Abuse of Vulgarity

[Elroy]

Post deleted.

A reminder about the rules:

• Repeating a point does not increase its truth value.

I agree, but at least be consistent in your censorship.

[egamma]

I agree, but at least be consistent in your censorship.

Okay, I deleted the other posts.

[James]

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.

Espousing atheism should be dealt with in game by shunning the person or suchlike (or an SMA/Titan/magistrate complaint if in game actions don't stop them), not vulgarity - which is about "...their manner of speech and behaviour..."

[Vellos]

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

But the vulgarity page doesn't even clearly define it!

The vulgarity page states that actions within roleplays can be vulgar. How is that a question of manner of speech?

[Penchant]

But the vulgarity page doesn't even clearly define it!

The vulgarity page states that actions within roleplays can be vulgar. How is that a question of manner of speech?

Just because it doesn't explicitly define it doesn't mean it doesn't define it. Its to punish for people swearing and for nobles do ignobles things like when someone got reported for torturing a commoner in detail in their roleplay. This is IC in the sense that the characters who are judges will look down on the characters who did the vulgar act, not anything your character considers vulgar is ok to report as vulgar.

[Vellos]

Just because it doesn't explicitly define it doesn't mean it doesn't define it. Its to punish for people swearing and for nobles do ignobles things like when someone got reported for torturing a commoner in detail in their roleplay. This is IC in the sense that the characters who are judges will look down on the characters who did the vulgar act, not anything your character considers vulgar is ok to report as vulgar.

No my point is that insofar as it does explain it, it does so inconsistently, which has caused confusion among players and general use which apparently most Magistrates disapprove of.

And I don't understand the two senses you identify: how can I know if nobles will generally look down on it unless I report it?

[Hyral]

No my point is that insofar as it does explain it, it does so inconsistently, which has caused confusion among players and general use which apparently most Magistrates disapprove of.

This much is certainly true. To my eyes, it's not at all clear from the game text that manner of speech is the only thing we're supposed to be concerned with. It's listed as one of three soft guidelines, along with very subjective things like respect, dignity, and proper behavior.

I honestly and without antagonism do not see why thinking of the vulgarity feature as sort of a broad IC-what-a-noble-shouldn't-do counterpart to the SMA feature's OCC-what-a-noble-wouldn't-do is considered such an unreasonable conclusion given the way it reads. Apparently it's the wrong conclusion, but I assure you that one needn't be maliciously or belligerently missing the point to come to it. If the feature is solely intended to police language, the game text could basically be condensed down to the second guideline. Get rid of all the other stuff that leads to wider interpretation.

[Penchant]

And I don't understand the two senses you identify: how can I know if nobles will generally look down on it unless I report it?

I would say it would be things that you as a player think is more of a major disrespect by the noble that or something like the persons roleplay that in detail tortured a commoner is ignoble, like swearing not, not using titles or they embarrassed you. My point about its not just anything your character thinks is disrespectful is that you or someone said just because of who sent the message they might consider the message vulgar.

[Indirik]

...how can I know if nobles will generally look down on it unless I report it?

Come on Vellos... you know better than this. That statement is blanket justification to report every message you receive for vulgarity, because, hey, you never know if nobles will generally look down on it until you report it...

[Perth]

This much is certainly true. To my eyes, it's not at all clear from the game text that manner of speech is the only thing we're supposed to be concerned with. It's listed as one of three soft guidelines, along with very subjective things like respect, dignity, and proper behavior.

I honestly and without antagonism do not see why thinking of the vulgarity feature as sort of a broad IC-what-a-noble-shouldn't-do counterpart to the SMA feature's OCC-what-a-noble-wouldn't-do is considered such an unreasonable conclusion given the way it reads. Apparently it's the wrong conclusion, but I assure you that one needn't be maliciously or belligerently missing the point to come to it. If the feature is solely intended to police language, the game text could basically be condensed down to the second guideline. Get rid of all the other stuff that leads to wider interpretation.

This.

[Vellos]

Come on Vellos... you know better than this. That statement is blanket justification to report every message you receive for vulgarity, because, hey, you never know if nobles will generally look down on it until you report it...

Fair enough. I'm assuming we're all agreed that spamming, or reporting when you don't have at least a reasonable intuition, is bad. Yes, I think you should only report things (as I said to Dante, I believe) that you have a reasonable suspicion are vulgar: but I don't see why we all need the same definition.

I'm talking mostly about cases that might fall under one broadly reasonable definition of vulgarity, but not another: not about merciless spamming or use of the tool for harassment. Those would seem, as I said earlier, to be reasonably excluded by any interpretation of the vulgarity tool. In which case I think reporting it is fine: it will only result in an H/P loss if other players agree. As has been said several times, having a penalty for false reporting would be a beneficial element to this system. I had originally thought there was one, apparently there isn't; there should be. And it could be done ICly easily enough: "The local nobility are aghast at the rumors you've spread about So-and-So... etc"

[fodder]

i think the penalty is more for a number of reporting that gets rejected. rather than just the odd one that gets rejected (makes no sense to get a penalty for reporting 1.. otherwise no one will use it as what defines vulgarity is not exact science)

[Geronus]

i think the penalty is more for a number of reporting that gets rejected. rather than just the odd one that gets rejected (makes no sense to get a penalty for reporting 1.. otherwise no one will use it as what defines vulgarity is not exact science)

Yeah, well that's the point. I feel like people are overusing it, at least partly due to the fact that there's absolutely no cost to them to try. It's a cheap and easy way to potentially needle another character, and if it doesn't work, who cares? As long as you only do it once in a while it probably won't cost you anything. I feel like people would try to be much more fair and discerning about it if there's an immediate risk to their character for using it. In that case, if you use the feature, you better be truly convinced that what you're reporting is vulgar. I mean, that's how it should be, but I get the feeling that that isn't how people use it.

[Anaris]

And I don't understand the two senses you identify: how can I know if nobles will generally look down on it unless I report it?

You are supposed to use your best judgement based on your understanding of the general noble culture.

It's not asking for a scientific certainty. It's asking for common sense.

[mikm]

How about vulgarity reports taking 12 hours of your character's time.