Rework the Vulgarity flag feature

[fodder]

annoying you is not exactly vulgar. vulgarity is stuff like swearing like a peasant. surely?

[Vellos]

Being a coward, being a pacifist, being a democratically minded person, being opposed to torture, being a non-combat class and presuming to have a right to an opinion, favoring the rule of law.... these are all insulting and vulgar opinions to Cyrilos Vellos. Also, sympathy for Enweil is vulgar. Also, any assertion of IVF's sovereignty is a vulgar offense to the very concept of sovereignty.

No, I don't report every message, not even a large percentage of those messages (that would be spamming the system, which I don't do). But periodically, yes, Cyrilos reports for those reasons. It's vulgarity. Advocating for democracy? What nonsense!

[Indirik]

Again, you are reporting messages based on the content, not the manner of speech. While I admire your creative interpretation and definition of the system, it seems to me that you're still misusing the system for something other than that for which it is intended.

"Republics suck ass, we need a democracy, bitches!" is clearly vulgar.

"Nobles of Riombara, our republican system has failed us. I propose a referendum to investigate the possibility of switching to a more democratic system." is clearly not.

Being a coward, being a pacifist, being a democratically minded person, being opposed to torture, being a non-combat class and presuming to have a right to an opinion, favoring the rule of law.... these are all insulting...

So what? Insulting is not vulgar, as the Vulgarity system clearly intends:

That does not mean they can not be offensive ...

You have taken a tool that was clearly and obviously intended as a way to improve the player atmosphere of the game, to enforce politeness and civility, and twisted it to do something that was not intended. If the way you're using the system is in any way indicative of the way the players at large are using it, then it is clear that the system is being widely abused, and needs to be removed.

[fodder]

that would be completely against the whole idea of that system and a clear abuse.. spamming or not spamming

on the other hand, i think a noble going around calling advy his bro would be vulgar.

[Vellos]

Again, you are reporting messages based on the content, not the manner of speech. While I admire your creative interpretation and definition of the system, it seems to me that you're still misusing the system for something other than that for which it is intended.

"Republics suck ass, we need a democracy, bitches!" is clearly vulgar.

"Nobles of Riombara, our republican system has failed us. I propose a referendum to investigate the possibility of switching to a more democratic system." is clearly not.
So what? Insulting is not vulgar, as the Vulgarity system clearly intends:
You have taken a tool that was clearly and obviously intended as a way to improve the player atmosphere of the game, to enforce politeness and civility, and twisted it to do something that was not intended. If the way you're using the system is in any way indicative of the way the players at large are using it, then it is clear that the system is being widely abused, and needs to be removed.

"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"."

Lacking in sophistication or good taste. Democracy, republicanism, sympathies for Enweil, are all lacking in sophistication or good taste (according to one of my characters' IC beliefs). Profanity is not inherently vulgar; only if it is in reference to certain topics. Vulgar has a root word meaning common, as in common people: anything that smacks of commoner-ish behavior would seem to be generally associated with the word.

I'm sorry, if all the vulgarity feature is for is to police a list of words, then that list should be published somewhere. I grasp and, on considering it, ultimately agree that using the vulgarity feature as a leaking method is abuse. But you cannot seriously distinguish between the content of a message and the manner of the message; the manner is a component of the content. And in the eyes of at least a few characters who have been plausibly RPed this way, there is no way under which certain political ideologies can not be vulgar. It doesn't matter if a noble advocates for treating commoners as equals to nobles, to take just one example, with slang words or formal speech: the very principle of the thing is offensive and vulgar, and against the RP culture of BM. I don't see why that shouldn't be reported as vulgarity: it would have the same or a similar reputational effect to be a serf-lover as it would to talk like a serf.

[Indirik]

"vul·gar/ˈvəlgər/

Yes, I know that you know how to look up the definition of a word. We can all use Wiktionary, or dictionary.com without the copy/paste assistance.

I'm sorry, if all the vulgarity feature is for is to police a list of words, then that list should be published somewhere.

Simple word filters are completely insufficient, easily fooled, and don't account for regional and realm-based differences. This has been discussed in the past on the Discussion List. (Unfortunately, I don't think Tom was ever able to make the list archives available after the list server was shut down.)

