{ "model": { "rank": 6292, "code": "thing-q571571", "model_id": "vr.tr.insult", "name": "insult", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to recognise a possible insult, distinguish competing interpretations, assess its current effects and determine proportionate responses.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Activities and processes", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "ACT", "domain": "ACT.ACT", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q571571/", "tier": 2, "score": 61, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [ "racist insult", "name calling", "sacrilege", "Political insult", "trash-talk", "affront", "outrage", "snub", "invective", "Hailat", "Snippy" ], "aliasCount": 11, "merged": 12, "knownIn": 61, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q571571", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q571571", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-07T13:40:38Z", "providers": [ "Codex", "Grok" ], "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "usd": 0.07534078, "turns": 6, "seconds": 247.5, "error": null }, "codex": { "seconds": 67.8, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.3\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a07c15-b197-71d2-8b2c-1bdb115459d0\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: insult\nRegistry id: vr.tr.insult\nPlane / domain: ACT / ACT.ACT\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n\nA Vercy mod" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q571571", "registryId": "vr.tr.insult", "name": "insult", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "ACT.ACT" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q571571/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.insult", "name": "insult", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to recognise a possible insult, distinguish competing interpretations, assess its current effects and determine proportionate responses.", "definition": "An insult is a communicative act - verbal, written, gestural or otherwise - that manifests contempt for a target by ascribing a negatively valued property or status, thereby denying that target's claim to equal personal respect, typically as a value-judgment rather than as a truth-apt factual allegation.", "scope_statement": "This model owns an individual communicative act that conveys or is interpreted as conveying contempt, degradation or disparagement toward a person or group, including its expression, context, attributed intent, reception and repair state.", "in_scope": [ "The words, gestures, images or other conduct constituting the alleged insult", "The speaker or actor, intended target, actual recipient and witnessing audience", "The disparaging meaning attributed to the act and the evidence supporting that interpretation", "Context affecting whether the act functions as insult, criticism, teasing or another communicative act", "Reported effects, escalation and responses directly associated with the act" ], "out_of_scope": [ "Harassment or bullying as a pattern spanning multiple acts", "Threats and assessments of threatened violence", "Defamation and legal determinations concerning reputation", "The truth or quality of criticism independently of its insulting expression", "Enduring personality traits, prejudices or relationship characteristics", "Platform moderation policies and institutional disciplinary procedures" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Identify a plausible person or group being demeaned; profanity expressing frustration without such a target is insufficient by itself.", "Identify what communicates contempt or diminished standing; an unfavourable assessment of work or conduct does not establish insult without examining its expression and context.", "Distinguish performing an insult from quoting, reporting, translating or rejecting someone else's insult.", "Check evidence of shared playful framing and its acceptance before classifying derogatory banter as either welcome teasing or an unwelcome insult.", "Record insulting content separately from threatened harm, disputed factual allegations or repeated harassment, because one act may participate in several categories." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Expression modality", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Speech, writing, gesture, image, mixed or other evidenced conduct", "why_it_matters": "Determines what evidence preserves the act and which contextual cues may be missing." }, { "name": "Target relation", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Actor, intended target, actual recipient, referenced group and audience, with unknown roles allowed", "why_it_matters": "Separates who was disparaged from who heard, received or reported the expression." }, { "name": "Disparagement focus", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Competence, character, appearance, identity, belonging, social standing, other or unclear; multiple values allowed", "why_it_matters": "Captures what aspect of the target is being diminished without endorsing the disparagement." }, { "name": "Insult interpretation", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "Suspected, supported, disputed, unresolved or ruled out for a stated interpretation", "why_it_matters": "Prevents an allegation or one participant's interpretation from becoming an unqualified fact." }, { "name": "Attributed intent", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Demean, provoke, amuse, criticise, quote, other or unknown; attributed by an identified party", "why_it_matters": "Keeps inferred purpose separate from the actor's account and the recipient's experience." }, { "name": "Audience exposure", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Known or estimated number of people exposed, with time window and uncertainty", "why_it_matters": "Helps