BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => BM General Discussion => Topic started by: Dante Silverfire on February 08, 2013, 11:07:17 PM
-
I'd like some opinions of GD, because apparently a recent message of mine was judged vulgar and people agreed. I can't even think of what could possibly be deemed vulgar in this message.
-----
Etiquette Issue (just in)
One of your recent messages, reproduced below, has caused many raised eyebrows among your peers and fellow nobles agree that this way of talking is unbefitting of a noble. Your respect among the nobility falls, resulting in a loss of a point of honour.
The Message:
Quite the gathering of nobility we have here. I've never seen so many soldiers gathered together.
Perhaps some of the Darkans here can help me and my friends end a little dispute we've been having. We're trying to decide why Darkans are so good at and so ravenous about fighting battles. We've come up with a few ideas:
1. Darka's women are so ugly, that your soldiers have to fight their way to foreign lands in order to find a lay that they can be with while sober.
2. Darka's women are so viscous, that Darkans have to rape their own women in order to reproduce and so they don't know how to do anything else while abroad.
3. Darka doesn't actually have any women, and this volcano which you speak of is really just a boy hug fest, so your entire realm joins the army so that hopefully they can rather die than return home to that misery.
Any chance I'm close?
Eragon Silverfire
Knight of Barad Falas
-
I can see how quite a few people would consider that offensive. That's probably the criteria they are using.
-
Of course it is offensive. But, since when was offensive "vulgar, and unfitting of a noble"
-
I don't see how it's offensive or vulgar. Remember, that feature exists to report things which are offensive or vulgar OOC. Insults delivered IC that are lacking in expletives, racist epithets, sexist languages, or other hate speech should probably not be reported.
-
I don't see how it's offensive or vulgar. Remember, that feature exists to report things which are offensive or vulgar OOC. Insults delivered IC that are lacking in expletives, racist epithets, sexist languages, or other hate speech should probably not be reported.
That's what I thought. For some reason I think someone reported this message, simply to have more people read it, and it got actually called bad.
lol
-
I don't see anything vulgar in there. I have seen about the same before during the war of Morek vs Sumerdale. Then there is all of the insults in Swordfell. Nothing overly bad as far as I can tell either.
-
vul·gar
/ˈvəlgər/
Adjective
Lacking sophistication or good taste; unrefined: "the vulgar trappings of wealth".
Making explicit and offensive reference to sex or bodily functions; coarse and rude: "a vulgar joke".
You made several lowbrow jokes, which made reference to sex and were intended to offend. So, in every sense of the word, it was a vulgar message.
-
You made several lowbrow jokes, which made reference to sex and were intended to offend. So, in every sense of the word, it was a vulgar message.
Let's not be pedantic about this. There are dozens—at least—of messages exchanged each day that meet that criteria. That is not the commonly understood definition of vulgar in the western world. If you have a better and more inclusive suggestion for that particular label, please do share.
-
Darka's women are so viscous
This was probably it. No woman likes being told she has a thick and sticky consistency.
-
You made several lowbrow jokes, which made reference to sex and were intended to offend. So, in every sense of the word, it was a vulgar message.
Nobles offended enemy nobles. Also it was not explicit in any way, and the "and" in "explicit and offensive reference" is key.
-
This was probably it. No woman likes being told she has a thick and sticky consistency.
This made me snicker.
The vulgar message thing is yet another function that needs a more direct explanation of its purpose.
-
I don't see how it's offensive or vulgar. Remember, that feature exists to report things which are offensive or vulgar OOC. Insults delivered IC that are lacking in expletives, racist epithets, sexist languages, or other hate speech should probably not be reported.
I will be sending a message to Tom in just a moment because the needs to be cleared up. I am sure Anaris said or agreed to vulgarity being IC and its been talked about before so it needs clarification by Tom and IMO, an announcement made for it too.
-
I believe vulgarity being an IC thing is a mistake, because that opens it up to all kinds of IC interpretations that will depend on the character, rather than an objective look at whether it was vulgar or not.
-
I believe vulgarity being an IC thing is a mistake, because that opens it up to all kinds of IC interpretations that will depend on the character, rather than an objective look at whether it was vulgar or not.
I agree but nonetheless, I want official clarification by Tom.
-
Let's not be pedantic about this. There are dozens—at least—of messages exchanged each day that meet that criteria. That is not the commonly understood definition of vulgar in the western world. If you have a better and more inclusive suggestion for that particular label, please do share.
I can't believe that there are dozens of such messages exchanged daily. I've yet to see any, other than the one being discussed, and I've been playing for a year now. Even if this message were common, one would have to wonder what earned this case a distinction from the rest.
In the Western world, 'vulgar' is an uncommon term and isn't well understood at all. When you hear the term, which is on rare occasion, it's usually being associated with upper class Victorian society. A hapless child, in a period piece, will utter a dirty word in front of his strict parents, eliciting from them a sharp punishment accompanying a comment about 'vulgar children these days'.
-
I can't believe that there are dozens of such messages exchanged daily. I've yet to see any, other than the one being discussed, and I've been playing for a year now. Even if this message were common, one would have to wonder what earned this case a distinction from the rest.
In the Western world, 'vulgar' is an uncommon term and isn't well understood at all. When you hear the term, which is on rare occasion, it's usually being associated with upper class Victorian society. A hapless child, in a period piece, will utter a dirty word in front of his strict parents, eliciting from them a sharp punishment accompanying a comment about 'vulgar children these days'.
Uhm... I'm in the Western world, and it is very much an everyday term, that is well understood. I don't think of upper class Victorian society or its values when it is used...
-
I think people are missing what's actually going on. People don't give a crap what the vulgarity function is for, they just use it to hurt or get revenge on people or realms they don't like. And if the reported messages goes to enough people in realms who dislike the realm/side the message came from (which is often discernible from the message itself when dealing with insults in war), then they vote it vulgar.
-
I think people are missing what's actually going on. People don't give a crap what the vulgarity function is for, they just use it to hurt or get revenge on people or realms they don't like. And if the reported messages goes to enough people in realms who dislike the realm/side the message came from (which is often discernible from the message itself when dealing with insults in war), then they vote it vulgar.
That should not be an assumption, merely considered a possibility.
-
I can't believe that there are dozens of such messages exchanged daily. I've yet to see any, other than the one being discussed, and I've been playing for a year now. Even if this message were common, one would have to wonder what earned this case a distinction from the rest.
In the Western world, 'vulgar' is an uncommon term and isn't well understood at all. When you hear the term, which is on rare occasion, it's usually being associated with upper class Victorian society. A hapless child, in a period piece, will utter a dirty word in front of his strict parents, eliciting from them a sharp punishment accompanying a comment about 'vulgar children these days'.
Approximately 750-1000 players log in every day. "Offensive" letters, IC, are par for the course.
-
Uhm... I'm in the Western world, and it is very much an everyday term, that is well understood. I don't think of upper class Victorian society or its values when it is used...
What I mean is, if you asked someone to define the word they would give you a vague definition, along the lines of 'something offensive'. This very thread is proof of that, as many posters were unsure of it's exact meaning.
Approximately 750-1000 players log in every day. "Offensive" letters, IC, are par for the course.
We are discussing letters that are not only offensive but, well, vulgar as well. The letter in the opening post takes rape, sex, sexual attraction, reproduction and loads them all into an insult. That does not happen multiple times a day, to say the least.