But you cannot seriously distinguish between the content of a message and the manner of the message; the manner is a component of the content. And in the eyes of at least a few characters who have been plausibly RPed this way, there is no way under which certain political ideologies can not be vulgar.

Political ideologies are Content, not Manner. The vulgarity feature is intended to police manners, etiquette, atmosphere, and quality. In other words, it's not what is done (i.e. the Content), but the way it is done (i.e. the Manner). (Since I know you already know how to look up the definition of words, I'll let you go look up the definitions of Content and Manner, and how they would apply to this discussion, at your own discretion.)

And are you seriously going to try and claim that discussing a democratic government destroys the atmosphere and quality of the game overall? That's so silly it doesn't even deserve a discussion.

And, again, you are mixing content and manner of speech. If you are reporting a message because of the ideas it contains or advocates, you are almost certainly misusing the feature. The feature is intended to punish improper manners of expressing those ideas, not for punishing the statement of those ideas.

But I know that you're a smart enough person to understand the difference here. I'm not going to spend the next 20 posts wordsmithing and ruleslawyering over esoteric definitions of words and applications of language.

[Vellos]

Political ideologies are Content, not Manner. The vulgarity feature is intended to police manners, etiquette, atmosphere, and quality. In other words, it's not what is done (i.e. the Content), but the way it is done (i.e. the Manner). (Since I know you already know how to look up the definition of words, I'll let you go look up the definitions of Content and Manner, and how they would apply to this discussion, at your own discretion.)

And are you seriously going to try and claim that discussing a democratic government destroys the atmosphere and quality of the game overall? That's so silly it doesn't even deserve a discussion.

And, again, you are mixing content and manner of speech. If you are reporting a message because of the ideas it contains or advocates, you are almost certainly misusing the feature. The feature is intended to punish improper manners of expressing those ideas, not for punishing the statement of those ideas.

But I know that you're a smart enough person to understand the difference here. I'm not going to spend the next 20 posts wordsmithing and ruleslawyering over esoteric definitions of words and applications of language.

I'm not using esoteric definitions. I'm using very simple ones; like, the most common usages of the words.

I don't understand the distinction between "Manner" and "Content" that you're making. I honestly don't. When I think of the "manner" as divorced from content, I think of the message type (orders, report, etc) and the recipients list. Maybe also the timestamp on the letter. Those are clearly manner divorced from message content.

And, personally, I do think any advocacy for democracy (in any remotely modern sense of the word) hurts the game atmosphere.

You seem to be taking a purely OOC stance on the vulgarity: that we should all regard it as an OOC tool for policing manners. The vulgarity page does reference OOC concerns at the end. But the vast bulk of the page is all about IC concerns! My characters have IC opinions about what they consider vulgar, and they report them as such.

I see this problem as two sided: sometimes, players get OOC upset when their messages get reported as vulgarity. I've seen it many times. Whenever it was a message I've reported, I've always owned up to it and stood by it. Usually, the thing that I say is something along the lines of "Vulgarity is not about you as a player. I'm not saying I think you're a vulgar person. I'm saying my character thinks your character is a vulgar person."

With some people, that doesn't fly. But with many, it does. The game deals out completely IC penalties for something framed mostly in IC terms that has clear IC functions and is judged ICly by people with IC power (it's based on H/P, isn't it?).

As I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, you are arguing that, despite the above, it should be regarded in principle as an OOC tool we use to reign in players who are being vulgar, not characters who are being vulgar. In which case I have become deeply confused over the use of the feature, and why the bulk of its description and functionality seems to be so IC.

[Indirik]

I'm not using esoteric definitions. I'm using very simple ones; like, the most common usages of the words.

Possibly, but these are not the definitions of the words that were intended. We all know that words have multiple definitions, and depending on which definition you use, the meaning of the words, and the concepts expressed by them, changes drastically. You don't get to pick the definition of the word to suit whatever purpose you want it to serve when someone else wrote the text. That type of free interpretation is why we have 65 page license agreements that you have to have a lawyer interpret for you. If you want to understand what the author intends to say, then you need to use the definitions of the word that the author intended.

