I don't know what the general policy is now, but I am glad to see this topic come up. I think it would be good to decide whether obscurity should be a consideration in rejecting a word.
I like words, and I don't mind having to look up new words in the dictionary. (Words that are used improperly, though, just end up clouding things even more.)
On the other hand, I understand obscure words can be off-putting to some people (especially if they seem to be just gratuitous).
So I'm kind of on the fence. I could be happy either way, as long as the policy is applied relatively consistently.
I think I've only applied with an obscure word once. It was 'zaftig'. I really like the word. I thought it perfectly described exactly the body type I had in mind. Moreover, I kind of liked that I had never seen it used before in an sdesc.
It got rejected. I was a little disappointed, at first, but I thought it was a reasonable call on the Immortal's part. The more I thought about it, the more I thought that Immortal made a good call and was probably correct in saying that most players wouldn't know the word. So I replaced it with a much more common word, and it was all good.
Then about a week later, I saw an sdesc with some strange five-syllable word I've never seen before. If I remember correctly, it meant 'dark in color'.
What that suggested to me, and I might be wrong about this, is that some immortals were rejecting words based on obscurity and some were not. Neither approach, on its own, bothers me at all. Both are totally reasonable, IMHO. I think there is a problem, though, if some do it one way and some do it the other way. So I welcome this discussion and the eventual decision, whichever way it goes.