-
What I mean is, if you asked someone to define the word they would give you a vague definition, along the lines of 'something offensive'. This very thread is proof of that, as many posters were unsure of it's exact meaning.
We are discussing letters that are not only offensive but, well, vulgar as well. The letter in the opening post takes rape, sex, sexual attraction, reproduction and loads them all into an insult. That does not happen multiple times a day, to say the least.
I can come up with plenty of examples for OOC vulgarity that is actual vulgarity as you are missing the explicit part. Offensive and happening have to sex things related to it does not make it vulgar. If vulgarity is IC, then that is not vulgar with definition of unbecoming of a noble because a noble would surely say that to an enemy noble they disgust.
-
I can come up with plenty of examples for OOC vulgarity that is actual vulgarity as you are missing the explicit part. Offensive and happening have to sex things related to it does not make it vulgar. If vulgarity is IC, then that is not vulgar with definition of unbecoming of a noble because a noble would surely say that to an enemy noble they disgust.
ex·plic·it
/ikˈsplisit/
Adjective
Stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.
How was the letter unclear?
-
How was the letter unclear?
That may be the definition but as Tom is not one to base things off of dictionary definitions but societal definitions, IMO. Explicit with a societal definition would be something like language that graphically describes sexual content or violence. Also, by freedictionary.com a definition of explicit is: b. Describing or portraying nudity or sexual activity in graphic detail. which is similar to what I stated. Basically, don't be pedantic about this.
-
What do you mean by 'societal definition,' how does it differ from the dictionary definition? It's not like the people who write dictionaries are ivory tower intellectuals, transcribing esoteric knowledge while being totally disconnected from society. They base their definitions on the linguistic use of these words in modern times, so that they hold practical value in situations like this.
And I'm sorry for being a "pedant," but it's kind of necessary to define a term before discussing whether something meets the definition of it. Saying that you all know some vague 'societal definition' doesn't make what you're doing any less arbitrary. Suppose you declare that the letter in this case isn't vulgar -- what then? All you're doing is muddying the definition of the word, confusing everyone involved and leaving everyone else in the dark. It's not like many players will actually read this thread and come to the understanding that BM's definition of 'vulgar' is narrow, obtuse and largely unrelated to any other.
If you want to have a special definition for the word, that's your prerogative. But if you want people to understand what you mean, you're going to have to add a note in italics underneath it, explaining what you really mean. Simply brushing it aside on a forum, which most people don't frequent, is totally impractical.
-
Etiquette Issue (1 day, 14 hours ago)
One of your recent messages, reproduced below, has caused many raised eyebrows among your peers and fellow nobles agree that this way of talking is unbefitting of a noble. Your respect among the nobility falls, resulting in a loss of a point of honour.
The Message:
I've gone and done it again, University!
Come see the Flowrestown Theatre Company's newest stage play, "Too Hot to Trot." It is like a deformity you just can't look away from!
Bowie Ironsides
Knight of Flowrestown
Dean of History of Dwilight University
Is the word 'deformity' what's vulgar or were they referring to the content of the play itself?
If the latter, my response is, anyone ever see a George Carlin stand-up act? If you don't want to see it don't pay for it.
-
What do you mean by 'societal definition,' how does it differ from the dictionary definition? It's not like the people who write dictionaries are ivory tower intellectuals, transcribing esoteric knowledge while being totally disconnected from society. They base their definitions on the linguistic use of these words in modern times, so that they hold practical value in situations like this.
Societal definition is for example the word dumb, the dictionary definition is someone who can not or chooses not to talk, while society would general use it as a synonym of stupid.
And I'm sorry for being a "pedant," but it's kind of necessary to define a term before discussing whether something meets the definition of it. Saying that you all know some vague 'societal definition' doesn't make what you're doing any less arbitrary. Suppose you declare that the letter in this case isn't vulgar -- what then? All you're doing is muddying the definition of the word, confusing everyone involved and leaving everyone else in the dark. It's not like many players will actually read this thread and come to the understanding that BM's definition of 'vulgar' is narrow, obtuse and largely unrelated to any other.
So when hear about explicit music you think the music is "Stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt."
If you want to have a special definition for the word, that's your prerogative. But if you want people to understand what you mean, you're going to have to add a note in italics underneath it, explaining what you really mean. Simply brushing it aside on a forum, which most people don't frequent, is totally impractical.
That I do agree with, which should be done in more places. Also, when I sent a message to Tom, I suggest that clarification also be posted as an announcement so all can see it.
-
Is the word 'deformity' what's vulgar or were they referring to the content of the play itself?
If the latter, my response is, anyone ever see a George Carlin stand-up act? If you don't want to see it don't pay for it.
I have no idea whats supposedly vulgar in that though your analogy might not work. Was that through DU?
-
Is the word 'deformity' what's vulgar or were they referring to the content of the play itself?
If the latter, my response is, anyone ever see a George Carlin stand-up act? If you don't want to see it don't pay for it.
Some of the content of the play itself is quite vulgar. For those who do not have the link:
The Tyrant of Stone kisses the skull. Slowly he begins to undress the skeleton when the curtains close on them. The audience can only hear:
TYRANT: Oh Gomes! Gomes! Yes, Gomes! That’s where I want it! You have such a hard bone, Gomes. Oh Gomes! Gomes! Gomes! Gomes! GOOOMMMEEESSSS! Aw, your marrow got all over me. You’re so bold. I love it.
The curtain opens and the audience sees the skull atop a pile of bone dust. The Tyrant of Stone is undressed down to his skivvies.
P.S. I should commend you on these plays you're doing. Vulgar or not I love them.
-
Some of the content of the play itself is quite vulgar. For those who do not have the link:
P.S. I should commend you on these plays you're doing. Vulgar or not I love them.
Vulgarity is not based on if a wiki page is vulgar that your character included in a letter. Those who said it was vulgar may have, but i am quite sure its not meant to be. And yeah I love them too.
-
Yes it was in the University. I love marketing in that place. They're the best group around. If you've ever seen a George Carlin act they're very vulgar and offensive. People know that going in and that's why he was in show business for so long. So basically, if you don't like him or his style you don't have to pay to see him. Same with something Bowie produces. If the Demon of Dwilight is advertising a play he wrote and directed and you're not a fan of his style "of comedy" then don't watch his show. I never forced anyone to read it. And I do state it at the top that they are lampoons of a caricature. They're supposed to be outlandish like that.
Thank you guys for enjoying the show! That's why I put them on ;D
-
My understanding of the vulgarity feature:
1. Any letters received by a character reviewing an IC letter through the feature, can use that letter as IC knowledge.
2. You are to judge the vulgarity of the letter based upon OOC modern day standards/what would be unbefitting of what a noble would say. These are not the same thing, but they go hand in hand. Nobles would not say many of the modern day curse words as they are very explicit and vulgar.
Now, I personally wouldn't have judged my letter as vulgar, and would never send a letter I thought was vulgar. I am of course biased as I wrote the letter. Of course the letter references sex and rape, but built in game features already reference rape as a type of looting. If "rape" was inherently considered vulgar I wouldn't expect it to be included as a part of the game mechanics.
-
1. Any letters received by a character reviewing an IC letter through the feature, can use that letter as IC knowledge.
Really? I've always considered the feature to be an entirely OOC policing mechanic. The intent being to discourage people from dropping character when they angry; the extra effort to not just slip into easy modern insults often lets the player calm down, too. I mean, realistically, would a medieval noble just pluck a letter out like that and throw it to a few random nobles, asking them to agree or disagree that it's not noble?
