upon. But if they do, then it is. But once we start down this path (well, correction: "once we get to where we already are in actual practice"), it's obvious that the vulgarity feature becomes policing things "my character looks down upon."

For the record, it's entirely in keeping with the standards of medieval nobility to discuss intercourse using clever metaphors. That's exactly how they did it, when they did it, at least when they were trying to maintain any pretense of good breeding in the process. I would never consider a conversation such as you have roughly described as being vulgar unless you got a little too blunt or specific.

Yes, Medieval nobles would do it, and it would be regarded as vulgar, crass, and offensive. They didn't smirk and say, "Well, your argument was clever, I guess there's nothing I can do." They yelled at the other guy, and probably drew swords and killed each other.

Reread the posted guidelines and ask yourself which of them justifies reporting a comment about religion simply because it is a comment about religion.

I did no such thing. I reported a comment that I, and other players, perceived to be espousing atheism, which no noble would do. Now maybe it wasn't actually espousing atheism and I was wrong; that seems to be the case.

Again, it's not about the idea being expressed, it's about how it is expressed.

And again, I'll reiterate that I do not believe that is a meaningful distinction.

Ultimately, the entire system relies on the judgment of players to make the right choice and be fair and considerate to each other. In my experience, very few messages I've seen should truly be considered vulgar, and I do not hesitate to say that if you find yourself using this feature a lot that you are probably not playing this game as you would a board game with friends.

I agree on all counts! Which is why I think the Magistrates should rule in my favor on all counts. I think, and maybe this is crazy, but I really think that we can basically trust players on this. The player body in general will produce results that all of us disagree with sometimes. But I think if we let players decide what is vulgar, they'll generally do a pretty good job. And I think that there is no other enforcable option. You seem to have ignored my comments regarding the larger jurisprudential problems here. Here's another jurisprudential concern: every vulgarity ruling will be subject to Magistrates' review. In my opinion, the Magistrates should rule that Magistrates will not exercise oversight on vulgarity unless it can be demonstrated that some part of the IRs or SC is clearly violated (like in the spying case, or spamming the system, as above).

Do you constantly call your friends out on every little mistake they make and hold them rigidly to the letter of the rules in a game?

Absolutely.

Are you that guy who is always out to win no matter what and can't cut your friends any slack at all?

Not at all. I don't care if I win. I care that people follow the rules. I have not at any point been a jerk; rather, it seems to me I've been quite polite, and everyone else is freaking out and hurling insults. I don't understand why people are getting so angry about this and taking it personally.

Which leads me to ask you, what do you believe the intent of this feature is? How do you think it is supposed to be used?

I do not believe the function has intent. I believe it was implemented without a clear idea of what it would do, and I think this is clearly evinced by the jumbled IC and OOC language on the pages that describe it (it even says that BEHAVIOR can be vulgar! as in, roleplayed activities!) I do not think there is a coherent "supposed" to consider. I don't think Tom had an extremely firm idea of what role this feature would play. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't think that there's a definite intent here. I think it's a feature that got added in a fairly ad hoc manner.

I think it is acceptable to use it the way I have used it, but no, I don't think that's necessary The Perfect Intended Use. I'm not interested in having arguments about what Tom may or may not have intended.

[Geronus]

See, I don't think we should use vulgarity to police things "nobles wouldn't do." That's SMA reports. We should use vulgarity to police things "nobles would look down upon." And if others don't rule with you, then it isn't generally frowned upon. But if they do, then it is. But once we start down this path (well, correction: "once we get to where we already are in actual practice"), it's obvious that the vulgarity feature becomes policing things "my character looks down upon
I did no such thing. I reported a comment that I, and other players, perceived to be espousing atheism, which no noble would do. Now maybe it wasn't actually espousing atheism and I was wrong; that seems to be the case.

Except that's exactly what it's for: "Again, vulgarity is for the peasants, nobles are expected to be able to speak in a manner that sets them apart, even if what they say is fairly basic or even offensive." You shouldn't ignore guidelines simply because you don't agree with them. The vulgarity standards are applied everywhere, while SMA (which is more encompassing) is applied only on Dwilight. I am coming to the conclusion that you have elected to simply ignore the guidelines that have been written. Certainly you have in the past. You can argue legalisms all you want and pick at definitions, but I honestly don't see what is so hard about understanding the guidelines that are there and making an honest effort to understand and abide by them, neither of which you seem to have done.

