Curse

Zigathon · May 12, 2009, 08:34 PM // 20:34

Before Anet updates the skills this month, I think they should take an in depth look at this thread. Its an issue obviously dividing the community!

trankle · May 12, 2009, 10:34 PM // 22:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fitz Rinley

The Dark Marine,

What you posted was:

You clearly have not visited the sites, and I have: PEGI and ESRB. That is why I, 1) know where they are, and 2) know what they have to say. But then I also was able to use a dictionary so I could demonstrate what they mean in standard American.

Again, what you quote caries an inordinate emphasis on limited parts of the definition only because you wish to be blind to the other components of the actual definition of Teen rating put out by ESRB. Because you do not want to observe a fact does not keep that fact from existing.

While I commend your exhaustive quoting of ESRB copy, I feel I should point out one flaw in your argument: we are having a discussion about player-generated language, not publisher-developed content. Player-generated language is not covered under ESRB ratings.

From the ESRB FAQ's:

Quote:

Do ESRB ratings address player chat or player-generated content in online-enabled games?

ESRB ratings only address content created by the publisher, and cannot consider content that is created or introduced by individual players when playing the game online. ESRB-rated games that can be played online with other players and which enable exposure to user-generated content are required to display an Online Rating Notice on the game's packaging (if it exists), as well as in the opening screen. The Online Rating Notice states: "Online Interactions Not Rated By The ESRB." This notice is intended to warn about possible exposure to chat (text, audio, video) or other types of user-generated content (e.g., maps, skins) that have not been considered in the ESRB rating assignment.

Your arguments are correct in regard to NPC's with crude names, for example. They are not correct in regard to players utilizing the chat window, or naming their guilds or characters. These interactions, not covered at all by the ESRB rating system, are under the jurisdiction of the agreement between the players and Anet: the EULA.

Quote:

(j) In the Game(s), characters have the privilege of sending server wide messages called "Chat Messages." With this privilege comes a high level of responsibility on the part of the user. Due to the fact that this communication channel has the ability to impact every player on the server, NC Interactive will not tolerate any inappropriate behavior of any sort in this chat channel. This includes but is not limited to: inappropriate language of any sort or any attempt to escape the profanity filter, inappropriate or vulgar content of any sort, repeated "spamming," or "flooding" of the chat messages channel, or any other conduct determined to be inappropriate by NC Interactive Support, in its sole discretion. Any violation of this term or rules of conduct may, in the sole discretion of NC Interactive, lead to the temporary removal of the character's ability to communicate, the account being suspended for a set period of time, or lead to permanent account closure.

Enough with the ESRB business already.

-------------------------------------------------------

As for the argument "The existence of the chat filter legitimizes swearing"...

I live in New York City. In NYC, it is illegal to enter another person's house uninvited. In spite of this law, every single door I see has at least one lock on it. In theory, there should be no need for these locks. But in reality, I lock my door every night, and every time I leave my house.

The existence of locks on doors does not suddenly grant me the right to "express myself" by entering an unlocked home and doing as I please. Locks, and chat filters for that matter, exist because people are going to rationalize unlawfulness and break the law. Locks and filters are a safeguard against this behavior, not a justification for it.

Swearing in GW is a violation of the rules. Period. It doesn't matter how whiny the carebear who reported you happened to be. It doesn't matter how you rationalize it. It doesn't matter that there's a filter. Swearing is breaking the rules, and if you can't handle the consequences for breaking the rules, then don't break them.

Commander Ryker · May 13, 2009, 12:55 AM // 00:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

Yet you lose the basic premise of "expressing" oneself. I don't need to "do some sport" to relieve emotions. If I feel something needs to be expressed, I express it. Don't assume I only swear because I'm angry or frustrated, I swear to make a point. That's how it works. If you don't like it, turn your goddamn filter on!

I really hate the GD word you used above yet there is no way here in guru to filter it so I have to just sit here hating it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A11Eur0

For the last time: if you don't like it, turn the filter back on. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELF. If you don't want to see it, don't put YOURSELF into the position to see it. Is that such a hard concept to grasp? You actively remove the filter then get all upset when you see the words the filter is designed to block? That's laughable. That's like suing BiC for burns after one of their lighters blew up in your face while you were staring at it in the lit fireplace.

No filter here, what are my choices since there's a chance you'll swear again.

Now what?

Zigathon · May 13, 2009, 03:50 AM // 03:50

Even in a PG-13 rated film they let loose with a curse word here and there.
Get over it.