I see this problem as two sided: sometimes, players get OOC upset when their messages get reported as vulgarity. I've seen it many times. Whenever it was a message I've reported, I've always owned up to it and stood by it. Usually, the thing that I say is something along the lines of "Vulgarity is not about you as a player. I'm not saying I think you're a vulgar person. I'm saying my character thinks your character is a vulgar person."

I, as well, have seen some people fly off the handle when one of their messages was reported as vulgar. Everything from "*#$*% you! I'll show you vulgar you *&!##$#!" all the way to "OMG! That message was super-private, now anyone who got it as a report will know all our secrets!" I think the only few messages I've reported as Vulgar were the super-obvious stuff where the player let out a string of cuss words that were obviously unsuitable for the game environment.

...and is judged ICly by people with IC power (it's based on H/P, isn't it?).

I am not familiar with the criteria the game uses to select the message reviewers.

As I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, you are arguing that, despite the above, it should be regarded in principle as an OOC tool we use to reign in players who are being vulgar, not characters who are being vulgar. In which case I have become deeply confused over the use of the feature, and why the bulk of its description and functionality seems to be so IC.

It can be thought of as an IC tool, and described and used completely IC. The descriptions on the page are kept IC as much as possible, in the desire to keep as much of the game and interaction as IC as possible. We want to keep as much IC as we can, so as to help maintain immersion, and try to keep the character's actions from being transferred over and attributed to the player. i.e. it's not Lyman Stone that said you're an uncouth braggart who's father should have been castrated at an early age, it's Hireshmont Vellos that said it, and Hireshmont Vellos said it to your character, not you the player.

Yes, it can be seen to have both IC and OOC components, but they do overlap. Maintaining the atmosphere of the game for the players also maintains the noble atmosphere of the characters IG as well, and vice-versa. Maintaining politeness and courtesy keeps the game more enjoyable for the players, and simulates the manner of interaction that we are trying to model IC. Reigning in the character for being vulgar also reigns in the player, and hopefully their other characters.

The Vulgarity system is not a general-purpose tool for adjustment of a character's honor based on any arbitrary criteria of your choosing. It is a tool to punish the expression of ideas in a vulgar manner. Notice the emphasis on "in a vulgar manner", because that's the important part. It is not the idea or the expression of the idea that is being examined/punished. It is the way in which that idea is expressed.

IOW - It is not intended to punish the act of expressing the ideas, or to punish the idea itself. When deciding whether or not a message is vulgar, you need to separate the ideas being expressed (i.e. the "content") from the way in which they are expressed (i.e. the "manner"). For example:

For those of you reading along at home, if you don't like reading profanity, then don't read the rest of this post...

• Advocating friendship with Enweil, and a desire to see Eretzism spread across Riombara is not "vulgar" in the eyes of the BM Vulgarity system. Your character may view this as uncouth, or distasteful. (Both are definitions of Vulgar.) But if the other character expresses this in a polite manner that is befitting of a noble, then it is not "Vulgar".
  
  • "Eretzism is a noble faith that would honor and enlighten Riombara with its presence." This may make you or your character gag, but in the eyes of the BattleMaster Vulgarity system, it is not vulgar.
  • "Qyrvaginaism sucks! We need to get Eretzism in here to straighten your asses out." This... well, it's vulgar.
• Being opposed to the torture of other nobles is not vulgar. Your character may advocate torture, may think that it is completely appropriate to torture your enemies, and may think that people who advocate restraint in its use are somewhat less than noble. But their stating their preference for leniency is, in and of itself, not a vulgar act in the eyes of the BattleMaster vulgarity system.
  
  • "You cruel beast! How dare you subject another noble, and a royal one no less, to such inhumane treatment? No noble should ever be forced to endure such as this. If I could, I would condemn you to the very same brutality which you have visited upon others, so that you may experience the unending pain which you so cavalierly visit upon others!" - Not vulgar.
  • "You !@#$ing sick bastard! I'll rip your balls off and shove them down your !@#$ing throat! You're such an ass! It's sick !@#$s like you that ruin this for the rest of us!" - Vulgar.