As for the actual topic at hand, no I don't think that was vulgar. I believe the criteria at the bottom of the page says something along the lines of creative insults generally being the way to go; the wit is what separates us from peasants. Eragon's letter, while rude, is more clever than vulgar, imo. The rape line is the only one even close to the line.
I'm somewhat curious why so many seem to be popping up right now. I had to review one about Juan Dela Cruz recently that wasn't vulgar at all... Not a single swear in it. The writing was bland and not creative, but maybe hurtful... The author was obviously angry, maybe even to the point of OOC anger, but that isn't the purpose of this mechanic, is it? Characters and people get angry; it's when they ignore the game's rules that we should be stepping in. (Of course, sometimes it's necessary for a GM or someone else to notice the OOC aspect and pull someone out of the action, but this is a PUBLIC ASSESSMENT tool.)
-
Really? I've always considered the feature to be an entirely OOC policing mechanic.
I am completely sure that I've seen either Tom or Tim state that letters you review you can use as IC knowledge or perhaps both said it at one point. Honestly, I can't remember which thread I saw it in, but it was on here somewhere. Specifically, the thread regarded a trend whereby players were leaking IC information as spies by simply reporting all sensitive letters in military type channels as vulgar so that they would potentially be leaked to the enemy. Granted, such was seen as abusive, but it was defended that the information received was IC usable.
-
I am completely sure that I've seen either Tom or Tim state that letters you review you can use as IC knowledge or perhaps both said it at one point. Honestly, I can't remember which thread I saw it in, but it was on here somewhere. Specifically, the thread regarded a trend whereby players were leaking IC information as spies by simply reporting all sensitive letters in military type channels as vulgar so that they would potentially be leaked to the enemy. Granted, such was seen as abusive, but it was defended that the information received was IC usable.
Oh, wow. I wouldn't have expected that. Learned something new today!
-
Definitions of "vulgar" from one dictionary or another are irrelevant. As in many cases, you are getting far too caught up in technicalities and arguing like lawyers.
For the purposes of this feature, "vulgar" means "speaking like a peasant"—using words that no noble would ever use.
It's not about insults. It's about insults using lower-class language.
Furthermore, while the feature itself is quasi-OOC in nature, it is intended to represent the entirely IC mechanism by which a shockingly vulgar letter is passed around through gossip, thus letting many people know that the person who wrote it is not as noble in his words as he is in his blood—and thus, making him be seen as less honourable. This is why letters seen through it are, indeed, intended to be treated as if your character knew the contents (if you choose to do so).
Note, however, that despite Vellos's repeated protestations to the contrary, using it as a mechanism to deliberately leak secrets to enemies is an abuse. If you want to leak secrets, just send a regular letter to someone you trust.
-
Vulgarity is an IC element, as should be obvious by the fact that it uses IC flavour texts. It talks to you as a noble, not as a player. It's purpose is to encourage players to proper roleplaying through IC consequences if they don't (i.e. talk like a common peasant).
-
Note, however, that despite Vellos's repeated protestations to the contrary, using it as a mechanism to deliberately leak secrets to enemies is an abuse.
Yes, it is. If it were intended for that purpose, the button would be labeled "leak" and not "vulgarity".
-
Yes, it is. If it were intended for that purpose, the button would be labeled "leak" and not "vulgarity".
I would should like to state ever since it was discussed long ago, Vellos has never said that it was meant for leaking and he agreed it was abuse.
-
Yes it was in the University. I love marketing in that place. They're the best group around. If you've ever seen a George Carlin act they're very vulgar and offensive. People know that going in and that's why he was in show business for so long. So basically, if you don't like him or his style you don't have to pay to see him. Same with something Bowie produces. If the Demon of Dwilight is advertising a play he wrote and directed and you're not a fan of his style "of comedy" then don't watch his show. I never forced anyone to read it. And I do state it at the top that they are lampoons of a caricature. They're supposed to be outlandish like that.
I rated this message as vulgar, not for the letter, but for the play which was linked in it and I considered as part of the message.
Now, I don't think it's vulgar in the "I will never speak to you again" sense. That's not what the feature is about anyway; if I ever see a message that is so vulgar as to entice this reaction, I would forward it to the Titans or the Magistrates.
I see it that way: what is the consequence of having a message rated as vulgar? You lose a point of honour.
What is the result of an infiltrator getting caught messing with road signs? He can lose a few points of honour.
This is my scale: if this letter is as vulgar as messing with roads signs for a noble, then it's vulgar. It's not that low, really.
As for your "if you don't like him or his style you don't have to pay to see him" comment, you're right. It's easy to avoid things you consider overly vulgar, but that doesn't make them less vulgar. The Honour points you lose are a game-mechanics reflection of people (NPCs) ignoring you because they don't like your style.
-
As for your "if you don't like him or his style you don't have to pay to see him" comment, you're right. It's easy to avoid things you consider overly vulgar, but that doesn't make them less vulgar. The Honour points you lose are a game-mechanics reflection of people (NPCs) ignoring you because they don't like your style.
That's not what vulgarity is for and it shouldn't be rated like that. Its a play, that is said to have vulgar things and many plays would. What a noble writes in a play and what a noble would say are two very different things.
-
Rate the content of the message, not whatever happens to be linked from it.
Marking someone's message as vulgar for that is no better than marking it as vulgar because it contains a quote from another character with vulgarity in it.
Now, if someone starts trying to abuse this to get around the vulgarity system, that's a separate issue, and they should probably be reported to the Magistrates.
-
Rate the content of the message, not whatever happens to be linked from it.
Marking someone's message as vulgar for that is no better than marking it as vulgar because it contains a quote from another character with vulgarity in it.
In this particular case, the message was along the lines of: "Please read this, which I wrote: [link]".
It's not really abuse, the text linked was quite long, posting it on the wiki was the right thing to do.
-
In this particular case, the message was along the lines of: "Please read this, which I wrote: [link]".
It's not really abuse, the text linked was quite long, posting it on the wiki was the right thing to do.
Ah. That is a somewhat different matter.
Still feels like a grey area to me, but it's definitely less certainly not-vulgar.
-
I'm not sure whether the message is vulgar or not. But the play is certainly offensive, and along the lines of the stuff Paris wrote for his plays, for which Tom threatened to delete Paris' account if he ever posted it again. The only difference is that Paris used actual character names for his gay porn, as opposed to the transparent euphemisms Bowie is using.
-
That's not what vulgarity is for and it shouldn't be rated like that. Its a play, that is said to have vulgar things and many plays would. What a noble writes in a play and what a noble would say are two very different things.
A noble wouldn't write a play, really. And if he did and put his name on it, then what the play says would be seen as directly what the author means. There was no such things as artistic license in the middle ages.
-
But the play is certainly offensive, and along the lines of the stuff Paris wrote for his plays, for which Tom threatened to delete Paris' account if he ever posted it again. The only difference is that Paris used actual character names for his gay porn, as opposed to the transparent euphemisms Bowie is using.
Well, I certainly didn't think it was that offensive. Offensive enough to lose a point of honour, yes, but as I said if something is deserving of being dealt with OOCly then vulgarity is not the right system to use.
