What's your Minecraft Username?: MinisterFudge
What's the title of your suggestion?: Amendment to Rule 2.6 or Addition of New Language
What's your suggestion?:
My suggestion is one of the following suggestions to be added; they are bundled together due to being in the same sort of... sphere.
It concerns
Rule 2.6
Players must use English when communicating in chat.
My suggestion basically came out of a concern, originally, for my character to be permitted to recite extremely common Buddhist Mantras. As it happens, most of these mantras that the character would like to recite happen to be in Sanskrit, which is not a language you can apply for.
So that's my first suggestion. Add Sanskrit as a language.
I could make the case for doing that, but that's not as exciting, so I'm just going to put it in a box here:
Sanskrit is not foreign to Japan in the way, for example, modern European languages are. Through esoteric Buddhism (Shingon and Tendai), Sanskrit has been continuously present in Japan for centuries.
Allowing Sanskrit, therefore, reflects an existing religious reality, not an imported or anachronistic one.
LORE documents speak repeatedly in several locations to Karakura having Buddhism very much shape the identity of the island in certain respects, which I'm not bothered to explain here.
SANSKRIT FUNCTIONS LITURGICALLY, NOT CONVERSATIONALLY
Adding Sanskrit does not imply that characters are casually speaking an ancient Indian language on the street.
Instead, Sanskrit:
This makes Sanskrit a low-risk, high-immersion language from a moderation standpoint, especially when limited to religious or academic contexts.
The broader suggestion canvassed below seems more comprehensive.
In making this suggestion simply asking for 'another language' to be added to the long list of languages people can apply for, it occurred to me... that's kinda silly: Requiring a person that plays a character who just wants to recite, like, a famous six-syllable Sanskrit mantra which is known by thousands of people around the world, who themselves may not necessarily be said to 'speak' or 'know' the language proficiently...
You want them to learn the entire language? That doesn't seem realistic.
Then it slowly occurred to me that Buddhist mantras aren't really the only example of this. Latin prayers that are pretty prolific and ubiquitous came to mind. For example, small snippets of the Lord's Prayer or the Ave Maria in Latin. If a character wanted to recite those they gotta like, have their character study the entire language?
(In practice, it is not uncommon to see people without the language authorization using the language in a very context-specific way where it's obvious to anyone that the person clearly doesn't actually KNOW the language proficiently or could hold a conversation in the language)
You know what I mean? I imagine 99% of staff will not care if you say like, 'Amen' or 'Bonjour' in the chat, yeah? Or am I being too lax in my assessment? I can't really speak for them. Where is the line drawn? If it's like, 5-7 words that are clearly a prayer or whatever, is it an issue? Two words? One? What is happening?
I can appreciate why Rule 2.6 exists from a practical server moderation standpoint.
So I got to thinking. Is there a way around this?
Then it occurred to me.
Rules are made up, guys.
Maybe I've overlooked some important detail. FEEL FREE to share your opinions. I'm really just spitballing here, but I feel this problem could be resolved without creating moderation issues for staff by just amending the rule with precision. For example, inserting these additions (which could probably be phrased better, but here we are):
Players may use brief, widely recognized aphorisms, maxims, or fixed sayings in non-English languages (e.g., caveat emptor, raison d’être, Feliz Navidad, Namaeste, simple greetings/farewells), where such phrases are commonly used within English discourse and understood as loan expressions rather than instances of foreign-language communication, provided that:
Staff retain full discretion to determine whether a phrase qualifies as a common aphorism or fixed saying under this rule, and may disallow, restrict, or retroactively moderate its use at any time.
Any attempt to expand aphoristic usage into conversational or improvised foreign-language speech will be treated as a violation of Rule 2.6.
These caveats seem pretty thorough and limited. Though Staff are in a far better position to make this judgment than I am, as they'd be the ones actually enforcing this if it were implemented.
It really would only be of benefit to people who want their characters to recite short prayers or mantras, or just well-known aphorisms in other languages. Though the rule could be as restrictive as staff members wished for it to be. It gives them incredible discretion.