I don't know how I can explain it any more clearly than this. Perhaps, if you can set aside your current notions of how it should be used, and see it in this light, you can help re-describe it in a manner that more clearly gets across this interpretation I'm trying to describe.

[Vellos]

• Advocating friendship with Enweil, and a desire to see Eretzism spread across Riombara is not "vulgar" in the eyes of the BM Vulgarity system. Your character may view this as uncouth, or distasteful. (Both are definitions of Vulgar.) But if the other character expresses this in a polite manner that is befitting of a noble, then it is not "Vulgar".
  
  • "Eretzism is a noble faith that would honor and enlighten Riombara with its presence." This may make you or your character gag, but in the eyes of the BattleMaster Vulgarity system, it is not vulgar.
  • "Qyrvaginaism sucks! We need to get Eretzism in here to straighten your asses out." This... well, it's vulgar.
• Being opposed to the torture of other nobles is not vulgar. Your character may advocate torture, may think that it is completely appropriate to torture your enemies, and may think that people who advocate restraint in its use are somewhat less than noble. But their stating their preference for leniency is, in and of itself, not a vulgar act in the eyes of the BattleMaster vulgarity system.
  
  • "You cruel beast! How dare you subject another noble, and a royal one no less, to such inhumane treatment? No noble should ever be forced to endure such as this. If I could, I would condemn you to the very same brutality which you have visited upon others, so that you may experience the unending pain which you so cavalierly visit upon others!" - Not vulgar.
  • "You !@#$ing sick bastard! I'll rip your balls off and shove them down your !@#$ing throat! You're such an ass! It's sick !@#$s like you that ruin this for the rest of us!" - Vulgar.

I don't know how I can explain it any more clearly than this. Perhaps, if you can set aside your current notions of how it should be used, and see it in this light, you can help re-describe it in a manner that more clearly gets across this interpretation I'm trying to describe.

You might be right on every point there.

And if the judges of vulgarity agree, my character will lose honor. And guess what? My character cares about his honor. I think most characters reporting for the reasons I have cited would, in fact, care about their honor.

But if most of those vulgarity reports in fact are judged to be vulgar (and I honestly don't know if they are or not; I know I've not had any notices about lost honor or anything due to excessive reporting)... then apparently most of the judges agree. It is vulgar. The judges are nobles we presume worthy to judge. I, thus, implicitly trust their judgment.

That is, IMHO, reporting a thing as vulgar which in fact is not vulgar is not abuse. Other people judge it to decide if it is vulgar. Reporting a non-vulgar thing as vulgar simply to spread information is, contrary to my earlier statements (I was wrong), abuse, because it basically accomplishes your goal no matter the judgments made. But I hardly see how systematically erroneous reporting because a character is a pretentious ass is abuse.

I can think of many ways to describe your interpretation. Best one?

"These feature is to police for words which are offensive. Examples are:..." followed by a list of common profanities.

Alternatively, rename the darn thing. You're not talking about vulgarity. You're talking about profanity. Call it a profanities or obscenities.

Profanity, obscenity, and vulgarity are different (sometimes overlapping but still definable) things. I am not bound to interpret them incorrectly because someone else did.

[De-Legro]

You might be right on every point there.

And if the judges of vulgarity agree, my character will lose honor. And guess what? My character cares about his honor. I think most characters reporting for the reasons I have cited would, in fact, care about their honor.

But if most of those vulgarity reports in fact are judged to be vulgar (and I honestly don't know if they are or not; I know I've not had any notices about lost honor or anything due to excessive reporting)... then apparently most of the judges agree. It is vulgar. The judges are nobles we presume worthy to judge. I, thus, implicitly trust their judgment.

That is, IMHO, reporting a thing as vulgar which in fact is not vulgar is not abuse. Other people judge it to decide if it is vulgar. Reporting a non-vulgar thing as vulgar simply to spread information is, contrary to my earlier statements (I was wrong), abuse, because it basically accomplishes your goal no matter the judgments made. But I hardly see how systematically erroneous reporting because a character is a pretentious ass is abuse.

