Untrue, considering that sexual implicit language falls under that category according to Blizzard themselves. Hence it is prohibited.
4 Likes
Sexually implicit or sexually explicit language? Iâm genuinely curious and would like to see the source, as Iâm ever willing to change my position if proven wrong.
1 Like
One could with a bit of lingustic flare and a touch of attention ERP without actually being vulgar about it.
Technically you would not break the CoC.
Shadow mending is a thing though; healing is not only the Light.
1 Like
Does that quite count? For players, half of shadow mendâs healing done fades after a short time, but for NPCs it is often more - sometimes all of it.
It seems like more of a temporary measure than true healing.
2 Likes
The way I RP out shadow mending is that you would feel the wound being inflicted on you, just in reverse - Or even multiplied if the person isnât adept at it.
I once rolled a 5 out of 100 on avoiding pain during a shadow mendâŚ
I apologise for sounding a bit dumb, but I honestly donât know the diffrence of the meaning between those two terms :l
That said, I did some more digging for you:
´https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/8690559389´ includes the old ToU, it appears that they have changed the specifics of hateful, sexual etc to an overall reaching âvulgar/obscene languageâ.
´https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20761928111?page=2´
Includes a tagged blue post of how foul language all together isnt allowed.
´https://eu.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/2151656256´ old thread, but discusses that it is not allowed
´https://eu.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/17614461776´ another blue post confirming that it is something to report.
There are many others. If you wish to dig into it more yourself you can browse forums, google, or send in a ticket to ask specifically, but I personally consider this, along with other things I have read+the CoC to be very clear on the stance.
Donât apologize.
If something is explicit it means itâs âclear to seeâ, more or less. If itâs implicit, it means itâs implied.
The old ToU arenât valid any more, and the fact that they were changed specifically from including more ERP-specific terminology is actually a thought provoking detail, if you ask me.
And I do agree with and indeed hope that every one on these good forums and the AD server too, do report any and all people exposing them to vulgar / offensive language as well as people harassing them.
2 Likes
Then my bad, as far as I have read, the blues and the old ToU specifically stated explicit then, rather than implicit, though people could/can still report to have it looked at, but it isnt stated as clearly.
Yeah, then we agree. Explicit sexual language can be considered vulgar / offensive, and that would be prohibited by the ToS and CoC.
But as Zanmarea stated, it would probably still be possible to ERP without using explicit sexual language, which is why I maintain that someone being an ERPer or someone ERPing does not necessarily mean theyâre breaking the ToS / CoC.
1 Like
Yup, that pretty much covers it from what I can find.
Williame did earlier point out that some ERPers hound people, slander them if rejected and bully others into ERP, and that of course would fall under the harassment clause of the ToS and thus be prohibited.
My main point is, that itâs not the act of ERPing people should be so vehemently opposed to, itâs the idiots behind the screen, and just because someone ERPs, theyâre not necessarily bad people, and they donât deserve to be constantly reminded that theyâre doing something âthat is not okayâ if theyâre actually following the ToS.
2 Likes
Yes, sorry. I can be behind that. If the person is following the ToS and CoC then they arent doing anything that is prohibited. But sexual language out in public, or towards a person who doesnât appriciate it(Such as whispers at some random) or harassing them, are clearly in violation.
1 Like
One thing to note though, which is more as a word of caution, is that they do state in the ToS rather than CoC, that we are also under the juristiction of the diffrent countries laws, and considering it is a 12+ game by the ERSB, some countries might have very strong laws regarding sexual behaviour at minors(Sweden for example has very protective laws which is good), and Blizzard is actually forced to enforce/follow up on the various laws.
So even if you follow the ToS CoC regarding language, it is risky waters.
1 Like
Then we should ban anyone under the age of 21 from playing the game, because they might encounter bad language.
Communication without bad language also works though?
1 Like
Yes but we have a /dice roll system, and thus people could gamble for gold, and gambling is not allowed for people under the age of 21 in many countries.
Thus the game should require you to be of adult age in the latest possible countries age bracket to play.
Player-made gambling has actually been suspended/banned in the past. And as I said, they are following ERSBâs 12+rating, and make sure their created content follow this. Player created content, such as what we do with language, chat, /roll etc, is governed by the CoC and ToS, and by Blizzardâs own discretion.
1 Like
Well thatâs because ERSB, can only rate what is âon discâ they canât cover online interactions, because there is very little a developer can do to prevent pople misusing voice or regular chat.
Hence why they have the Terms of Service/Use and the Code of Conduct. Which states clearly what we can/canât do. And Blizzard can at any moment if they desire, terminate or suspend an account. According to the ToS they dont even need a reason if they really want to.
2 Likes