The current position seems a little painful: there is absolutely no exception at all. I don't feel, for example, a Law and Justice professor or whatever, teaching about... I dunno, consumer law or whatever in Karakura College needs to be an expert in Latin to explain what 'caveat emptor' means? Or... perhaps a player that wants to be all quirky and romantic, calling someone their raison d'être? Or a big-brain nerd character that wants to describe their essay as their 'Magnum Opus'? Are we going to tell these people 'Sorry, but like, you need to get on the forums right NEOWWWW and apply for your character to be totally proficient in French/Latin?'. If there's any takeaway from this suggestion at all, it should be that SOME sort of amendment to rule 2.6 would be healthy and helpful.
Besides, in practice, I really am not seeing staff members go full sicko mode on like, a character who opens up a conversation with 'Bonjour', before immediately following up the rest of their messages in English. Nobody seems to bat an eye at that sort of thing, because it presents no obstacles or problems to anyone at all. So, if, in practice, that's already kind of the case... the rules should be formalized to reflect that, and be as non-restrictive as reasonably practicable. There are GOOD REASONS for Rule 2.6 existing, but this does not mean small, common-sense, and realistic exceptions can not be carved out.
How will this benefit the server and community?:
This amendment would benefit the community by clarifying an existing grey area, rather than introducing a new mechanic or loophole.
At present, Rule 2.6 works very well for everyday communication, but it unintentionally creates friction in a narrow set of roleplay situations involving liturgical, ritual, or formulaic language. In practice, players and staff already seem to handle these cases informally (for example, short Latin prayers or aphorisms), which suggests there is already an understood exception... just not a written one.
By explicitly defining that exception:
- Players gain clarity on what is and isn’t permitted, reducing accidental rule-breaking.
- Staff gain firmer authority, because the rule would clearly state that any such usage is entirely subject to staff discretion, including retroactive moderation.
- Moderation consistency improves, as decisions are grounded in written policy rather than precedent or ad-hoc judgment.
From a roleplay perspective, this allows for more accurate and immersive portrayal of religious, cultural, and academic contexts without forcing characters to unrealistically “know” or “speak” entire languages just to recite a fixed phrase. This mirrors real-world usage, where people regularly recite prayers, mantras, or aphorisms without conversational proficiency.
Importantly, this change does not weaken the English-only rule:
- It does not allow conversation in other languages.
- It does not enable hidden communication.
- It does not grant understanding or fluency.
- It explicitly empowers staff to intervene at any time.
In short, this amendment:
- Formalizes what already happens informally,
- Reduces ambiguity for players,
- Strengthens staff control,
- Supports higher-quality, more nuanced roleplay in a very limited and non-abusable way (as far as I can see, anyway)
Such a change could also be completely provisional. Staff could 'try it out' and see what happens.
It's also nice, because I imagine people DON'T want to apply for language authorization when, in reality, they don't actually want their character to be extremely proficient in a language or speak it, converse in it, or transmit messages in it at all, really: they just want to recite an extremely prolific or well-understood phrase in a non-conversational, very context-specific way (e.g. a prayer/mantra) that wouldn't raise any eyebrows or gain any RP advantage at all.
What's the title of your suggestion?: Amendment to Rule 2.6 or Addition of New Language
What's your suggestion?:
My suggestion is one of the following suggestions to be added; they are bundled together due to being in the same sort of... sphere.
It concerns
Rule 2.6
Players must use English when communicating in chat.
My suggestion basically came out of a concern, originally, for my character to be permitted to recite extremely common Buddhist Mantras. As it happens, most of these mantras that the character would like to recite happen to be in Sanskrit, which is not a language you can apply for.
So that's my first suggestion. Add Sanskrit as a language.
I could make the case for doing that, but that's not as exciting, so I'm just going to put it in a box here:
SANSKRIT HAS AN ONGOING PRESENCESanskrit is not foreign to Japan in the way, for example, modern European languages are. Through esoteric Buddhism (Shingon and Tendai), Sanskrit has been continuously present in Japan for centuries.
- Mantras, dhāraṇīs, and seed syllables (bīja) used in Japanese Buddhism are Sanskrit or Sanskrit-derived.
- Even today, Japanese monks chant Sanskrit mantras written in Siddhaṃ script.
