Vulgar?

[Dante Silverfire]

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.

[Eirikr]

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.)

[Dante Silverfire]

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.

[Eirikr]

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!

[Anaris]

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.

[Tom]

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).

[Tom]

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".

[Penchant]

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.

[vonGenf]

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.

[Penchant]

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.

[Anaris]

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.

[vonGenf]

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.

[Anaris]

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.

[Indirik]

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.

[vonGenf]

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.