I agree on all counts! Which is why I think the Magistrates should rule in my favor on all counts. I think, and maybe this is crazy, but I really think that we can basically trust players on this. The player body in general will produce results that all of us disagree with sometimes. But I think if we let players decide what is vulgar, they'll generally do a pretty good job. And I think that there is no other enforcable option. You seem to have ignored my comments regarding the larger jurisprudential problems here. Here's another jurisprudential concern: every vulgarity ruling will be subject to Magistrates' review. In my opinion, the Magistrates should rule that Magistrates will not exercise oversight on vulgarity unless it can be demonstrated that some part of the IRs or SC is clearly violated (like in the spying case, or spamming the system, as above).

I have ignored your comments because they're not relevant to the point I'm trying to make here. I've already come to some conclusions regarding the verdict I will push for. Your points were considered, and I have no interest in debating them with you. If you have to hear me say it rather than infer it from several comments I've already made, I agree with you in a broad sense that there are some thorny issues with declaring a guilty verdict. At this point I am more interested in attempting to explain why this was a misuse of the vulgarity mechanism, though I have to admit I'm having second thoughts about the utility of doing so considering your apparent lack of understanding or interest in the point I'm trying to make. I may have to end up leaving it at "Agree to disagree," with a note that I am not certain I would ever want to play a board game with you.

Not at all. I don't care if I win. I care that people follow the rules. I have not at any point been a jerk; rather, it seems to me I've been quite polite, and everyone else is freaking out and hurling insults. I don't understand why people are getting so angry about this and taking it personally.

While I understand you feel that you've been polite, I assure you that as far as perceptions go I find it perfectly understandable that someone else would think you were just being a jerk about this. I know you well enough to know that's probably not the case, but all the same I am not surprised at all as to the reaction you have gotten.

I do not believe the function has intent. I believe it was implemented without a clear idea of what it would do, and I think this is clearly evinced by the jumbled IC and OOC language on the pages that describe it (it even says that BEHAVIOR can be vulgar! as in, roleplayed activities!) I do not think there is a coherent "supposed" to consider. I don't think Tom had an extremely firm idea of what role this feature would play. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't think that there's a definite intent here. I think it's a feature that got added in a fairly ad hoc manner.

I think it is acceptable to use it the way I have used it, but no, I don't think that's necessary The Perfect Intended Use. I'm not interested in having arguments about what Tom may or may not have intended.

This is virtually a non-answer. By this, I infer that you essentially feel that it can and should be used for any reason at all, so long as there is some inherently logical basis for doing so and regardless of whether the mechanic was intended to be used that way or not. For example, your previous (and since disavowed) use of it as a way to simply spread information around the island. Personally, I find this position to be highly unethical. The mechanism clearly has an intended purpose or it wouldn't have been developed, which you are effectively admitting you do not care to even understand; you've simply elected to use it any way you please, to the detriment of other characters. And you wonder why people get upset about it. To put it in terms anyone can understand, it's just not nice.

I think that this thread has ceased to be productive. You may reply to my points if you wish, but I will probably lock it afterward, or within a day or two in any case.

[Anaris]

And again, I'll reiterate that I do not believe that is a meaningful distinction.

Then you're apparently unable to perceive a distinction that many reasonably intelligent people feel is clear and obvious.

I do not believe the function has intent. I believe it was implemented without a clear idea of what it would do, and I think this is clearly evinced by the jumbled IC and OOC language on the pages that describe it (it even says that BEHAVIOR can be vulgar! as in, roleplayed activities!) I do not think there is a coherent "supposed" to consider. I don't think Tom had an extremely firm idea of what role this feature would play. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't think that there's a definite intent here. I think it's a feature that got added in a fairly ad hoc manner.

I think it is acceptable to use it the way I have used it, but no, I don't think that's necessary The Perfect Intended Use. I'm not interested in having arguments about what Tom may or may not have intended.

The wording may be unclear, and maybe we can fix it, but at least to me, the intent is perfectly clear, and Tom knew exactly what he was aiming for when he implemented it.

The fact that you either can't see what he was aiming for, or disagree with it on a fundamental level, doesn't change that.

I will reiterate: The purpose is to ensure that if players use language that would be inappropriate for a noble (not try to express ideas that would be inappropriate for a noble), they lose face among their peers in the way that the game recognizes: that is, they lose honour. It is hoped that this will encourage use of proper, noble language, but that's an intended emergent behaviour, rather than the direct intended effect.

[egamma]

Post deleted.

A reminder about the rules:

• remain strictly on topic. Information relevant to the actual case only. This goes especially for speculations, hypotheticals, variations - discussing of the this could be... if... kind are unwanted. We have a specific case before us and will decide that case, nothing else.
• be positive and friendly. Don't insult or troll.
• add new information. Repeating a point does not increase its truth value.