- Many core religious sounds used in Japan (oṃ, hūṃ, aḥ, etc.) are explicitly Sanskrit.
Allowing Sanskrit, therefore, reflects an existing religious reality, not an imported or anachronistic one.
LORE documents speak repeatedly in several locations to Karakura having Buddhism very much shape the identity of the island in certain respects, which I'm not bothered to explain here.
SANSKRIT FUNCTIONS LITURGICALLY, NOT CONVERSATIONALLY
Adding Sanskrit does not imply that characters are casually speaking an ancient Indian language on the street.
Instead, Sanskrit:
- Functions like Latin in Catholicism
- Is used in fixed ritual contexts
- Is memorized, chanted, or recited rather than “spoken”.
This makes Sanskrit a low-risk, high-immersion language from a moderation standpoint, especially when limited to religious or academic contexts.
The broader suggestion canvassed below seems more comprehensive.
In making this suggestion simply asking for 'another language' to be added to the long list of languages people can apply for, it occurred to me... that's kinda silly: Requiring a person that plays a character who just wants to recite, like, a famous six-syllable Sanskrit mantra which is known by thousands of people around the world, who themselves may not necessarily be said to 'speak' or 'know' the language proficiently...
You want them to learn the entire language? That doesn't seem realistic.
Then it slowly occurred to me that Buddhist mantras aren't really the only example of this. Latin prayers that are pretty prolific and ubiquitous came to mind. For example, small snippets of the Lord's Prayer or the Ave Maria in Latin. If a character wanted to recite those they gotta like, have their character study the entire language?
(In practice, it is not uncommon to see people without the language authorization using the language in a very context-specific way where it's obvious to anyone that the person clearly doesn't actually KNOW the language proficiently or could hold a conversation in the language)
You know what I mean? I imagine 99% of staff will not care if you say like, 'Amen' or 'Bonjour' in the chat, yeah? Or am I being too lax in my assessment? I can't really speak for them. Where is the line drawn? If it's like, 5-7 words that are clearly a prayer or whatever, is it an issue? Two words? One? What is happening?
I can appreciate why Rule 2.6 exists from a practical server moderation standpoint.
So I got to thinking. Is there a way around this?
Then it occurred to me.
Rules are made up, guys.
Maybe I've overlooked some important detail. FEEL FREE to share your opinions. I'm really just spitballing here, but I feel this problem could be resolved without creating moderation issues for staff by just amending the rule with precision. For example, inserting these additions (which could probably be phrased better, but here we are):
2.6.a Liturgical and Ritual Language Exception (Limited Use)
Notwithstanding the above, players may, in strictly limited circumstances, use brief non-English phrases for liturgical, ritual, or symbolic roleplay purposes, such as prayers, mantras, chants, or fixed ceremonial sayings, provided that:
Notwithstanding the above, players may, in strictly limited circumstances, use brief non-English phrases for liturgical, ritual, or symbolic roleplay purposes, such as prayers, mantras, chants, or fixed ceremonial sayings, provided that:
- The usage is non-conversational and consists only of short, established formulas, not free-form speech or dialogue, AND
- The language is used solely for atmospheric or religious roleplay, and not to convey instructions, hidden communication, or convey In-Character information for the purposes of obtaining any RP advantage, AND
- There is no back-and-forth communication, improvised sentences, or extended passages, which are not permitted under this exception.
- Staff retain full discretion to determine what constitutes acceptable liturgical use, and may require an OOC explanation or translation at any time.
- Staff may disallow, restrict, or retroactively moderate any instance of non-English usage under this rule without prior notice.
- Characters reciting these brief phrases in another language are not proficient in that language, and must apply for language authorization if they wish to speak in it conversationally without the above restrictions.
2.6.b Common Aphorisms and Fixed Sayings (Limited Use)
Players may use brief, widely recognized aphorisms, maxims, or fixed sayings in non-English languages (e.g., caveat emptor, raison d’être, Feliz Navidad, Namaeste, simple greetings/farewells), where such phrases are commonly used within English discourse and understood as loan expressions rather than instances of foreign-language communication, provided that:
- The phrase is short, fixed, and context-specific, and does not involve original sentence construction or conversational use of the language AND
- The usage is incidental and illustrative, intended to convey a commonly understood concept or emphasis, rather than to communicate new or hidden information. Players should not be using this exception for coded transmissions to gain an RP advantage, AND
- The phrase is immediately intelligible from context to a reasonable extent, without requiring ongoing explanation or elaborate translation.