-
A noble wouldn't write a play, really. And if he did and put his name on it, then what the play says would be seen as directly what the author means. There was no such things as artistic license in the middle ages.
What I mean is that someone who wrote a play with some bad or vulgar things wouldn't be considered bad, vulgar, or dishonorable for it, in this time period.
-
In this particular case, the message was along the lines of: "Please read this, which I wrote: [link]".
It's not really abuse, the text linked was quite long, posting it on the wiki was the right thing to do.
I see it as quite different than that: I've gone and done it again, University!
Come see the Flowrestown Theatre Company's newest stage play, "Too Hot to Trot." It is like a deformity you just can't look away from!
-
I see it as quite different than that:
And "Too Hot to Trot" links here:
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Ironsides_Family/Bowie/Too_Hot
The wiki states:
Not much time after, in the Summer of 22 YD, Bowie wrote and directed his most audacious play yet, "Too Hot to Trot"
Therefore he wrote it (this was established in-game before), and the message was for the recipient to read it. I'm pretty certain that's what he was aiming for also.
-
And "Too Hot to Trot" links here:
http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Ironsides_Family/Bowie/Too_Hot
The wiki states:
Therefore he wrote it (this was established in-game before), and the message was for the recipient to read it. I'm pretty certain that's what he was aiming for also.
You make it sound like he just said read my play with a link, where he said I made a new play, its just great/you should see it and gave a link for reader to be able to read (as they can't actually see his play.)
-
Most, as in probably slightly more than half of BM characters I run into are routinely vulgar, and I think I have approved all but one 'is this vulgar' request I have ever received, the one exception being a fairly obvious case of what Velax was talking about where it was just revenge. I rarely submit messages as vulgar unless they are really bad, though, because frankly I'd be doing it all day otherwise.
Whether or not the OOC motivation of the person judging the message is revenge, tons of people expose themselves to this all the time, and it is one of the few actual mechanisms of smacking people in the head with a reminder that they are supposed to be medieval nobles and not dudes in a pub playing pool.
The recent Dakra/Caglia post-battle exchange was an absolutely typical example. A high class, e.g. noble medieval insult is not easy for us, and that's not a bad thing - remember how we got rid of the aristocracy in most countries? Even among rich people, actual 'upper class' (as in status/behavior) rather than just 'has money' is pretty rare all over the world. It's why 'Downton Abbey' is so popular: it's something we hardly ever run into!
Finally, remember the currency you're using when you're marked as 'vulgar.' It doesn't injure you. It takes away honor and prestige. Maybe a lot of people think of these things as 'points,' but they're not points, they're honor and prestige. This by no means requires you to play an honorable, prestigious character - in fact one whole character class is dedicated to doing pretty much the reverse.
But if you're going to concern yourself with vulgarity and its effects on your character, then you should avoid lowbrow humor. And plays, by the way - theatre was considered quite vulgar until the late 1500s and even then it was generally still vulgar to actually participate in it as a writer or actor.
-
But if you're going to concern yourself with vulgarity and its effects on your character, then you should avoid lowbrow humor. And plays, by the way - theatre was considered quite vulgar until the late 1500s and even then it was generally still vulgar to actually participate in it as a writer or actor.
Nero would disagree.
-
Nero would disagree.
He is also not medieval.
-
Most, as in probably slightly more than half of BM characters I run into are routinely vulgar, and I think I have approved all but one 'is this vulgar' request I have ever received, the one exception being a fairly obvious case of what Velax was talking about where it was just revenge. I rarely submit messages as vulgar unless they are really bad, though, because frankly I'd be doing it all day otherwise.
Whether or not the OOC motivation of the person judging the message is revenge, tons of people expose themselves to this all the time, and it is one of the few actual mechanisms of smacking people in the head with a reminder that they are supposed to be medieval nobles and not dudes in a pub playing pool.
The recent Dakra/Caglia post-battle exchange was an absolutely typical example. A high class, e.g. noble medieval insult is not easy for us, and that's not a bad thing - remember how we got rid of the aristocracy in most countries? Even among rich people, actual 'upper class' (as in status/behavior) rather than just 'has money' is pretty rare all over the world. It's why 'Downton Abbey' is so popular: it's something we hardly ever run into!
Finally, remember the currency you're using when you're marked as 'vulgar.' It doesn't injure you. It takes away honor and prestige. Maybe a lot of people think of these things as 'points,' but they're not points, they're honor and prestige. This by no means requires you to play an honorable, prestigious character - in fact one whole character class is dedicated to doing pretty much the reverse.
But if you're going to concern yourself with vulgarity and its effects on your character, then you should avoid lowbrow humor. And plays, by the way - theatre was considered quite vulgar until the late 1500s and even then it was generally still vulgar to actually participate in it as a writer or actor.
And here I would disagree with you. Not only are you losing honor and prestige, but letters are being sent out to random nobles. Letters that may not otherwise reach other people. Not to mention that I do not see at all the vulgarity that you seem to be seeing. Perhaps your definition of it is much looser than the standard meant for the BM mechanic.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV2_HwFO9kg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV2_HwFO9kg)
-
but letters are being sent out to random nobles
No, they are being sent to random players - I do not assume that my characters have read the letters in question unless they received them through other avenues.
Perhaps your definition of it is much looser than the standard meant for the BM mechanic.
My definition of it is based on two things:
#1 (most important) is the in-game text:
'As a noble, you can expect to be treated with respect and dignity, and expect certain manners from your peers. That does not mean they can not be offensive or they can not backstab you, but it does mean their manner of speech and behaviour should stand above the common, vulgar peasants.'
'You can mark another noble's words as vulgar and unbefitting of his class,'
In other words, we're being asked to set a standard based on what we know of how a 13th or 14th century noble with 'class' and 'dignity' should act.
#2 is my own sources of information on how medieval nobles with class and dignity behave, of which the top two are 'A History of Deeds Done Across the Sea' by William of Tyre, which covers the early medieval period with a focus on the 1st and 2nd crusades, and then 'A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th century' by Barbara Tuchman for the high/late medieval period. Dress that up with a lot of (well-researched) fiction and semi-fiction and you have my personal standard which nobody but me is obliged to care about.
You might say, and you would be right to say, that plenty of nobles acted badly and did vulgar things. I wouldn't dispute it for a moment. But they'd be thought of (even if only temporarily) as vulgar, and they'd lose some small standing for it. If they also happened to be the baddest ass knight on life or the leader of a big 'ol army, probably this would pale in comparison to the prestige they'd rake in through their achievements.
I'd also distinguish between what nobles said and did in front of other nobles and what they do privately. For instance, nobles acting like punks after a big battle or during a big tournament should (in my book) take a bigger hit, because they are on display. They are effectively 'on' all the time for a few days and being judged by a much larger number of people than are usually around. An Earl who farts and makes crass jokes at his dinner table with only his immediate family and close court advisors won't win any awards but so long as he knew how to act when the King was in town or when he was visiting other courts, probably not as many would care.
Then you have some realms in BM where they explicitly embrace standards of behavior that Western medievals would consider vulgar - namely 'viking' realms. Tough to fit this into the scheme because vikings were much more Dark Ages than Middle Ages and to the extent that you might run into them in the middle ages, like the Byzantine Varangian Guard, they'd become acclimated to working alongside more traditional fancy-pants nobles even if they probably thought they were all sissies.
