How about censor vulgar words in public channels? Like if they say the F word, it will come out as ****. When they put it in a name whenever they make a new character, it will ask them to change it.
Just thought it'd be neat.
Suggestion. OMFG
Suggestion. OMFG
Just a suggestion that will likely be ignored anyway, but since our forum is getting spider webs, might as well.
How about censor vulgar words in public channels? Like if they say the F word, it will come out as ****. When they put it in a name whenever they make a new character, it will ask them to change it.
Just thought it'd be neat.
How about censor vulgar words in public channels? Like if they say the F word, it will come out as ****. When they put it in a name whenever they make a new character, it will ask them to change it.
Just thought it'd be neat.
It's amazing that the amount of news that happens in the world everday always just exactly fits in the newspaper.
-Jerry Seinfeld
-Jerry Seinfeld
censor sensors
I think when you make an automated censor it often encourages people to try to get around it. The best protection is still human monitoring... But, similar to the idea or typo command, I don' think it would be hard to put a "foul-mouth" command which dumps chath to a file and notifies the authorities. (Who may well offer tips and suggestions for fouler words.)
snytax: something like: foul-mouth <A short description and a place for the offender's name>
result: sends a message to Kiri (or other Imms) with the immediate chath, the message and sender's name
Or did you mean this board and I just completely missed the point?
snytax: something like: foul-mouth <A short description and a place for the offender's name>
result: sends a message to Kiri (or other Imms) with the immediate chath, the message and sender's name
Or did you mean this board and I just completely missed the point?
"If you have a right to someone else's approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values." - Dr. Thomas Sowell
http://ws6.blogspot.com
http://ws6.blogspot.com
Yeah,yeah, it's been forever since this was posted... but my issue with filters for vulgarity is that unless some hard work is put in to make them smart, they can filter out perfectly acceptable words as well. I once played a game with such a filter where you could not say "assume" for example. And they threw out "potion" as well... I'll let you figure that one out. It took my friends and I forever. Point being... What words get excluded? How vulgar do you have to be before it gets thrown out? And it would be a major pain to have to retype a long chat simply because you forgot that the filter objects to "assume."
Just ignore me...
My opinion on output filters like that is that they are nothing but smirky little neener-neener jobs that aren't good for anything but encouraging people to engage in precisely the kind of behavior that they're intended to prevent. This is true even on the radio...how many times do you hear "other" or "od" bleeped in the middle of longer profanities (and I'm sure you've already guessed the ones I mean), while the part that is presumably what people are supposed to find objectionable airs perfectly clearly? Obviously it works differently in text, but the end result is the same. If these filters worked well, spammers wouldn't send you mail offering "H.*..3.^..R.&..b.@..4.!..L..V...*....1...^...4..(...G....r....4!!!!!!!!! 23425" and suchlike. Let's face it; if CBS can't keep Janet Jackson's breast off live international TV, we're probably not going to have much luck with dirty words. I may not think much of troublemakers in general, but I'm sure the ones we have (you know who you are) are at *least* as smart as Justin Timberlake. 
Even if they worked perfectly, they wouldn't accomplish much; the effect is something like "Hee hee, you said a naughty word, but we stopped you 'cuz we're so very very clever!" Making people want to punch the mud in the face is not high on my list of priorities.
Kiri would have to threaten me with a truly severe beating, or at least ask me really, really nicely, to get me to implement any kind of output filter. Since I'm pretty sure she thinks about as highly of them as I do, I see this as unlikely.
Even if they worked perfectly, they wouldn't accomplish much; the effect is something like "Hee hee, you said a naughty word, but we stopped you 'cuz we're so very very clever!" Making people want to punch the mud in the face is not high on my list of priorities.
Kiri would have to threaten me with a truly severe beating, or at least ask me really, really nicely, to get me to implement any kind of output filter. Since I'm pretty sure she thinks about as highly of them as I do, I see this as unlikely.
Maybe you could make it so that no one says "boob". Boob is the worst word in the world. Oops, i just said boob. I said it again! I can't believe I said boob three times, er, four. Someone help me! I can't stop saying boob. boob boob boob boob boob boob boob
Anyway...I agree with most people here. Filtering "naughty" words is a tricky thing that can be worked around by anyone who desires to find a way around it. Besides, the inevitable question that would follow the decision to make use of a filter: What should be filtered? I've played games before that didn't allow me to write "nasty", or other relatively mild words. I felt confined and muffled. There are always going to be people that want to use naughty language. They will find ways to get around filters. It makes no sense to me to invest any time into implementing something that can only be partially effective at best. I don' t like it, but fitting a muzzle over everyone's mouth just because a couple people can't be respectful is not the answer. It's a tough call either way, and I understand and respect the arguments for both sides. Personally, I am against filtering.
You know, boob starts to look weird if you type it out a whole lot. I'm not making a point here. I'm just stuck on the word. Maybe it comes from spending too much time in front of the boob tube. My friends have always said I was just a big boob. I would probably win the booby prize of boobdom, just as long as I don't spring any booby traps along the way. If I did, then I might get a booboo. Hopefully, my crying and carrying on wouldn't land me in the booby hatch.
Ok, I'll stop now, but just one more...
Boob.
There, I feel better now, really.
Anyway...I agree with most people here. Filtering "naughty" words is a tricky thing that can be worked around by anyone who desires to find a way around it. Besides, the inevitable question that would follow the decision to make use of a filter: What should be filtered? I've played games before that didn't allow me to write "nasty", or other relatively mild words. I felt confined and muffled. There are always going to be people that want to use naughty language. They will find ways to get around filters. It makes no sense to me to invest any time into implementing something that can only be partially effective at best. I don' t like it, but fitting a muzzle over everyone's mouth just because a couple people can't be respectful is not the answer. It's a tough call either way, and I understand and respect the arguments for both sides. Personally, I am against filtering.
You know, boob starts to look weird if you type it out a whole lot. I'm not making a point here. I'm just stuck on the word. Maybe it comes from spending too much time in front of the boob tube. My friends have always said I was just a big boob. I would probably win the booby prize of boobdom, just as long as I don't spring any booby traps along the way. If I did, then I might get a booboo. Hopefully, my crying and carrying on wouldn't land me in the booby hatch.
Ok, I'll stop now, but just one more...
Boob.
There, I feel better now, really.
The stars brightly shine upon our world, a constant reminder of our origin. We are stars.
seriously stars, you are an addled malfunctioning crackpot.
anyways, down with filters, if someone is being a dipweasel on a public channel, we have, like was stated before, human intervention. there is no real NEED for any filters and if one if put in, im sure it would cause more problems then it will fix.
anyways, down with filters, if someone is being a dipweasel on a public channel, we have, like was stated before, human intervention. there is no real NEED for any filters and if one if put in, im sure it would cause more problems then it will fix.
I am happy to let girls indulge themselves using my body.
-
disaster
- Needs Help
- Posts: 572
- Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 12:47 am
- Location: the true north strong and free
- Contact:
maybe it's just because i've been unavailable for a while, but i really don't see the need for any sort of output censoring. problems like that appear every once in a while, but there are already some very nice options for dealing with them, like jailing. and if we DO implement a filter, would it work on says and tells? hopefully not, because i like many others enjoy being able to swear like a sailor when the mood takes me, provided i do so in private conversation. but what about at recall? what about tells to people who don't want to hear it? it's impossible to avoid the unpleasantness while still allowing people to speak as they want to their friends in private, so i'm in favour or staying with human monitering only.
"Freedom of speech" is not the same thing as "Freedom from consequences".