assess public humiliation, redistribution and the appropriate reach of a correction." }, { "name": "Recipient appraisal", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Insulting, welcome teasing, neutral, ambiguous, other or not reported; per recipient", "why_it_matters": "Allows different recipients to experience the same act differently." }, { "name": "Reported impact", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "Hurt, humiliation, anger, exclusion, reputational concern, no reported effect, other or unknown; with attribution", "why_it_matters": "Grounds response in reported effects without inferring distress from silence." }, { "name": "Repair state", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "No repair recorded, clarification offered, withdrawal offered, apology offered, accepted, rejected or unresolved; per participant", "why_it_matters": "Distinguishes an attempted repair from a mutually accepted resolution." } ], "affordances": [ "Preserve the alleged insult and enough surrounding context to assess its meaning.", "Compare insult, criticism, teasing and quotation interpretations using attributed evidence.", "Request clarification about the target, intended meaning or recipient's preferences.", "Help formulate a boundary statement, non-insulting restatement, withdrawal or apology.", "Refer the act to an applicable moderation or safeguarding process when evidenced conditions warrant it.", "Track repair and link recurrence to a separate harassment or relationship assessment." ] }, "sources": [ { "id": "SRC-001", "title": "insult (Q571571)", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q571571", "what_it_supports": "Public identifier Q571571; gloss as a disrespectful or scornful expression, statement or behaviour; Concepticon 3204 INSULT and Freebase /m/016f84.", "url_status": "live" }, { "id": "SRC-002", "title": "Beleidigung (Deutschland)", "url": "https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beleidigung_(Deutschland)", "what_it_supports": "German legal definition as Kundgabe der Missachtung or Nichtachtung; StGB §185 wording and penalty (one year, two if public); verbal, written, pictorial, gestural and Tätlichkeit forms; mere impoliteness is not enough.", "url_status": "live" }, { "id": "SRC-003", "title": "Sachstand WD 7 - 3000 - 052/22: Beleidigungstatbestände", "url": "https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/908298/WD-7-052-22-pdf.pdf", "what_it_supports": "Official distinction among Beleidigung (§185, non-provable value-judgment), üble Nachrede (§186) and Verleumdung (§187); Formalbeleidigung under §192 when a true fact is insulting by form.", "url_status": "unverified" }, { "id": "SRC-004", "title": "Rules for Ritual Insults", "url": "https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-349-25582-5_37", "what_it_supports": "Labov's analysis of sounding/the dozens: ritual insults are institutionally similar across communities; a sound is interpreted as play unless it is taken as a personal, accurate report, at which the play frame collapses.", "url_status": "live" }, { "id": "SRC-005", "title": "Towards a cross-cultural pragmatic taxonomy of insults", "url": "https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245539008_Towards_a_cross-cultural_pragmatic_taxonomy_of_insults", "what_it_supports": "Treats insult as a culture-dependent speech act intended to offend, not merely a lexicon of rude words; notes ritual and motivational uses alongside hostile ones.", "url_status": "blocked" }, { "id": "SRC-006", "title": "Insulte, injure et diffamation : de la linguistique au code pénal ?", "url": "https://journals.openedition.org/aad/1312?lang=en", "what_it_supports": "French legal split: diffamation imputes a specific, checkable fact that harms honour; injure/insulte is invective or contempt without such a fact; linguistics and the 1881 press law use different tests on the same utterances.", "url_status": "live" }, { "id": "SRC-007", "title": "The Enduring Fight Over 'Fighting Words'", "url": "https://reason.com/2026/03/14/the-enduring-fight-over-fighting-words/", "what_it_supports": "Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) fighting-words exception: words that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace; later U.S. cases rarely treat insults, including to police, as fighting words.", "url_status": "live" }, { "id": "SRC-008", "title": "Insulting Speech", "url": "https://academic.oup.com/book/57833/chapter/472219651", "what_it_supports": "International and domestic insult, sedition and lèse-majesté laws used against journalists; more than 160 countries still have criminal defamation; recommendation that states decriminalise insult and that imprisonment is not an appropriate penalty.", "url_status": "blocked" }, { "id": "SRC-009", "title": "Can I Sue Someone for Insulting Me? What the Law Says", "url": "https://legalclarity.org/can-i-sue-someone-for-insulting-me/", "what_it_supports": "U.S. practice: a personal insult is generally protected opinion; it becomes defamation only as a false statement of fact published to a third party that causes reputational harm.", "url_status": "live" }, { "id": "SRC-010", "title": "In Germany, it can be a crime to insult someone in public", "url": "https://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-germany-insult-law-snap-story.html", "what_it_supports": "Enforcement volume for German insult law: 218,414 cases filed with prosecutors in 2015, 225,098 in 2014, around 150,000 a decade earlier; honour, not only falsehood, is the protected good.", "url_status": "live" }, { "id": "SRC-011", "title": "Malediktologie", "url": "https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malediktologie", "what_it_supports": "Maledictology as the study of cursing and insult (Aman, Jay, Gauger); traditional German insult lexicon is faecal while neighbouring languages more often use sexual terms; younger German speakers are shifting.", "url_status": "live" }, { "id": "SRC-012", "title": "Speech Act Theory", "url": "https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/speech-act-theory/E29E0869CBABCD7B61536B4AF6A0653B", "what_it_supports": "'I insult you' is not a conventional performative; insult is not completed merely by using that verb, unlike sentencing or marrying.", "url_status": "live" }, { "id": "SRC-013", "title": "Philosophical investigations of the taboo of insult", "url": "https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322626341_Philosophical_investigations_of_the_taboo_of_insult", "what_it_supports": "Insult characterised as undermining reasonable expectations of respect by painting the target in a light that erodes standing; discussion of how slurs sit inside that mechanism.", "url_status": "blocked" } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "insult-expression", "name": "Insult expression", "description": "The observable act and the disparaging meaning it may convey.", "rationale": "An agent needs to locate the alleged insult precisely without treating every offensive word or negative statement as an insult.", "layers": [ { "id": "expression-evidence", "name": "Expression evidence", "description": "What was said, shown or done and how reliably it is preserved.", "findings": [ { "id": "alleged-insult-span", "name": "Alleged insult span", "description": "Identify the specific expression or conduct under assessment, preserving relevant tone and surrounding turns where available.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which exact words, gesture, image or sequence of conduct is alleged to constitute the insult?", "kind": "definition", "id": "alleged-insult-span-q01" }, { "text": "Is the evidence an original record, a quotation, a translation or a participant's recollection, and what context is missing?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "alleged-insult-span-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "disparaging-meaning", "name": "Disparaging meaning", "description": "How the expression is understood to diminish its target.", "findings": [ { "id": "demeaning-content", "name": "Demeaning content", "description": "Record the attributed contempt, ridicule or exclusion and distinguish it from a substantive negative assessment.", "questions": [ { "text": "What does the expression suggest is contemptible, inferior or unworthy about the target, and according to whom?", "kind": "definition", "id": "demeaning-content-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence distinguishes an attack on the target's standing from criticism of a specific claim, performance or action?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "demeaning-content-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "target-and-audience", "name": "Target and audience", "description": "Who performs the act, who is demeaned and who encounters it.", "rationale": "Insults can address one person while disparaging another, and their public or private delivery affects response needs.", "layers": [ { "id": "participant-roles", "name": "Participant roles", "description": "Separate the actor, target, recipient and reporter.", "findings": [ { "id": "target-identification", "name": "Target identification", "description": "Establish whether the disparagement targets an individual, a group or an uncertain referent.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who performed the act, who was addressed and who was disparaged, including any group implicated by the expression?", "kind": "definition", "id": "target-identification-q01" }, { "text": "What supports the target attribution when the expression uses an unnamed referent, insinuation or indirect address?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "target-identification-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "public-exposure", "name": "Public exposure", "description": "The audience and subsequent circulation of the insult.", "findings": [ { "id": "audience-and-amplification", "name": "Audience and amplification", "description": "Distinguish original delivery from later exposure and distinguish reporting from renewed disparagement.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who is known to have encountered the original act or later copies, and over what period?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "audience-and-amplification-q01" }, { "text": "Does a later repetition document the insult, reject it or perform a further insulting act, and what supports that reading?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "audience-and-amplification-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "context-and-interpretation", "name": "Context and interpretation", "description": "The evidence needed to judge whether the act functions as an insult in this interaction.", "rationale": "Literal wording alone may not distinguish insult from irony, accepted teasing, quotation or misunderstanding.", "layers": [ { "id": "interactional-framing", "name": "Interactional framing", "description": "Local conventions, preceding interaction and evidence of accepted or rejected play.", "findings": [ { "id": "teasing-and-context", "name": "Teasing and context", "description": "Assess playful or ironic framing without assuming that familiarity or an actor's stated humour establishes acceptance.", "questions": [ { "text": "What preceding turns, language conventions or relationship-specific practices support an insulting, playful or ironic reading?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "teasing-and-context-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence shows that this kind of teasing was welcomed, contested or previously subject to a boundary?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "teasing-and-context-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "interpretation-disagreement", "name": "Interpretation disagreement", "description": "Separate intended meaning, received meaning and third-party assessment.", "findings": [ { "id": "attributed-readings", "name": "Attributed readings", "description": "Maintain competing accounts and their evidential basis without silently privileging one participant.", "questions": [ { "text": "How do the actor, target and witnesses each describe the act's meaning and purpose?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "attributed-readings-q01" }, { "text": "Which parts of the insult interpretation are supported, disputed or unresolved, and what missing evidence could change that assessment?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "attributed-readings-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "impact-and-escalation", "name": "Impact and escalation", "description": "Reported effects of the insult and its relationship to continuing conflict.", "rationale": "Response decisions require evidence about impact and recurrence without turning a single act into an unsupported diagnosis of a wider pattern.", "layers": [ { "id": "experienced-effects", "name": "Experienced effects", "description": "The target's reported experience and observable consequences.", "findings": [ { "id": "impact-evidence", "name": "Impact evidence", "description": "Record reported humiliation, hurt or exclusion separately from observed behaviour and causal inference.", "questions": [ { "text": "What effects does the target report, and which consequences are independently observable?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "impact-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "How long have reported effects persisted, and what evidence connects them to this act rather than other events?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "impact-evidence-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "conflict-linkages", "name": "Conflict linkages", "description": "Connections to recurrence, retaliation, coercion or other separately modelled acts.", "findings": [ { "id": "recurrence-and-power", "name": "Recurrence and power", "description": "Capture relevant prior acts and constraints on responding while leaving pattern-level judgements to neighbouring models.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidenced prior insults, repeated targeting or power dependencies affect the target's ability to object or disengage?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "recurrence-and-power-q01" }, { "text": "Does the interaction also contain a threat, coercive demand or possible harassment pattern requiring a linked assessment?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "recurrence-and-power-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "response-and-repair", "name": "Response and repair", "description": "Available interventions and the state of attempts to address the insult.", "rationale": "An agent must distinguish what it can appropriately do from what participants want, and distinguish a repair offer from an accepted resolution.", "layers": [ { "id": "response-selection", "name": "Response selection", "description": "Choose an intervention based on the target's preferences, context and the agent's authority.", "findings": [ { "id": "proportionate-intervention", "name": "Proportionate intervention", "description": "Assess clarification, boundary setting, disengagement or referral without assuming confrontation is necessary.", "questions": [ { "text": "What outcome does the target want, and which responses are feasible given the audience, power relationship and risk of renewed targeting?", "kind": "action", "id": "proportionate-intervention-q01" }, { "text": "What authority or applicable rule permits the agent to intervene, restrict visibility or refer the incident?", "kind": "action", "id": "proportionate-intervention-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "repair-progress", "name": "Repair progress", "description": "Track clarification, withdrawal, apology and participant responses.", "findings": [ { "id": "repair-offer-and-reception", "name": "Repair offer and reception", "description": "Record what was acknowledged or withdrawn, who received the repair and whether disagreement remains.", "questions": [ { "text": "What clarification, withdrawal or apology was offered, and did it reach the target and any relevant original audience?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "repair-offer-and-reception-q01" }, { "text": "How did the target respond, and what requested boundary or unresolved issue remains after the repair attempt?", "kind": "action", "id": "repair-offer-and-reception-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-external-alignment", "name": "Evidence and external alignment", "description": "What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.", "rationale": "A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.", "layers": [ { "id": "reported-evidence", "name": "Reported evidence", "description": "Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds", "name": "Kinds and varieties", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "personal insult (sincere derogation of an identifiable individual)", "collective or group insult (derogation of a class, profession or community)", "ritual insult (sounding, the dozens, flyting: play-framed verbal duel, typically not treated as a true report)", "slur-based insult (identity-directed prohibited term)", "fighting words (face-to-face personal insult treated as likely to provoke immediate violence)", "legal honor-insult (Beleidigung, injure, injuria: depreciating value-judgment as an offence against honour)", "formal insult (Formalbeleidigung: content made insulting by manner even when a fact is true)", "gestural or emblematic insult (for example the middle finger, or an insulting blow)" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of insult this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-identifiers", "name": "Identifiers and schemes", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ { "scheme": "Wikidata", "value_or_pattern": "Q571571", "note": "Item 'insult': expression, statement or behaviour which is disrespectful or scornful." }, { "scheme": "Concepticon", "value_or_pattern": "3204", "note": "Concept set INSULT." }, { "scheme": "Freebase", "value_or_pattern": "/m/016f84", "note": "Linked from the Wikidata item." }, { "scheme": "German Criminal Code section", "value_or_pattern": "StGB §185 (with §§186-187, 192)", "note": "Statutory name of the honor-insult offence and its neighbouring fact-based offences." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-identifiers-q01", "text": "Which of these identifiers and schemes hold for the sense of insult this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation", "name": "Standards and regulation", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "Strafgesetzbuch §185 Beleidigung (and §§186-187, 192 Formalbeleidigung) - German legislature; protects personal honour against a depreciating value-judgment.", "Law of 29 July 1881 on the Freedom of the Press - French legislature; injure is contempt or invective without imputation of a specific fact, distinct from diffamation.", "Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) - U.S. Supreme Court; 'fighting words' as a narrow First Amendment exception for face-to-face insults likely to provoke immediate violence.", "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 19 and 20 - UN General Assembly; freedom of expression balanced against incitement, the frame used when international bodies review criminal insult and lèse-majesté laws.", "Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG) - German legislature; platform-level removal duties that in practice catch public online Beleidigung alongside other unlawful content." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation-q01", "text": "Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of insult this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-real-world-use", "name": "Real-world use", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "Face-to-face conflict (traffic, schoolyards, workplaces): a targeted epithet, gesture or blow treated as an attack on honour rather than as a report of fact.", "Criminal complaint in civil-law honour systems: the target files a Strafantrag; German prosecutors recorded on the order of 200,000 insult filings a year in the mid-2010s.", "Ritual verbal duel: sounding/the dozens, flyting, roast and rap battle, where insults are exchanged under a play frame and skill is scored by the audience.", "Platform moderation and NetzDG notice-and-takedown of public posts, comments and images treated as Beleidigung or abusive insult.", "Political and diplomatic practice: insult of officials, heads of state or the state itself (outrage, lèse-majesté, seditious libel), including use against journalists.", "Licensed entertainment (comedy roast) and sports sledging, where the same forms are ratified as performance rather than as a personal attack." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of insult this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-measurements", "name": "Typical measurements", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ { "quantity": "statutory maximum imprisonment for Beleidigung (StGB §185)", "typical_range": "up to 1 ordinary; up to 2 if public, in an assembly, or by distributing a content", "unit": "year" }, { "quantity": "insult complaints filed with German prosecutors", "typical_range": "about 150000-225000 per year (circa 2005-2015; 218414 in 2015)", "unit": "filings/year" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of insult this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards", "name": "Failure modes and hazards", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "Escalation from verbal or gestural insult to immediate physical violence - the rationale of fighting-words doctrine.", "Collapse of a ritual-play frame into a personal insult when a sound is taken as a true report of the target, ending the game and raising the risk of a real fight.", "Criminal insult, lèse-majesté and insult-of-officials laws used to punish political criticism and journalism; imprisonment remains available in many jurisdictions.", "Cross-cultural misfire: a register breach (for example German Duzen), emblem or faecal versus sexual lexicon read as honour-attack by one party and as banter by the other.", "Online persistence and third-party amplification turning a dyadic slight into a public honour harm that the original addressee cannot close.", "Chilling of speech and self-censorship where insult remains a criminal offence of easy proof (value-judgment, no truth defence)." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of insult this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-regional-variation", "name": "Regional variation", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "Civil-law honour systems (Germany Beleidigung, France injure, comparable Korean insult offences) criminalise a depreciating value-judgment as such; U.S. and similar common-law practice generally protect insult as opinion unless it is a false factual allegation (defamation) or rare fighting words.", "Insult lexicons differ by language family and generation: traditional German maledictology is faecal (Scheiße, Arsch), neighbouring languages more often sexual; younger German speakers are shifting toward sexual insults (Gauger).", "Ritual-insult institutions are local: African American sounding/the dozens, historical Scots and Norse flyting, and other verbal-duel traditions; what counts as play in one community is a personal attack in another.", "Lèse-majesté and insult-of-the-state remain live in some monarchies and authoritarian systems while international bodies urge decriminalisation of insulting political speech." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of insult this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-neighbours", "name": "Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ { "name": "defamation (libel, slander, üble Nachrede, diffamation)", "difference": "Defamation imputes a specific, truth-apt fact to a third party and harms reputation; insult is typically a non-provable value-judgment or invective. Test: can the utterance be proven true or false as a fact?" }, { "name": "criticism", "difference": "Criticism evaluates a deed, work or idea; insult targets the person's standing. Test: if the evaluation of the deed is granted, does residual contempt for the person remain?" }, { "name": "profanity / swearing", "difference": "Profanity is taboo lexicon and may be untargeted catharsis; an insult needs a target whose standing is reduced and need not use taboo words. Test: is there a derogated addressee, or only emphasis?" }, { "name": "slur", "difference": "A slur is a prohibited identity-directed term whose offence can arise from using the word even without a novel ascription. Test: is the harm tied to a banned expression type, or to a nonce ascription of low status?" }, { "name": "threat", "difference": "A threat announces or commits harm; an insult ascribes low status. Test: does the utterance change the addressee's reasons by predicting harm, or by denying respect?" }, { "name": "hate speech / incitement", "difference": "Hate-speech rules typically require a protected-characteristic group target and often an incitement element; an insult can be complete as interpersonal derogation of one person. Test: is the act done once standing is denied, or only if it calls for hostility toward a protected group?" }, { "name": "rudeness / impoliteness", "difference": "Impoliteness is broader convention-breach; German doctrine treats mere Unhöflichkeit or Taktlosigkeit as insufficient for Beleidigung. Test: does the act deny the person equal respect as a legal or social peer?" }, { "name": "ritual banter / teasing", "difference": "Banter is mutually ratified play; a personal insult is treated as a sincere report. Test (Labov): would taking the remark as an accurate statement of the target's qualities break the activity?" }, { "name": "medical insult (tissue injury)", "difference": "In medicine, insult names a damaging physiological event (for example an ischaemic insult), a homonym of the speech act. Test: is the object a communicative derogation of a person, or an injury to tissue?" }, { "name": "blasphemy", "difference": "Blasphemy targets the sacred; insult targets a person's honour. Test: is the protected good a deity, rite or sacred object, or a human claim to respect?" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of insult this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Should insult membership require a supported demeaning meaning, an intention to demean, recipient uptake or some explicit combination of these?", "Under what conditions should deliberate omission, exclusion or disrespectful treatment count as an insult act rather than belong solely to a neighbouring model?", "How should culturally specific insults, reclaimed expressions and ironic uses be assessed when participants disagree about the relevant convention?", "What boundaries distinguish one extended insult from several insulting acts within a conversation or repeated online circulation?", "Can impact or severity be compared meaningfully across contexts, and whose assessment should any such comparison represent?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 18, "questions": 28 } }, "draft": { "generator": "vr.draft.v3", "status": "draft-generated", "researched": false, "archetype": "abstract concept", "method": "Written from the archetype playbook - what this kind of thing needs beyond identity and provenance - and from the structure that recurred across 6,333 models already researched by two engines. Applied to this entry by rule. No source was read for this thing and no claim here is researched. This entry carries no facets of its own, so they were inferred from its domain - a guess about a whole domain applied to one thing.", "facetsInferred": true, "nextPass": "A researcher replaces this draft with a sourced specification. Treat every sentence below as a proposal to argue with.", "purpose": "Give an agent a durable, checkable way to recognise a insult, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an AI agent to recognise a possible insult, distinguish competing interpretations, assess its current effects and determine proportionate responses.", "characteristics": { "substance": "activity", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "observed and measured" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Names folded into this entry, which a task may need to split apart again: racist insult, name calling, sacrilege, Political insult, trash-talk, affront, outrage, snub, invective, Hailat, Snippy.", "12 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it.", "Described in 61 Wikipedia languages, which is a measure of how widely the thing is known, not of how important it is." ], "openQuestionsForResearch": [ "Which of the bundles below does a real task actually need, and which are ceremony?", "What does this thing have that the facets do not capture at all?", "Which neighbouring kind is most often confused with a insult, and on what evidence are they told apart?" ], "whatItIsMadeOf": "something that happens over time", "physicalCharacter": [ "Does nothing on its own; everything it does, something else did to it.", "These come from the domain