So context is important, and I'll cop to my standard being more strict than many. That's because most people's standards aren't medieval nobles at all, but 21st century internet game dude standards. Nothing I can do about that but for so long as we're talking an absolutely typical western medieval noble, if my bar is higher than yours (as a player's sense, not individual characters' standards) it's because I probably out-geek you on the subject. Happy to be proven wrong though.
-
No, they are being sent to random players - I do not assume that my characters have read the letters in question unless they received them through other avenues.
Well you are wrong here. Previously in this thread it is confirmed that the letters are sent to random characters, NOT players. This is an IC mechanic, not an OOC one.
As to your definition of vulgarity, do you believe nobles ever leveled insults at others or only ever treated others with full respect? In addition, you CAN insult a noble while still showing them respect. That's the point of letters like mine.
-
Is not necessary Vulgar but for me is unbefitting that a Nobleman speak like that, that more a conversation between troopers and commoners.
In my opinion a nobleman wouldn't talk about commoner women, since they are lower than people, but will talk about other Noblewomen. i am not expert of knowledgeable of the age, but i think Nobles always showed respect for every Noblewomen, that instead about who is uglier, they would compete for the most beautiful of all, so thinking now, the real idea is acceptable if used in a different way.
For Example:
1. Darka's women are so ugly, that your soldiers have to fight their way to foreign lands in order to find a lay that they can be with while sober.
"The Soldiers of Darka are eager to reach our land, such is the beauty of our women that they fight their way to us."
Something like that, keeping the idea but with a good makeup of the words.
Peace!
-
Fair enough, but I was referring to Noblewomen. I always assume that nobles are speaking of other nobles unless noted otherwise. Why would they even mention commoner women?
-
Why would they even mention commoner women?
Because the statement as was written originally was OK for them.
:)
-
Well you are wrong here. Previously in this thread it is confirmed that the letters are sent to random characters, NOT players
That's not how I read it. It is IC - meaning that it is 'is this IC message vulgar' - but it is not IC like 'does your particular character happen to find it vulgar,' because those are two different standards. The latter is totally subjective because I can't tell you how vulgar your character should be, but the former, while not absolute, is at least open to evidence and argument, and we even have some basis right in the text, i.e. 'don't act like a peasant.'
The challenge is that, no matter how educated we are today in 2013, most of us talk like peasants.
As to your definition of vulgarity, do you believe nobles ever leveled insults at others or only ever treated others with full respect?
Of course not. 'Not vulgar' doesn't mean 'nice,' just as the in-game message says - you can (and should) offend your enemies. Doing so while not looking like a peasant is the job.
In addition, you CAN insult a noble while still showing them respect. That's the point of letters like mine.
You can do this but it is harder than most people think, because to be insulting but not vulgar requires effort and wit. I'm not setting myself up as an example here, or you as a counter-example - on my good days I've come up with a few good lines but it is legitimately tough to do! To walk into a noble court in 1300 and insult someone else in the court would be viewed as bad manners. To do it gracefully and make the other guy look bad (presumably the point of a good insult) you had be more inventive than sex and beer jokes, which, as has already been pointed out, is what your letter amounts to.
I've seen a lot worse but if the point was to insult while showing respect, I'd say (along with whomever agreed in-game that the message was vulgar) that you missed your mark. I'd have a very difficult time re-writing that letter to not be vulgar because the whole premise of the thing is sex and rape jokes, and you have to be a lot more clever than I am to get away with those without being vulgar.
-
Scarlett, what do you think of this? http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,3741.msg89950.html#msg89950
-
Two things make that exchange a bit of a different equation.
The first is that it's private correspondence. Running into the court and yelling 'Queen so-and-so was vulgar to me in a letter' is likely to make you look just as ill-mannered for sharing private correspondence - and if it didn't (because everybody hated the author, for instance) then they probably already think so poorly of her that vulgarity isn't going to add to the shame of it.
The second is that there is a religious zealotry element at work, and medievals can and did make an exception to normal rules when it came to treating with infidels. We get away from this in BM because we have lots of religions and we mostly tolerate them, as opposed to few religions (but many heresies) and very little tolerance going on. One Turkish Sultan famously used a Byzantine Emperor as a footstool. Calling names would seem a bit trivial at that point.
I would still answer the question of 'are these letters vulgar' with a definite 'yes' because of both the graphic threats and the bedroom talk, but given the context of rivalry in private correspondence, I would probably click on 'not vulgar' if it had popped up with the question.
-
Scarlett,
"rape" is a game mechanic which our nobles orchestrate. How can it be considered vulgar to simply mention it?
-
Ah yes, I should have clarified, what do you think of purely on Brom's letters? As in I don't want Alice to be judged but Brom in this situation. Also, as soon as sex is mentioned does it become vulgar in your mind?
-
"rape" is a game mechanic which our nobles orchestrate. How can it be considered vulgar to simply mention it?
Our nobles also disembowel people and torture them. That doesn't mean you mention it in polite society. The fact that the second estate is dedicated to the protection of its subjects can be mutually exclusive with ideals like noblesse oblige or chivalry, where you are also trying to be a sort of 'ideal man' - you have to be bigger and better and stronger and that means having the ability to do awful things when the situation requires it (only to prevent your innocent subjects from having to do them) but you certainly don't want to advertise those things.
Also, rape and pillage was quite a hot button topic in the middle ages, and some monarchs outlawed them on military campaign (and weren't very popular with their soldiers because of it). So I wouldn't assume that because BM has a 'rape peasants' button that it's accepted.
Ah yes, I should have clarified, what do you think of purely on Brom's letters?
I have a pretty similar view of both sides. Alice is more explicit with the graphic threats while Brom is more explicit about the love/sex side.
Also, as soon as sex is mentioned does it become vulgar in your mind?
Of course not - it depends on the context and how you mention it. If you say 'I've had your cousin' you're being vulgar. What you'd want to say if you were trying to avoid vulgarity would be something like 'It has been my privilege to observe that your cousin is a woman of many talents,' where you get a sort of shield of ambiguity even though it doesn't exactly take a genius to figure out what you're talking about. It's all about plausible deniability.
Shakespeare is great at this stuff with puns and double entendres, though some of them are vulgar (as they're said by unashamedly vulgar people). It's also pretty stupid to hold everyone to that standard. My own approach is just that I am careful about where and when my characters publicly insult people and when I have time and inclination I try to raise the bar with some literary devices - I'm no pro at it but one of the things I like about BM is that it's one of the few places you can practice such things without fear of any real-life consequences!
-
That is very well-said. I usually ignore all the post-battle trash-talking, as most of it is... well... trash. It takes talent to write a really good insult that's more than the usual "that's what she said" or "yo mama" joke.
-
That is very well-said. I usually ignore all the post-battle trash-talking, as most of it is... well... trash. It takes talent to write a really good insult that's more than the usual "that's what she said" or "yo mama" joke.
As you say though it takes talent. Should everyone be considered vulgar because they can't or don't want to spend the time to make their insults witty enough? Also, related to Bowie, you mentioned Shakespeare and that there were times that the characters in his plays were vulgar. Do you consider Shakespeare vulgar because of it? I doubt it, and that should also be applied to Bowie's situation.
-
Should everyone be considered vulgar because they can't or don't want to spend the time to make their insults witty enough?
If they don't care to invest any effort into it and the subsequent result is indeed vulgar, then yes, they should be considered vulgar. This is hardly much of an impediment.
