Abuse of Vulgarity

[Vellos]

Oh, one last thing (sorry for many posts; this is an issue I've been pondering for a while):

I request that, no matter their ruling, Magistrates clearly define at least one example of non-abusive incorrect reporting. That is; I ask that they provide an example (or some kind of rule) that could show an example where somebody reported something that wasn't ruled vulgar, but where they weren't abusing the system. That is; I want the Magistrates to clarify the difference between abuse and incorrect reporting: because the system obviously allows for incorrect reporting; that's why your peers get to judge, and it isn't automatic.

[Fury]

This is a tool to enforce proper roleplaying and keep the atmosphere and quality level of the game up. The focus is on the manner of speech, not its contents.

Proper RP, atmosphere, upholding standards of nobility/RP,  as pertaining to manner of speech - not idealogies, philosophies, religion.

A lack of proper title, while related to speech - is not vulgar but disrespect, depending. Here's an interesting take someone posted recently:

Bob -- Wife/parents/siblings
Robert -- Cousins, lifelong friends
Robert Fitzpatrick -- Distant cousins, close friends
Sir Robert Westham -- friends
Robert, Earl of Westham -- court officials, other nobility, letters between good friends
Earl Robert Fitzpatrick of Westham -- letters from aquaintances in other courts
Earl Fitzpatrick of Westham -- letters from other courts
Earl Westham -- letters between dignitaries

Vellos, what you want to uphold seems very much related to SMA and this wasn't on Dwilight. Also, it would be an SMA violation not a vulgarity report.

On policing where the accused is unknown, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. This court system is for disputes between players so if someone has a grievance then we have to look into it regardless of gains or motives.

On examples, Tom doesn't like hypotheticals. I both agree and disagree. Sometimes you need an example to see things clearer. Other times, hypotheticals will create unnecessary tangents and prolong the case. In this case it seems rather clear but I would be interested to read about the tangents in separate threads.

[Tom]

did not read the discussion, just want to throw in one thing:

The other player then RP'd that their character did believe in a higher power, but did not follow an organized religion.

This is totally acceptable. The in-game term is "pagan".

[Elroy]

In fact, your use of the vulgarity option against  someone who does not "give you the proper respect" IG is deplorable and is the exact childish rule-mongering behavior hidden behind a wall of carefully constructed sentences filled with words-of-the-day from an iphone app that turns away new players and frustrates/annoys/angers "older" players. 

To summarize:

You felt disrespected so abused the vulgarity option to retaliate.

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


Egamma edit: removed information not conducive to producing a guilty/innocent verdict.

[Geronus]

Some additional helpful information from Tom:

The text on the "please judge this" page is as follows:

   

Nobles are a peculiar bunch of people. While they betray and backstab
    each other as a hobby, they also agree on a code of conduct and insist
    on proper manners of speech and behaviour. In short, noble behaviour and
    noble words are what makes a noble different from a vulgar peasant.

    Unfortunately, not all nobles are equal in this regard, and some slip
    into inappropriate manners at times. Of course, the penalty for being no
    different than a common peasant is a loss of respect among one's peers.

    You are those peers, and have been randomly selected to judge the
    following message or messages, which another noble considers vulgar or
    otherwise unbefitting of a noble. Please pass your verdict.

    This is our method to ensure a proper roleplaying experience and ahigh quality of the gameplay. You do not decide alone, 4 other noblesare selected for each message and the majority decides, but please doconsider your choice carefully, because it is ultimately you who decideson the atmosphere within the game.We have provided some guidelines (see below) to help youmake a decision.In case of doubt, we suggest you err in dubio pro reo. But actualverbal vulgarity should find no mercy.

And the guidelines (on the same page):

    Proper manners for a noble follow an unwritten consensus of
        respect and dignity. It is not easy to write strict guidelines for
        this, so we offer some soft ones, to get you thinking in the right
        direction.
       
    First of all is respect. You may hate the enemy, but if he is
        a noble, then he is your peer and you should respect him as that. You
        can still hate him, but vulgarity is for peasants and nobles have, well
        more noble ways to express their feelings.

        Second is manners. It doesn't matter what you say, it's
        all in how you say it. Again, vulgarity is for the peasants,
        nobles are expected to be able to speak in a manner that sets them
        apart, even if what they say is fairly basic or even offensive. A
        peasant swears - a noble employs a witty repartee.

        Third is behaviour, this is mostly for roleplays. A noble is
        first and foremost a noble. No matter if he bloodies his sword in the
        bodies of his enemies or poisons the wine of the ruler, his actions and
        his way of acting set him apart from the commoner in a hard-to-describe
        but easy-to-spot way.