I can think of many ways to describe your interpretation. Best one?

"These feature is to police for words which are offensive. Examples are:..." followed by a list of common profanities.

Alternatively, rename the darn thing. You're not talking about vulgarity. You're talking about profanity. Call it a profanities or obscenities.

Profanity, obscenity, and vulgarity are different (sometimes overlapping but still definable) things. I am not bound to interpret them incorrectly because someone else did.

To my understanding it covers more then simple profanity. Things like unnecessarily belittling someone and other unacceptable behaviour are also covered, thus the more general vulgar which covers profanity as well. Vulgar is infact a good word since if covers unacceptable behaviour for a noble, that we would not consider profane

vul·gar  (vlgr)
adj.
1. Crudely indecent.
2.
a. Deficient in taste, delicacy, or refinement.
b. Marked by a lack of good breeding; boorish.
c. Offensively excessive in self-display or expenditure; ostentatious: the huge vulgar houses and cars of the newly rich.
3. Spoken by or expressed in language spoken by the common people;
4. Of or associated with the great masses of people; common.

Points 2a, 2b 3 and 4 are highly relevant. To use the running example

To use the content, manner division, if one was to express their admiration of the Republic system, but using the accent and vocabulary of a cockney drunk, it could well be judge vulgar without containing any explicit profane words.

[Vellos]

De-Legro,

As I see it, you, are exclusively (and certainly explicitly) referencing definition 3, kind of definition 4, and largely actually ignoring definition 2.

I think that the word has a plethora of meanings. It should not be considered abuse when players arrive at different, IC conclusions that do not cause them to reap a great advantage from the system. The vulgarity system has a built-in means for addressing this diversity of opinion; there is no reason to label it abuse.

[De-Legro]

De-Legro,

As I see it, you, are exclusively (and certainly explicitly) referencing definition 3, kind of definition 4, and largely actually ignoring definition 2.

I think that the word has a plethora of meanings. It should not be considered abuse when players arrive at different, IC conclusions that do not cause them to reap a great advantage from the system. The vulgarity system has a built-in means for addressing this diversity of opinion; there is no reason to label it abuse.

You think using "Peasant" language is somehow not covered what definition 2a or 2b? Besides which one single word is not the only direction you are given with regards to the tool. My example is just one of the ways things can be vulgar, given the further advice the tool gives you.

"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. "

Besides which you only assume it has a built in means for addressing the issue. I've not looked at this part of the code, but it certainly wouldn't be the first half implemented feature we have, so there is no guarantee that people overusing the feature do lose honour, nor is there any guarantee that you receive feedback if the honour penalty does work.

[Vellos]

Besides which you only assume it has a built in means for addressing the issue. I've not looked at this part of the code, but it certainly wouldn't be the first half implemented feature we have, so there is no guarantee that people overusing the feature do lose honour, nor is there any guarantee that you receive feedback if the honour penalty does work.

Indeed, there is no guarantee of receiving feedback. I think I indicated I was unsure if I'd lost honor or not. Personally, I think there should be feedback. That could potentially change my character's behavior.

The game text clearly indicates there is a penalty. If the programming is lagging behind and no penalty was actually implemented... then maybe it should be implemented to see how it works?

[Velax]

De-Legro,

As I see it, you, are exclusively (and certainly explicitly) referencing definition 3, kind of definition 4, and largely actually ignoring definition 2.

I think that the word has a plethora of meanings. It should not be considered abuse when players arrive at different, IC conclusions that do not cause them to reap a great advantage from the system. The vulgarity system has a built-in means for addressing this diversity of opinion; there is no reason to label it abuse.

In typical style, you're nitpicking definitions in order to distract from the fact that you abused a game system to act as a spy with virtually no chance of any repercussions. I think that's one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen in this game. Were it in my power I'd permanently lock your account for that sort of bull!@#$, and rest assured I'll be doing my best to ensure no character of yours in the same realm as mine ever receives any information that could possibly be sensitive.

[Tom]

For the record:

I agree 100% that using the vulgarity feature to spread messages around instead of getting a judgement on vulgarity is a plain and obvious abuse.