Also, related to Bowie, you mentioned Shakespeare and that there were times that the characters in his plays were vulgar. Do you consider Shakespeare vulgar because of it?
Shakespeare is one of the most vulgar playwrights I've ever read. But he was writing characters, just as we are. The fact that I could write a vulgar character doesn't make me vulgar. It just makes me aware of what vulgarity is. It's just a tool.
I doubt it, and that should also be applied to Bowie's situation.
What you are essentially saying is that 'because none of us can be Shakespeare, why should any of us be penalized for not trying,' and this is certainly a good question. But why do we bother with any medieval trappings? Why don't we just play the game as team Caglia vs. team Dakra? We've decided to dress it up as a medieval-ish game and this is a small part of it. Vulgarity doesn't ruin characters and you won't lose anything from being vulgar that you can't get back from fighting a battle or two. The 'crowd-sourcing' of the definition of vulgarity is one of BM's brilliant moves, IMO, in that Tom is saying 'here is a basic definition, now you decide whether it applies.'
Most people I know in real life aren't as clever as Shakespeare, but most of them can also crack a joke without taking about sex, rape, and being drunk. There is a lot of room in between these things and a really sharp wit. I'd much rather try, fail, and land in that space than not try, because it doesn't improve me as a human being to be good at Battlemaster. It improves me to have an opportunity to deal with situations I will never deal with in real life and to do so in a manner I will probably never experience in real life. It may seem totally irrelevant to us in 2013 but you can learn a lot about people today by looking at how and why people in 1300 did things, and to the extent that that requires effort, yeah. Most worthwhile things do.
-
To your third paragraph, not at all. You don't consider Shakespeare vulgar for using vulgarity but Bowie got one of his messages flagged as vulgar because he released another play and the play was linked in his message and considered vulgar. Though I do disagree with your last sentence in the third paragraph as you basically said Tom is saying, "You guys all kinda know about vulgarity, right? Well if you think someone's message is vulgar by whatever definition you use, feel free to flag it so they lose some honor." If its supposed to simply be by if our characters/the cultural of our realms and such find it vulgar, fine but announce it because no one knows what the heck is going on with vulgarity for certain.
-
You need to separate the author from the character, and also look at the context. Shakespeare was late 16th century - by that point it was fashionable to patronize plays and be involved with theatre, though some aristocrats would still consider Shakespeare vulgar because of his association with the theatre.
One of my characters has seen letters about Bowie's play and I've read one of them, and I don't flag them as vulgar because nothing is served by making the point that medieval nobles wouldn't dally in the theatre. On my list of things to make more 'authentically' medieval about BM, 'doesn't write plays' doesn't even make the cut. :)
Sex, rape, and drinking are pretty fast tickets to vulgarity. Making the leap to 'vulgar pasttimes' as a Renaissance noble would use the term is really a different idea - closer to what you see in Downton Abbey where the Dowager and the Earl both disapprove of the 'professions' of lawyer and doctor in a manner we'd find absurd today. They did so because it was considered 'vulgar' for a gentleman (least of all a noblewoman) to have a job. Similar basis -- 'this is beneath us' - totally different idea though.
-
Shakespeare is one of the most vulgar playwrights I've ever read.
Aristophanes would disagree.
-
Shakespeare wasn't a medieval Duke, Ruler, Lord, Etc., etc. Shakespeare wasn't even a noble, was he? (Sorry, medieval and/or Shakespeare are not my strong suits...)
-
No, he wasn't noble.
-
There's a big difference between including vulgarity in a play or other work of fiction because it's appropriate for the context or makes a point, and including it for its own sake.
The vulgarity in Shakespeare's plays is there because it fits.
The vulgarity in Bowie's play is there because he wanted to be vulgar and insulting.
Regardless of the relative nobility of the two authors, that is what makes the difference between it being appropriate to criticize one for the vulgarity in his play, and laud the other.
-
There's a big difference between including vulgarity in a play or other work of fiction because it's appropriate for the context or makes a point, and including it for its own sake.
The vulgarity in Shakespeare's plays is there because it fits.
The vulgarity in Bowie's play is there because he wanted to be vulgar and insulting.
Regardless of the relative nobility of the two authors, that is what makes the difference between it being appropriate to criticize one for the vulgarity in his play, and laud the other.
I can't really argue against that, since I haven't read the latest play to know.
-
So, I have never reported a message vulgar, judged a message nor been accused of being vulgar. So this mechanic is new to me. With this in mind, I want to be sure I understand it's purpose, function and IC relation. Correct me if I am wrong, but this is what I gather from this conversation:
Purpose:
A means to encourage players to play their characters in a way fitting for a noble or, at the least, ensure that characters that are intentionally played as vulgar face realistic loss of honor while simultaneously gaining realistic repute.
Function:
If my character receives a message he would consider vulgar, click the button. The message is sent to another player (what is the criteria for who receives the message?) and if they agree the message is vulgar, the offending party loses a point of honor. Either way, news spreads that the offending character has tenancies that some consider unfitting of a noble. It is judged by characters, known by characters, spread by characters.
IC Relation:
If a character clicks on the vulgar button, it is as if he had talked to others within his social circle about how vulgar he found the offending character's words. News of this spreads. The fact that some random character receives a copy of the letter represents how the offending characters words have spread, with the aid of the reporting character.
If this random character agrees that the message is vulgar and clicks the appropriate button, it is as if he says to those around him, You would not believe what this guy said! Such words are terribly vulgar! This suggests that news of the offending characters deed has spread and that many find his words vulgar and results in a loss of standing.
-
Maybe not a perfect description but very close to one.
-
"rape" is a game mechanic which our nobles orchestrate. How can it be considered vulgar to simply mention it?
The game does not prevent you from raping peasants, and it does not prevent you from being vulgar, but your "honour rating" may be lowered if you do either.
-
The game does not prevent you from raping peasants, and it does not prevent you from being vulgar, but your "honour rating" may be lowered if you do either.
Yes!
-
If my character receives a message he would consider vulgar, click the button.
Close: If your character receives a message a noble should consider vulgar, click the button.
It has nothing to do with individual preferences—this came up at some point a year or three ago, when someone was marking messages as vulgar because of (I think) who was saying them, and when challenged on this, he said, "Well, my character finds that character vulgar in the extreme. Thus, anything he says is vulgar in my character's eyes."
It's about the general mores of the milieu.
-
The game does not prevent you from raping peasants, and it does not prevent you from being vulgar, but your "honour rating" may be lowered if you do either.
The option "Rape Pillage and Burn" doesn't necessarily have to mean that you as Noble will dismount your horse and go Raping and killing, But you order your men (who are commoners) to do it. Because is a way to lower region morale, thing you want over the material damage that the action may cause. Remember that you are a Noble and WILL NOT lower yourself to do peasants things .
Now, if you do it, no one should know about it. In the case that one of those commoner women are brought to your Tent for your satisfaction, it would be only known by your troops or your close retainer, not everyone. And in some cases the victim would be murdered to avoid withness or Noble Bastards on commoner women. (Adventurers anyone?)
Remember that Orders are things you Order your Unit to do, Actions are things the Character do.
Check for reference:
Actions (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Character_Actions)
Orders (http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Orders)
-
Close: If your character receives a message a noble should consider vulgar, click the button.