       As a final hint: Almost all modern swearwords should be considered
        vulgar for a noble. Commoners in the middle ages used them extensively,
        which is precisely why a noble would avoid them.

[egamma]

Vellos, you should have reported the lack of proper title using the SMA reporting link on the Messages page, not using the vulgarity feature.

[Geronus]

Further thoughts on this matter:

It is hard to classify this as abuse, since two out of four other randomly selected players agreed that the message in question was vulgar. Vellos had no control over the outcome of his report, and in fact, if other players had not agreed with him, no one but him would ever have known that he did anything at all, though I would certainly question whether the spirit in which this report was made was truly that of "a board game with friends".

I believe that the message in question is clearly not vulgar. Ultimately, vulgarity is going to be a player-defined term so long as its the players who both report and judge it, but in my opinion there's nothing unclear about the intent of this tool. It is about the way someone says something, not what they are saying, and it should not be used just because you don't like what they say. If that's where you're going, you are without a doubt misusing it. I fail to see how one can read the posted guidelines and reasonably come to any other conclusion, though I would certainly be interested in suggestions as to how the guidelines could be improved and made clearer since it is evident that there is more than one player out there who would not agree with me.

[Perth]

It is about the way someone says something, not what they are saying,

Just curious, how exactly do you do that?

It isn't that they said "!@#$ you," but the way they said "!@#$ you."

[Darksun]

Just curious, how exactly do you do that?

It isn't that they said "!@#$ you," but the way they said "!@#$ you."

Apparently you've never been married. 

There are a variety of ways to state something, not all of them appropriate in all situations. The way you may explain something to your friends may not be the same as the way you explain it to your wife, even though the content may be the same.

[Geronus]

Just curious, how exactly do you do that?

It isn't that they said "$#%@ you," but the way they said "$#%@ you."

You're focusing on what is said. If you think about, I'm sure you can come up with a hundred ways to effectively say "$#%@ you" to someone without actually using those exact words. For example, I could have replied to this post (facetiously of course) that "That's exactly the kind of brilliant question I've come to expect from you." It's possible to be offensive without using profanity.

[Tom]

It isn't that they said "!@#$ you," but the way they said "!@#$ you."

You can say "!@#$ you" - which would be vulgar - or you can say "I respectfully disagree, my lord, and I do so in the strongest possible way. If it were not for the noble blood in both our veins, I would be using words that make the ladies blush, for they would certainly be appropriate to your actions."

Or whatever. You get the idea. If not, watch "Dangerous Liasons", the scene where the main male character goes to "hunt" aka into the village with his servant and listen for how different they speak.

[Perth]

You're focusing on what is said. If you think about, I'm sure you can come up with a hundred ways to effectively say "$#%@ you" to someone without actually using those exact words. For example, I could have replied to this post (facetiously of course) that "That's exactly the kind of brilliant question I've come to expect from you." It's possible to be offensive without using profanity.

You can say "!@#$ you" - which would be vulgar - or you can say "I respectfully disagree, my lord, and I do so in the strongest possible way. If it were not for the noble blood in both our veins, I would be using words that make the ladies blush, for they would certainly be appropriate to your actions."

Or whatever. You get the idea. If not, watch "Dangerous Liasons", the scene where the main male character goes to "hunt" aka into the village with his servant and listen for how different they speak.

Certainly, I understand this. My point is that it really does come down to the actual "contents" of what you say that makes it vulgar. As in, it's the literal words you speak and what you say, not just some kind vague "tone."

[Geronus]

Certainly, I understand this. My point is that it really does come down to the actual "contents" of what you say that makes it vulgar. As in, it's the literal words you speak and what you say, not just some kind vague "tone."

So long as you understand the difference. It appears that it's not the easiest thing to explain.

For instance, applied to the case at hand, it's not a proper use of the vulgarity tool because the message was reported because of the "content" of the message, namely statements about religion that Vellos objected to, not because it was actually "vulgar" in the way that it was stated. Thus the message was reported because of the subject contained in the message, not the language or phrasing used. Is that clear enough? Again, any suggestions on how to improve the posted guidelines are welcome.

[Anaris]

Content is meaning, not specific words.

[Elroy]

I think that an atempt to clarify a pretty clear cut description on the vulgarity page will lead to even more confusion.  If the word/phrase isn't something you would feel comfortable saying around your daughter or grandmother, then it likely is something vulgar.

Expletives, bestiality, cannibalism, rape, extreme sadistic torture...those are common sense vulgar in a game with people of all ages and backgrounds.  Not addressing with a "non-official" in-game title or "implying" possibly not believing in a god...am I seriously having to explain this?