Staff retain full discretion to determine whether a phrase qualifies as a common aphorism or fixed saying under this rule, and may disallow, restrict, or retroactively moderate its use at any time.
Any attempt to expand aphoristic usage into conversational or improvised foreign-language speech will be treated as a violation of Rule 2.6.
These caveats seem pretty thorough and limited. Though Staff are in a far better position to make this judgment than I am, as they'd be the ones actually enforcing this if it were implemented.
It really would only be of benefit to people who want their characters to recite short prayers or mantras, or just well-known aphorisms in other languages. Though the rule could be as restrictive as staff members wished for it to be. It gives them incredible discretion.
The current position seems a little painful: there is absolutely no exception at all. I don't feel, for example, a Law and Justice professor or whatever, teaching about... I dunno, consumer law or whatever in Karakura College needs to be an expert in Latin to explain what 'caveat emptor' means? Or... perhaps a player that wants to be all quirky and romantic, calling someone their raison d'être? Or a big-brain nerd character that wants to describe their essay as their 'Magnum Opus'? Are we going to tell these people 'Sorry, but like, you need to get on the forums right NEOWWWW and apply for your character to be totally proficient in French/Latin?'. If there's any takeaway from this suggestion at all, it should be that SOME sort of amendment to rule 2.6 would be healthy and helpful.
Besides, in practice, I really am not seeing staff members go full sicko mode on like, a character who opens up a conversation with 'Bonjour', before immediately following up the rest of their messages in English. Nobody seems to bat an eye at that sort of thing, because it presents no obstacles or problems to anyone at all. So, if, in practice, that's already kind of the case... the rules should be formalized to reflect that, and be as non-restrictive as reasonably practicable. There are GOOD REASONS for Rule 2.6 existing, but this does not mean small, common-sense, and realistic exceptions can not be carved out.
How will this benefit the server and community?:
This amendment would benefit the community by clarifying an existing grey area, rather than introducing a new mechanic or loophole.
At present, Rule 2.6 works very well for everyday communication, but it unintentionally creates friction in a narrow set of roleplay situations involving liturgical, ritual, or formulaic language. In practice, players and staff already seem to handle these cases informally (for example, short Latin prayers or aphorisms), which suggests there is already an understood exception... just not a written one.
By explicitly defining that exception:
- Players gain clarity on what is and isn’t permitted, reducing accidental rule-breaking.
- Staff gain firmer authority, because the rule would clearly state that any such usage is entirely subject to staff discretion, including retroactive moderation.
- Moderation consistency improves, as decisions are grounded in written policy rather than precedent or ad-hoc judgment.
From a roleplay perspective, this allows for more accurate and immersive portrayal of religious, cultural, and academic contexts without forcing characters to unrealistically “know” or “speak” entire languages just to recite a fixed phrase. This mirrors real-world usage, where people regularly recite prayers, mantras, or aphorisms without conversational proficiency.
Importantly, this change does not weaken the English-only rule:
- It does not allow conversation in other languages.
- It does not enable hidden communication.
- It does not grant understanding or fluency.
- It explicitly empowers staff to intervene at any time.
In short, this amendment:
- Formalizes what already happens informally,
- Reduces ambiguity for players,
- Strengthens staff control,
- Supports higher-quality, more nuanced roleplay in a very limited and non-abusable way (as far as I can see, anyway)
Such a change could also be completely provisional. Staff could 'try it out' and see what happens.
It's also nice, because I imagine people DON'T want to apply for language authorization when, in reality, they don't actually want their character to be extremely proficient in a language or speak it, converse in it, or transmit messages in it at all, really: they just want to recite an extremely prolific or well-understood phrase in a non-conversational, very context-specific way (e.g. a prayer/mantra) that wouldn't raise any eyebrows or gain any RP advantage at all.
Last edited:
