Subject: no need
Author:
Posted on: 2009-04-08 09:51:00 UTC
Missions can contain as much swearing as you like. After all, you can rate them for language. Still often better not to do overdo it, mind.
-
LJ and Agent Profiles by
on 2009-04-06 00:18:00 UTC
Reply
http://chasekilger.livejournal.com/
I'm having trouble finding other members on there.
Anywho, I have my agents posted and if anyone has the time to provide feedback or some critique that would be great. Also add me as friend while you're checking it out please. -
Crap by
on 2009-04-06 00:22:00 UTC
Reply
My bad, found it on the wiki.
-
Watch the langauge, will you, please? (nm) by
on 2009-04-06 02:56:00 UTC
Reply
-
Crap isn't foul language. by
on 2009-04-06 04:41:00 UTC
Reply
At the least, I doubt it's offensive enough to warrant any concern unless everyone in the PPC is suddenly 12. I don't mean any disrespect, but she's not exactly swearing up a storm, I don't see the big deal.
-
there are still reasons it's avoided by
on 2009-04-06 11:27:00 UTC
Reply
Whether it causes offence or not isn't quite the point. It's more that there's a mutual unspoken agreement to limit swearing, particularly in subject lines. Partly it's for the look of the thing - we give a better impression to newbies and strangers if we're using language that's appropriate for any register, whereas if we're effing and blinding all over the place it makes us appear more insular and less accessible. And partly it's because, while we all have the dislike of badfic in common, there's plenty about each other we don't all know, and tolerance for expletives is included in that, and so swearing's kept minimal so as not to offend or alienate those who don't like it.
Now glaurunging, on the other hand, that's an excellent example of language promoting ingrouping. It helps with a sense of identity, and so is permissible in subject lines.
There you go, there's my two cents as a linguist. And, if it helps, I don't consider crap foul language either; most of what I say out loud is pure Anglo-Saxon. It's just that there's a time and a place, and subject lines aren't it. -
Hmmmm. by
on 2009-04-08 09:32:00 UTC
Reply
In the mission I'm working on, I've kept it to "hell," "damn," and...well, what would have been a Cluster F Bomb if it hadn't actually been a Cluster GD Bomb. If anyone needs me to tone it down further, let me know.
-
no need by
on 2009-04-08 09:51:00 UTC
Reply
Missions can contain as much swearing as you like. After all, you can rate them for language. Still often better not to do overdo it, mind.
-
I'm not arguing that. by
on 2009-04-07 01:39:00 UTC
Reply
I'm not saying we should all start dropping f-bombs like Quentin Tarantino characters and such, but there's also no need to immediately jump on someone for something relatively minor. There's limiting, and then there's total suppression, which I assume isn't what we're going for. I do see your point, but also don't entirely agree, especially when it's a more or less a pretty nonoffensive term. I had some other stuff to say, but I've forgot it. Point is, moderation is good, but that goes both ways. Not something worth fighting about.
-
Re: I'm not arguing that. by
on 2009-04-13 23:51:00 UTC
Reply
Jadis in a block of ice, it's not like we don't have enough glaurunging swear word substitues, for Glod's sake!
:P -
Re: I'm not arguing that. by
on 2009-04-07 12:57:00 UTC
Reply
I think you may have missed part of my point.
I do see your point, but also don't entirely agree, especially when it's a more or less a pretty nonoffensive term.
That's the thing - what counts as inoffensive? We all have different standards. If we tried to hash out a list of acceptable and inacceptable words, we'd be here forever and we'd never all agree. So we err on the safe side, and we stick to the unspoken rules of the group, because that way we're demonstrating mutual respect for everyone in it. And, of course, the converse is true - if we deliberately break the unspoken linguistic conventions of the group, we set ourselves apart from the rest, which isn't good in terms of social cohesion.
(Chase, if you're reading this, I'm not actually having a go. I'm just a linguist at heart and find the reasons behind swearing fascinating.) -
Re: I'm not arguing that. by
on 2009-04-07 12:55:00 UTC
Reply
Can I just point out that some people do think that 'crap' is an offensive word, and therefore may not appreciate seeing it as a subject line, be they a Boarder or a boss/teacher/parent reading over a Boarder's shoulder at the wrong moment. In blocks of text, such as a main post, it wouldn't be as noticeable, but when it's the only word used it is quite noticeable.
-
*sigh* by
on 2009-04-07 06:08:00 UTC
Reply
KG, I don't see anyone jumping on anyone else. This entire issue strikes me as being no more dramatic than making sure a newbie knows the rules. Chase is new, and might not have known. That's all. If it were "total suppression", someone other than you would have commented by now.
-
Not how I meant it, sorry. by
on 2009-04-07 17:29:00 UTC
Reply
Was just saying that limiting and keeping out completely are different things. I dunno if you misinterpreted or something, but I didn't mean what you seem to think I mean.
-
Re: Not how I meant it, sorry. by
on 2009-04-07 22:58:00 UTC
Reply
I don't think I misinterpreted anything, but as long as no offense was meant, it doesn't matter. :)
-
Maybe not, but it could be avoided anyway. by
on 2009-04-06 07:20:00 UTC
Reply
I'm far over twelve, but it does bother me in a way that PPC-swearing ("Glaurung!" &such) doesn't. It's not a big deal, but it'd be nice to avoid it anyway.
-
Much ado about nothing... (nm) by
on 2009-04-06 13:43:00 UTC
Reply