Language and Abbreviations

I think Rikoo's point is well taken.  Yes, there are young people who do not know what WTF means, but if the standard is, as you imply, that they have heard the word itself then I doubt any young person of school age has not heard the word somewhere.  One wonders how old you have to be to make the connection between WTF and the words it represents.

As to the point that some people do say the letters themselves, I might suggest that that is a very small percent.  Most people see the abbreviations and say the words for which they stand.  Thus, to use the abbreviation is about as close to saying the word as it can be.  The central question is, I suppose, are we trying to keep people from using the words or hearing the words?  If nobody is listening then use whatever language you like, but what would be the point of speaking if there was no one listening?  Thus, you can assume that somebody is listening.  Are the rules designed to stop people from hearing those words in GC?

In my opinion the number of people who might be offended by the use of abbreviations in place of the actual words is quite small....but why not respect their feeling as well?  Are those who are offended by the use of what is generally considered "crude" language worth less than those who take no offense?

In the end it seems to me that it's respect we are speaking about.  If you enter the room of preachers do you not adjust your language?  Since the audience in Illy my be quite broad why not insure a "non-offensive" time for all by simply not using what you probably don't need to use anyway.

Rill's point is well taken.  But freedom is destroyed by licentiousness.  Both ideas are nearly the same, but licentiousness is freedom without regard.  I would argue that the freedom to enjoy the game without being offended by the language being used, especially if it is unneeded and unnecessary, should be granted to all players, even the slim minority who are offended by such language.

Finally, it is interesting to me that one of the major reasons for avoiding the language under discussion have not been addressed by any commentators yet.  Do they make sense that using such language casually and consistently gives you no way to express any higher level of pain or pleasure? 

Thanks for all your comments. 

AJ

ajqtrz wrote: .. Finally, it is interesting to me that one of the major reasons for avoiding the language under discussion have not been addressed by any commentators yet.  Do they make sense that using such language casually and consistently gives you no way to express any higher level of pain or pleasure?  ...

I think language is a bit more complicated then your linear framework. Context is important, and there is more information to be conveyed by tone and cadence, in addition to the words themselves.

LOL, Agalloch.

Context does determine meaning, but the context in GC is public and meaning is what is both intended and read or heard.  Text by itself does narrow the channels of emotion transference, but good writing can generally make up for a lot of the loss.  In some ways the use of some words might in fact be tolerated in the community if they were few and far between.  But one supposes the rules were written, as rules generally are, to curb a problem rather than to prevent one. 

What would it mean to society in general if people decided one day that certain words should be used very sparingly or not at all.  I don't mean legal rules or whatever, but a sort of self policing whereby each person just chose to cut back and "clean up" their utterances?  Then, if one needed to get the attention of others, and I mean really get their attention, then the person were to use those words, they would have effect and probably not offe3nd anyone exactly because they would be appropriate to the context.  Perhaps why some words are offensive is not the words, but the use of them in a context where the emotional impact of the words is not needed.   After all, if strong emotion is being expressed by the word or words being used, and the situation is such that strong emotion is not intended (to be expressed) then isn't the use of those words "crying wolf?"

Just some further musing on the subject.

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

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