Language and Abbreviations

Rikoo, when you say "I'm not sure where you are attempting to go with this" I'm wondering if you are reading things at all.  I keep saying it's not about rules, it's about respect.  Respect of others means considering if your own actions might be needlessly and negatively impacting others and, if they are not needed and they have even a reasonable change of of negatively impacting others, you should voluntarily refrain from them.

I'm not trying to tell the rule makers we need more rules, I'm trying to get more players to involve themselves in more self-rule.

As for your belief that one can't use the alternative word for "poop" I can bet you as much as you like that it can be used but that if it is typed and sent into GC it will not be printed in GC but the person will be censored.  Thus, as I said, you can't stop the use (it was 'broadcast') but only punish (censoring and banning for a period of time) the use as a deterrent.  Ultimately any rule by any authority must be enforced.  I'm only asking people to enforce a higher standard in their own communication.

I hope this clarifies things.

AJ

Good points all, Rikoo.  But if you read carefully I'm not asking for further rules, but for a general consensus to tone down things that, obviously, might be "heard" offensively.

"WTF" and it's cousins are all meant to express ideas, but what those symbols trigger in the listeners mind may be reasonably understood as a range of ideas, including of which, is the mental sound of the words.  Is it really unreasonable to ask people to simply dial back their own use of questionable abbreviations?  That's all I'm thinking need be done.   It's been my experience that most people do not intend to offend anyone, but, generally speaking, do so when they don't consider the impact of what that are expressing.  Expression is fine, but there is a difference between "blind expression" that does not consider what the hearer is going to "hear" and communication, which always considers both the needs of the speaker and of the receiver of that speech.

Finally, you are correct that the developers and community team have the final say-so on what is allowed and what is not....however, you are also very wrong about that in one important way.  The only thing the developers and community team can dictate is the punishment for breaking their rules.  That's it.   If the community suddenly, and for whatever reason, suddenly decided that it's okay to use some word, and you tried to enforce the ban on that word, the community might leave altogether.  In other words, whatever list you come up with is ultimately pragmatic.  No business leads what it's customers want without a lot of effort, and in this case, I'm willing to bet that if you started enforcing some standard that the players, in general, didn't want, a good deal of them would jump ship, possibly leading to a change of heart on your side.  I've seen it happen before.

Now the only reason we have most rules is because people weren't self-governing.  They didn't act in a manner that was best for the entire community and thus, someone got hurt, or bothered, or inconvenienced, or whatever.  Which is why I remind people that rules cannot hope to cover all the various permutations of an ever changing vocabulary and if we wish to avoid the need for more rules, among other reasons, we should be sure to guard our own communication.  It is self-defeating for any group to constantly try to get around the legal rules as it only makes for more stringent rules.

So it is up to those involved in the speaking to consider their own set of guidelines and to make sure those guidelines are well within what they may consider appropriate.  We are not the absolute right or wrong of the matter  and thus might be wise to consider frames of reference which may be more conservative than our own, and respect those.  In general I think that means to not skirt the "banned words" issue by simply using the abbreviations.

AJ

Thank you Rikoo for your thoughtful response.  I suppose one can go by the strict letter of the rules and argue that if the rules don't actually say it's banned it must be okay.  This is the equivalent, I think, to the idea that "Well, the cops give you.....x amount of mph (the number varies depending I think on the state of inebriation of the speaker"), as a justification for speeding.  But should, in any stable society, we be constantly picking at the edge of the boundaries to see what we can get away with?  The whole reason we have many rules is because some people thought the social boundaries were her and others there until enough of them offended enough of the others that somebody had to make yet another rule about where the boundary is....or a greater and more detailed one, as in "If there is a word or words that need to be 'discussed'....."

But I do have a disagreement with you.  When I use "WTF" the "F" in my head sounds the same as "F**K."  Do you have two pronunciations for the two "F's" or is it that you have some idea that each of them represents two socially different uses?  If they sound the same, they are the same.  But since "context determines meaning" one supposes if I said "What The F**K?" why would that be any different than "WTF," other than the powers that be might be more comfortable with the full abbreviation than spelling it out.  Both the abbreviation and the actual words sound the same to me when I read them.  Of course some people may be different, but unless you require everybody to read just the letters "W" "T" "F" I suspect many will hear the words for which they stand.

In any case, when you decide that one form is better or more acceptable than the other you are just declaring a boundary to be here or there.  You are making a "rule," at least informally, as the GM of the game.  Which is, I think, the core of the problem.  For if we all have different experiences we may all be putting the boundaries in slightly or greatly different places and thus, run into situations where we have to guess what your future 'new rule' will come down...is it acceptable to the GM or not?  I might suggest a better way for all to adopt.

First, let's acknowledge that we have a variance in what we think appropriate or inappropriate.  The rules stated are only really dealing with the most clear examples of inappropriate behavior and the rest we each have to figure out for ourselves.  Therefore, my suggestion is that we forgo figuring out where the boundaries are and how if this or that expression will be in or out of that boundary and error on the side of caution.  By restricting ourselves to language we know from experience is almost certain to be within the acceptable boundaries we make fewer mistakes, offend no-one (or at least extremely rarely, I suppose), and avoid the time spent in discussions like this one.

My point is that if we all honor the intent that the current standards set and just think about where we might be pushing the boundaries needlessly and back off from those places, we would do much better and avoid the whole need to discuss where the boundaries may or may not be.  In most civilized societies that is what makes them civilized...the commitment to the ideas and goals of the society not merely to the strict letter of the laws of that society, even when it might be that we might need to restrict ourselves in areas in which we have no real discomfort.

AJ


Edited by ajqtrz - 18 Jan 2016 at 20:25

That the words for which the abbreviations stand are already offensive enough that they are banned, I take it, need not be argued.  What I'm referring to is not some new or expanded standard of offensiveness, but the spirit of the already established standard.  Using abbreviations to circumvent what you can't spell out, seem to me to be skirting the issue and somewhat dishonest.  You say, when you join Illyriad, that you will abide by the rules, which include the language standards stated.  But then you use abbreviations to get around the standard to which you agreed to abide?

I suspect it's like many things in life.  You get a driver's license and agree to drive a certain way, then you simply ignore it and drive how you feel...maybe not recklessly, but just a bit over the "speed limit."  You park your car in the "loading zone" because you are "only going to be a minute."   And, in the end, you basically say, "if  I can get away with it, why not?"    Maybe it's just human nature to play fast and loose with the spirit of the law all the time claiming that you have kept the letter.

And one wonders why have more and more detailed laws when all we really need is for people to try to uphold the spirit of the thing.

AJ

Mud Feral

Yes, language evolves, but that isn't the topic at hand. The topic of this thread is the use of abbreviations to replace words that are banned in GC as a method of skirting the rules and the wisdom of using such language and their abbreviations in a public space in general.  I do not hold that it is immoral, but that it is unwise.  And thus, that is the first way the comment on my "mores" is off target.

In addition, "mores" are, by definition: "the essential or characteristic customs and conventions of a community."  Thus it would be impossible, strictly speaking, for me to have "personal mores."

So, given that people use abbreviations to substitute for banned words, in GC and in many other places, what do you think of that?

AJ