It has nothing to do with individual preferences—this came up at some point a year or three ago, when someone was marking messages as vulgar because of (I think) who was saying them, and when challenged on this, he said, "Well, my character finds that character vulgar in the extreme. Thus, anything he says is vulgar in my character's eyes."
It's about the general mores of the milieu.
Was that a year ago? Damn, time flies.
Yes, I was the chronic vulgarity abuser– both as a way of using the implied whisper-campaign as a foolproof random-leaking tool, and as a blanket character-directed action.
And yes, both of those are abuse (and of course, after the discussion about them, I promptly stopped both and reconsidered my use of the feature).
I think Unwin's description of the feature is pretty solid.
-
Just re-read this thread.
It appears my vulgarity-as-leaking has already been noted.
I will point out again, as Penchant did: as soon as it was brought to my attention, I concurred and ceased. And on the blanket-reporting.
Where the debate grew lengthy was on the boundary between reporting "language" and "content." I still maintain (and I think this thread continues to prove) that this distinction is so subjective as to be nearly (though probably not entirely) meaningless. Distinguishing between "vulgar content" and "vulgar language" is very hard.
PS- About Shakespeare. He almost certainly WAS considered vulgar in his time. As noted theatre was generally thought vulgar. Shakespeare didn't come to be seen as high literature until well after his death. And vitally, he wasn't a noble. Nobles could patronize theaters– but being an actor would be very inappropriate. And beyond Shakespeare we're not even talking about the Middle Ages any more. Imagining a noble as a troubador or jester is a bit silly. A few nobles did write religious tracts; reading Henry-the-somethng-or-other's various religious invectives against this or that is fun, and it can be quite vulgar. Again proving the point that religion was an exception to the rule.
-
After pming Tom about Silverfires letter, in which he said he found nothing obviously vulgar, he also stated his opinion wasn't that important though as the feature is player-driven. Now thus is a huge inference, but basically everyone is using the vulgarity feature incorrectly. You all are arguing things about history where that shouldn't matter. Within reason, vulgarity is meant to be what a noble would say, based on the social atmosphere IC/whatever IC is deemed vulgar, not OOC arguments about whether or not a medieval noble would be considered vulgar or not for some action.
-
Penchant, usually when everyone is doing something but you, that means you aren't the one in the right. There are certain arguments where that differs (religion probably being the biggest offender and exception to the rule depending on your viewpoint), but for the most part this holds true.
For example, if everyone else has to work for a living, but you find a loophole in the stock exchange laws that allows you to make a huge profit when you shouldn't, you can't start saying everyone else is doing it wrong when you're abusing the system.
-
You all are arguing things about history where that shouldn't matter. Within reason, vulgarity is meant to be what a noble would say, based on the social atmosphere IC/whatever IC is deemed vulgar,
We're only trying to use history as a guide as to what would be considered vulgar in the social atmosphere of medieval nobles. After all, we're not medieval nobles. History can help you to shape your character's IC reactions.
-
Within reason, vulgarity is meant to be what a noble would say, based on the social atmosphere IC/whatever IC is deemed vulgar
This isn't exactly wrong, but I wonder what we are meant to use as a basis for 'social atmosphere IC/whatever IC.'
Right on the front page of www.battlemaster.org, it says:
It is set in a low-fantasy middle-ages world
As such, 'middle ages' is my barometer. The fact that you can get a dozen or a hundred players who don't give a crap about it absolutely means that the bar for vulgar will get lowered. Nothing I can do about that. I certainly don't expect players to be medieval experts, but I do expect them to make a small amount of effort.
-
So...
I'm guessing that me getting a letter calling me a douche would be classified as vulgar.
Moderator action: deleted personal insult against another player.
If someone called your character a duche, use the vulgarity feature.
If someone called you, the player, a douche, then you should absolutely report them to the Magistrates. That is not playing with friends.
-
So...
I'm guessing that me getting a letter calling me a douche would be classified as vulgar.
Not only that but that's probably something that needs to be reported.
-
If I reported the people who think I'm a douche and have told me so in game, I imagine the player base would be far smaller. At least on Dwilight....
I understand that my characters are hated (well, at least one of the current crop), but I am not my character. I just happen to be good at playing characters that get under people's skin.
Hell, even I think Sevastian is a douche at times, but that's the kind of 'person' he is.
Swordfell = !@#$, mostly due to the sheer OOC tripe that stems from a particular 'faction'. Dislike my character all you want, attack him as a noble, that's fine. But thinking that I am a douche because you dont like Sevastian....
That's !@#$ing stupid.
-
Keep it civil, people. If someone's insulted you OOC in-game, Woelfy, there are ways of dealing with it. Don't come here and throw insults around.
-
I'm not throwing insults by any means, and I apologize if it came off that way. My language may have been over harsh, but at least I'm polite enough to not point fingers. (for the record, I am not talking about Bowie or Abbigal, as I don't even get their letters, in case that is where the mixup was)
I am disgusted at how things have devolved lately on Dwilight. This current situation is a hair's weight from breaking the proverbial camel's back. I've tried dealing with it through the proper channels, and so far nothing has been done to rectify the situation or to even adjust it in a positive manner. My character is nigh-on silent there, yet I still get 'flamed' in game.
-
It seems to me that the best way to become popular in this game is to moderate your interactions with others, so that your voice is known, but not too well known. Woelfy, your character strikes me as someone who interacts with others a lot, so it's no surprise to me that he is getting hate mail. I don't condone hate mail (I don't emphasize with the people who send it, to say the least), but, in my mind, avoiding it should be a simple feat. Merely limit your dialogue to a message once a week; make that message a sardonic remark, the kind one might write if he is drunk and bitter; watch as the haters no longer hate you, but treat you with indifference instead. I assure you that this will work.
-
I'm not throwing insults by any means, and I apologize if it came off that way. My language may have been over harsh, but at least I'm polite enough to not point fingers. (for the record, I am not talking about Bowie or Abbigal, as I don't even get their letters, in case that is where the mixup was)
I am disgusted at how things have devolved lately on Dwilight. This current situation is a hair's weight from breaking the proverbial camel's back. I've tried dealing with it through the proper channels, and so far nothing has been done to rectify the situation or to even adjust it in a positive manner. My character is nigh-on silent there, yet I still get 'flamed' in game.
If you feel you have been OOC mistreated, please, start a Magistrate's case.
-
Merely limit your dialogue to a message once a week; make that message a sardonic remark, the kind one might write if he is drunk and bitter; watch as the haters no longer hate you, but treat you with indifference instead. I assure you that this will work.
I'm not sure what is going on in private, but this is about what I've been receiving from Sevastian on the realm channel. Amusing references to the horrible horrible things he does to the endless messengers he receives from Bowie. It was most fitting, and I think that might have been the reason Bowie wrote the necro-love play. I for one haven't seen anything I consider 'vulgar'. Sometime Abbigal's spelling is atrocious, but I'm the type to let a lot of things fly.
-
If you feel you have been OOC mistreated, please, start a Magistrate's case.
I've started a magistrate's case because I am getting sick of all of this nonsense. Maybe this will work to help the problem.
-
I wasn't aware that people would flag RPs as vulgar. Apparently if a peasant curses while talking to a lord in a private conversation it becomes public knowledge and everyone disapproves. I suppose I should censor myself from now on.