this entry sits in rather than from the entry itself, so treat them as a first guess about the whole domain applied to one thing." ], "whatCanBeDoneWithIt": [ "observe it, measure it, record its state" ], "howItIsRecognised": [ "Nothing to see. What is recognised is an instance of it, and which instances count is exactly what is argued about." ], "relatedModels": [ { "relation": "covers", "note": "Finer kinds folded into this entry because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it. Each is a model waiting to be split out when one does.", "targets": [ "racist insult", "name calling", "sacrilege", "Political insult", "trash-talk", "affront", "outrage", "snub", "invective", "Hailat", "Snippy" ] } ], "standing": "Described in 61 Wikipedia languages, which measures how widely it is written about rather than how important or how common it is. 12 finer distinctions are held inside this entry as names rather than as separate models.", "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "identity-and-classification", "name": "Identity, naming and classification", "description": "How an agent tells one insult from another, and a insult from things that resemble it.", "rationale": "Recognition comes before every other claim. Without stable identity nothing else in the model can be trusted to be about the same thing twice.", "layers": [ { "id": "naming-and-identifiers", "name": "Names and identifiers", "description": "The names this thing goes by and the identifiers that survive translation and time.", "findings": [ { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases", "name": "Preferred name, aliases and local names", "description": "Which name to use, which names mean the same thing, and which merely sound similar.", "questions": [ { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the name of a insult, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the name of a insult, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the name of a insult is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers", "name": "Stable identifiers and external keys", "description": "Identifiers that keep pointing at this kind of thing across systems and languages.", "questions": [ { "id": "stable-identifiers-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes an identifier for a insult, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about an identifier for a insult, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once an identifier for a insult is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "classification-and-granularity", "name": "Classification and granularity", "description": "Where a insult sits among kinds, and how finely a task needs to cut it.", "findings": [ { "id": "kind-and-parents", "name": "Kind, parents and neighbouring kinds", "description": "The classes this thing belongs to and the ones it is next to.", "questions": [ { "id": "kind-and-parents-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the kind of a insult, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "kind-and-parents-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the kind of a insult, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "kind-and-parents-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the kind of a insult is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features", "name": "Distinguishing features", "description": "What separates a insult from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a insult, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about what distinguishes a insult, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once what distinguishes a insult is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "state-and-lifecycle", "name": "State and lifecycle", "description": "The states a insult passes through and the events that move it between them.", "rationale": "Most decisions about a thing depend on what state it is in now, which is a claim with a time on it, not a property.", "layers": [ { "id": "lifecycle-stages", "name": "Lifecycle stages", "description": "From coming into existence to ceasing to be one of these.", "findings": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions", "name": "Stages and transitions", "description": "The stages worth naming and what moves a insult between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a insult, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the lifecycle of a insult, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the lifecycle of a insult is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "observations-and-status", "name": "Observations and current status", "description": "What is observed about a insult, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a insult is recorded so that it can be superseded rather than overwritten.", "questions": [ { "id": "observation-record-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes an observation of a insult, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "observation-record-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about an observation of a insult, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "observation-record-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once an observation of a insult is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "process-and-outcome", "name": "Process, inputs and outcome", "description": "How a insult proceeds, what it needs and what it leaves behind.", "rationale": "An activity is known by its steps and its results, and both have to be recordable while it is still running.", "layers": [ { "id": "steps-and-sequence", "name": "Steps and sequence", "description": "The steps of a insult, their order and what may run in parallel.", "findings": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions", "name": "Steps, preconditions and completion", "description": "What