I second this suggestion - it allows sufficient freedom to express
meaningful content, since anything that would push us into an R
rating would be very awkward to try and express within wesnoth.
Furthermore, it offers an extremely large body of work to act as a
legal precedent, per se - we
OK, there's really 2 parts to this suggestion:
1) mainline Wesnoth should have clearer content ratings
2) mainline Wesnoth should contain more mature content than
it has in the past.
I don't have a problem with #1.
I am against #2. I'm proud of the fact that i can recommend
Wesnoth as a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Why should we change the de-facto rating of Wesnoth to accommodate
the addition of terms like tree-shagger? That would be a case of the
tail wagging the dog.
We were already at PG-13 in MPAA terms. I was suggesting we adopt ESRB T
rather than ESRB E10+
Rating systems are notoriously bad guides for making decisions about
this issue. We might already be some particular rating based upon the
violence in wesnoth, but that does not mean we should raise our
language use, sexual inuendos, and drug use to match.
Personally, I would find a comparison
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 23:08:19 -0500,
Richard Kettering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why are we having this discussion? Why are we dedicating such
_exegesis to a word that 10-year olds would openly laugh at for its
quaintness?
Because the project has a guideline that says that material
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 23:08:19 -0500,
Richard Kettering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why are we having this discussion? Why are we dedicating such
_exegesis to a word that 10-year olds would openly laugh at for its
quaintness?
Because the project
Personally, I don't feel that there would be much loss to the
character of the Orcs if they said tree-huggers instead of
tree-shaggers. Is it so important to the storyline for them to use
the more vulger phase that such a small change should not be made?
--
John McNabb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Personally, I don't feel that there would be much loss to the
character of the Orcs if they said tree-huggers instead of
tree-shaggers. Is it so important to the storyline for them to use
the more vulger phase that such a small change should not be made?
I
Can you be more explicit about why it is not a small change as far as
its importance to the storyline of the campaign?
On 5/15/07, Eric S. Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John McNabb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Personally, I don't feel that there would be much loss to the
character of the Orcs if
I agree tree-hugger would be ridiculous.
No one is suggesting that the orcs need to be polite.
But is it not in your power to cook up a less vulgar epithet for the
elves?
You managed it for the dwarves and humans.
-eleazar / j.w.bjerk
On May 15, 2007, at 5:48 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
John
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I agree tree-hugger would be ridiculous.
No one is suggesting that the orcs need to be polite.
But is it not in your power to cook up a less vulgar epithet for the
elves?
You managed it for the dwarves and humans.
Trust me, if I could have invented
Why are we having this discussion? Why are we dedicating such
_exegesis to a word that 10-year olds would openly laugh at for its
quaintness?
This censorship is going way over its bounds, if you ask me. I do
not think it is doing anything to further its stated goal; and as
evidenced by
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I noticed the description for the SotBE campaign uses the term tree-shagger
to refer to elves. For a mailine campaign it might be better to use a more
family friendly term such as tree-hugger.
Um...they's *orcs*, not Sunday-school teachers!
--
Rusty Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But since orcs aren't supposed to be polite, I assumed this was
deliberate.
It was quite deliberate. When I reworked the SotBE prose, I spent
some time thinking up Orcish epithets for the other speaking peoples.
Human-worms, stinky-midgets, tree-shaggers --
It's been our long-standing practice to try to keep mainline
generally unobjectionable in ways that don't compromise the
fundamental nature of Wesnoth.
In other words we don't attempt to make people happy who dislike
*all* depictions of violence, but we do try to keep *unnecessary* things
out
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It's been our long-standing practice to try to keep mainline
generally unobjectionable? in ways that don't compromise the
fundamental nature of Wesnoth.
Fine, let's define a standard. Is PG-13 unobjectionable?
--
a
Am Montag 14 Mai 2007 schrieb Eric S. Raymond:
Fine, let's define a standard. Is PG-13 unobjectionable?
Wesnoth has many players younger then 10 AFAIK.
Bye David
___
Wesnoth-dev mailing list
Wesnoth-dev@gna.org
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 13:00:54 -0400,
Eric S. Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Austin Powers: The Spy who Shagged Me could be marketed as
PG-13 (and it was) then I think we're on pretty safe ground as regards
actual obscenity.
It might be nice to hear from some British English
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So I wasn't asking for it to be changed as much as people to conciously
decide whether or not it was inline with the project's guidelines.
I'd like to see some consensus on that myself.
--
a href=http://www.catb.org/~esr/;Eric S. Raymond/a
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 13:00:54 -0400,
Eric S. Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Austin Powers: The Spy who Shagged Me could be marketed as
PG-13 (and it was) then I think we're on pretty safe ground as regards
actual obscenity.
It might be
Hmmm i am not sure if there is a non vulgar way to translate that in french
On 5/15/07, Eric S. Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 13:00:54 -0400,
Eric S. Raymond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If Austin Powers: The Spy who Shagged
Is there agreement that shagger shouldn't be used with a campaign
shipped with Wesnoth? (Or at least not in the campaign description.)
If there is can we replace tree-shagger with tree-hugger?
Tree-hugger is often used in the US as a disapproving way to refer to
environmentalists. So I think it
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 00:09:43 -0500,
Bruno Wolff III [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I noticed the description for the SotBE campaign uses the term tree-shagger
to refer to elves. For a mailine campaign it might be better to use a more
family friendly term such as tree-hugger.
Since there are a
It's worth noting, for our non-english developers, that although that
may be british slang, it's universally understood by americans; and
I'd wager nearly all native speakers of the language as well.
On May 12, 2007, at 8:51 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, May 12, 2007 at 00:09:43 -0500,
sentence is rather long and unwieldy anyway.
-j.w.bjerk / eleazar
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Wesnoth-dev] SotBE description a bit racy
From: Richard Kettering [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, May 12, 2007 6:53 pm
To: dev-talk wesnoth-dev@gna.org
It's worth noting, for our non
On Sat, 2007-05-12 at 18:44 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree, shagger would be commonly understood by Americans.
Obscurity really isn't a good defense anyway. We shouldn't needlessly
use a word that is not expected to be understood, especially in the
campaign description.
(As an
I noticed the description for the SotBE campaign uses the term tree-shagger
to refer to elves. For a mailine campaign it might be better to use a more
family friendly term such as tree-hugger.
___
Wesnoth-dev mailing list
Wesnoth-dev@gna.org
27 matches
Mail list logo