Etiquette Issue (2 hours, 24 minutes ago)
One of your recent messages, reproduced below, has caused many raised eyebrows among your peers and fellow nobles agree that this way of talking is unbefitting of a noble. Your respect among the nobility falls, resulting in a loss of a point of honour.
The Message:
"Tankred! You're walking?" Enoch sputtered as he trekked toward the Divides. Tankred had miraculously recovered quickly and now seemed fit enough to draw a bow.
Tankred talked weakly, lacking his normal bolsterous tone. "Aye, being carried on a litter by scribes...it'd wake the dead. Those small armed ninnies jostled me like churned butter, and that old healer did nothing sew me up and drug me higher. What happened back there?".
"All our men are dead...most of others squads are probably the same. Too many beasts, not enough arrows. We are trekking toward Balance's Retreat to hire fresh men and then back toward Nyuushi. From there we'll either work with D'Hara to return it to Swordfell, or more likely we'll meet it in anarchy and have to try to occupy the region again. Our home in Nyuushi seems to have been a bust for now."
Tankred continued to hobble along...all he muttered was "!@#$ the ungrateful lot of 'em". Enoch understood his captain's frustration, but hoped some of his humor returned by the time they returned. They continued in silence.
-
Yeah...That is total BS. IC, no one knew about so there is no reason, plus its a peasant swearing in private, not your noble swearing in public. And no reason to do it OOC, as you weren't being excessively vulgar in the roleplay.
-
Have to agree. Should not have been reported and it certainly should not have been voted on poorly.
In truth, I think the system needs a real revamp as few people seem to use it properly.
-
IC, there is no reason for a vulgarity report. I'm understanding of it, though. The game is generally an 'all ages' type game, and dropping f' bombs nonchalantly probably wasn't a bright idea.
Although, 'frig, fie, and curse' are poor substitutes for my frustration with trying to hold Nyuushi. Took control, 2 monster and an undead horde pop up, go toward the capital to refit and cash bonds to be able to get some militia and recruits going, find out Sevastian has a region-wide festival going blocking activity, Nyuushi joins D'Hara then rogue, then I lose everyone but my captain trying to slim the undead. I've lost 2 tax days and about a week traipsing back and forth through the Divides. I'd be pulling hair out if losing wasn't so much 'fun'.
-
Use an equivalent word as a substitute. E.g. 'plow,' "Plow the ungrateful lot of them." It's reasonable to assume that the people of this setting would use plow as a swear equivalent to !@#$, so it retains the same meaning and power.
-
In truth, I think the system needs a real revamp as few people seem to use it properly.
On what information do you base this conclusion? How many messages per week are reported for vulgarity? How many are judged vulgar, and how many are not? How many are improperly flagged either way?
-
Use an equivalent word as a substitute. E.g. 'plow,' "Plow the ungrateful lot of them." It's reasonable to assume that the people of this setting would use plow as a swear equivalent to !@#$, so it retains the same meaning and power.
Except that this was a roleplay, and the peasant in the roleplay spoke the word. Not the noble.
-
That's what you get for permitting such crass behavior from your common servants. You should teach them proper manners for use in the presence of their betters. ;)
Srsly though, I wouldn't have marked that as vulgar.
-
On what information do you base this conclusion? How many messages per week are reported for vulgarity? How many are judged vulgar, and how many are not? How many are improperly flagged either way?
On every post about the subject.
-
If it was observed that a noble, even a knight, permitted his captain to speak in that manner without reproach, that would indeed be considered vulgar by some.
Probably fewer than ordinary since nobles would make exceptions for anything that happened on a battlefield.
The vulgarity system works quite well. What seems to have difficulty coming across is that vulgarity is still perfectly OK so long as you don't mind being considered slightly less honorable than someone who is less vulgar than you. It's being viewed as some kind of huge black mark where all it is is that people think less of you for a short while because you said something they look down on.
Welcome to nobility and gossip.
-
On every post about the subject.
Which means you've read every complaint where someone feels they were somehow wronged by the system. But you've never read all the instances where messages were reported but voted not vulgar. Or where the the message was reported as vulgar and then judged vulgar, but the sender didn't complain because they agreed with it.
In short, you've only seen complaints about the system. That's a pretty biased source of information on which to claim that a system doesn't work.
-
I didn't say it doesn't work, I said it needs to be revamped, refined, etc.
I've never had to use the feature, so I've not clicked the buttons to see what it says though.
-
But, again, how do you know it needs revised? All you can see is that once every 3 or 4 months, someone comes on the forum and complains. But in the meantime, how many reports go through that are correctly judged and no one complains? I can tell you that for evry report that you hear about here on the forums, there are dozens that are handled without anyone complaining. Dozens handled with no complaint vs. one complaint on a questionable message? Sounds to me like the system is working pretty darn well. Considering the tiny penalty (one point of honor?), and the fact that no one ever knows that you got hit unless you tell them, the rare improper hit is hardly justification for completely revamping the system.
-
The mere fact that there are people confused of it is IC or OOC says something is wrong with the wording.
It is sad that you do not grasp that.
-
The wording of the page may need some changes, therefore the system needs "a real revamp"...
If you think it needs changed, then suggest the changes.
-
The wording of the page may need some changes, therefore the system needs "a real revamp"...
If you think it needs changed, then suggest the changes.
A notice that a roleplay having some vulgarity is fine if the noble is in private and that its IC not OOC.
-
I wasn't aware that people would flag RPs as vulgar. Apparently if a peasant curses while talking to a lord in a private conversation it becomes public knowledge and everyone disapproves. I suppose I should censor myself from now on.
Etiquette Issue (2 hours, 24 minutes ago)
One of your recent messages, reproduced below, has caused many raised eyebrows among your peers and fellow nobles agree that this way of talking is unbefitting of a noble. Your respect among the nobility falls, resulting in a loss of a point of honour.
The Message:
"Tankred! You're walking?" Enoch sputtered as he trekked toward the Divides. Tankred had miraculously recovered quickly and now seemed fit enough to draw a bow.
Tankred talked weakly, lacking his normal bolsterous tone. "Aye, being carried on a litter by scribes...it'd wake the dead. Those small armed ninnies jostled me like churned butter, and that old healer did nothing sew me up and drug me higher. What happened back there?".
"All our men are dead...most of others squads are probably the same. Too many beasts, not enough arrows. We are trekking toward Balance's Retreat to hire fresh men and then back toward Nyuushi. From there we'll either work with D'Hara to return it to Swordfell, or more likely we'll meet it in anarchy and have to try to occupy the region again. Our home in Nyuushi seems to have been a bust for now."
Tankred continued to hobble along...all he muttered was "!@#$ the ungrateful lot of 'em". Enoch understood his captain's frustration, but hoped some of his humor returned by the time they returned. They continued in silence.
This is why it's important to view vulgarity, as an IC, not OOC feature.
If it's an OOC feature, that's fine to report as vulgarity– it has the F-word, we want to keep the GAME clean from OOC vulgarity.
But if it's an IC feature, then reporting an RP your character isn't aware of, or reporting an RP about peasants' language, doesn't make sense.
+1 for team "Vulgarity is IC"
-
Team OOC loses by default, the ref said so.
Vulgarity is an IC element, as should be obvious by the fact that it uses IC flavour texts. It talks to you as a noble, not as a player. It's purpose is to encourage players to proper roleplaying through IC consequences if they don't (i.e. talk like a common peasant).