has to be true before each step of a insult and what marks it done.", "questions": [ { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a step of a insult, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about a step of a insult, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "steps-and-preconditions-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once a step of a insult is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "inputs-and-results", "name": "Inputs, resources and results", "description": "What a insult consumes and what it produces.", "findings": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs", "name": "Inputs, outputs and side effects", "description": "The resources a insult takes and the results it leaves, wanted or not.", "questions": [ { "id": "inputs-and-outputs-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the inputs and results of a insult, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "inputs-and-outputs-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the inputs and results of a insult, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "inputs-and-outputs-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the inputs and results of a insult is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "definitions-in-contest", "name": "Definitions and who holds them", "description": "What insult is taken to mean, and by whom.", "rationale": "When a field disagrees about a concept, the disagreement is the content. A model that picks one definition silently destroys the information.", "layers": [ { "id": "competing-definitions", "name": "Competing definitions", "description": "The main readings and the traditions behind them.", "findings": [ { "id": "definition-map", "name": "Definitions and their holders", "description": "Each definition with the school or body that holds it.", "questions": [ { "id": "definition-map-q01", "text": "Which definitions of insult are in use, and which tradition or body holds each?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "definition-map-q02", "text": "What turns on the difference between them in practice?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "operationalisation", "name": "Operationalisation", "description": "How it is measured or applied when it has to be.", "findings": [ { "id": "operational-record", "name": "Measures and proxies", "description": "Instruments and indicators used to stand in for it.", "questions": [ { "id": "operational-record-q01", "text": "How is insult operationalised or measured in practice, and by what instrument?", "kind": "measurement" }, { "id": "operational-record-q02", "text": "What does that operationalisation leave out, and when does that matter?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "instances-and-use", "name": "Instances, use and consequence", "description": "What counts as an instance of insult and what follows from calling something that.", "rationale": "Applying a concept is an act with consequences, so a model must say what the label licenses and what it does not.", "layers": [ { "id": "instances", "name": "What counts as an instance", "description": "Clear cases, borderline cases and non-cases.", "findings": [ { "id": "instance-tests", "name": "Tests for an instance", "description": "What would settle whether something falls under it.", "questions": [ { "id": "instance-tests-q01", "text": "What would settle whether something is an instance of insult?", "kind": "boundary" }, { "id": "instance-tests-q02", "text": "Which borderline cases are argued about, and on what grounds?", "kind": "definition" } ] } ] }, { "id": "consequence", "name": "Consequence of application", "description": "Rights, duties or decisions that follow from the label.", "findings": [ { "id": "consequence-record", "name": "What the label licenses", "description": "What an agent may do once something is classified this way.", "questions": [ { "id": "consequence-record-q01", "text": "What follows practically once something is treated as insult?", "kind": "action" }, { "id": "consequence-record-q02", "text": "What must an agent not infer from the label alone?", "kind": "action" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "provenance-and-evidence", "name": "Provenance, evidence and time", "description": "Where every claim about a insult came from and when it held.", "rationale": "A claim without a source and a time cannot be superseded, only overwritten, and an agent that overwrites loses the ability to explain itself.", "layers": [ { "id": "source-and-authority", "name": "Source and authority", "description": "Who said it, on what evidence, and how strongly.", "findings": [ { "id": "claim-provenance", "name": "Claim provenance and confidence", "description": "The authority behind each claim about a insult and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a insult, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "claim-provenance-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about a claim about a insult, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "claim-provenance-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once a claim about a insult is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "time-and-versions", "name": "Time, versions and supersession", "description": "When a claim was true, when it was learnt, and what replaced it.", "findings": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession", "name": "Validity period and supersession", "description": "How an old claim about a insult is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a insult, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the validity of a claim about a insult, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the validity of a claim about a insult is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 12, "findings": 14, "questions": 38 } } } }