I'm curious as to the thoughts of the community on this. Filters are being put in a lot of games recently. I am worried that having a language filter will give players the impression they can be as profane and rude as much as they want.
If you filter the word, the offensive content is still there. Usually, language is used online for direct insulting/flaming of a person. More often than not, profanity is included in an insult or derogatory statement. The fact that the word was changed doesn't change the fact that the speaker both used the word, and insulted the subject. In this right, filtering does nothing except keep the game clean of blatantly open offensive content. It doesn't come close to fixing the problem.
I don't think people need to be protected from profanity. I myself, can look at a swear word, or a derogatory statement and not get at all riled up. Oftentimes, however, the idea that I have been insulted is more insulting than the actual context or implications of the insult itself. I think that language filters do absolutely nothing.
Now, if you filter the language, I think you take the weight off of being rude. If you call someone a "fudging female dog", or an "absolute private eye", you don't really do much wrong. You have just voiced an opinion, and in most peoples' eyes, haven't offended anyone openly. Now, if you leave the language in (I won't retype those here, as a mod will be all over me in an instant), I think more people would be offended by it, and since more people would be offended by it, players will think twice about saying it at all.
Now, for my suggestion to fill the gap left by filtering for the players who just don't get it that language is not acceptable in your game, you can just plain go the old route of "Warn, warn, warn, mute, boot, ban". Of course, mods can't be there forever.
As for those of us who swear without thinking about it, I'm not opposed to allowing a personal filter. Of course, the personal filter is not applied to the incoming messages, but the outgoing messages. If a player accidentally types something he doesn't want to allow himself to say, and his personal filter is on, it will just replace it. Of course, this might seem odd coming from me, as I said I hate filtering. I hate LISTENER filtering. I don't think anyone should have to put on earmuffs to go out into the world, if you are in an environment where language is unacceptable, you shouldn't be using it. Even if it's a slip, you should have self control.
Anybody else have any thoughts on this? Think I'm wrong? Tell me! I want to hear BYOND's opinion!
ID:153022
 Mar 24 2005, 3:31 pm
|
|
Well. My own personal opinion is that I dont mind to hear offensive language. Im a relitivly mature adult and I make games that I want to play. If others want to play them too the go me. But as part of my games I want some dirty humor and adult themes. If you cant take it then leave. If you cant stand to hear me curse a blue streak that would make a sailor blush then to bad for you, I can get realy creative ^.^
But I dont agree with filters in general, because with just a little creativity you can get around them. Pretty much the only thing I activly discourage is being a butt. I try and keep people in line, but what they say to each other as long as they play nice is of no concern to me. | |
You know, one thing that helps is to not let the person know they are being censored. That way, they don't try to dodge filters as much. For example:
Bob types "say,'Muck you!'" with muck being a filtered word The world sees "Bob says,'Ruck you!'" Bob sees "You say,'Muck you!'" But I see your point. I like toggleable client side filters so if someone doesn't want to see that gunk, they don't have to. Ignore functions are essential too. For the rest, go play in the gutter, so to speak. Filters I reserve for things like naming. I guess it depends on what style of game you are building, too. An gritty pseudo film noire style game could probably handle plenty of profanity (as well as outright harassment- they can always just plug you anyway....). Itty Bitty's Preschool Playground not so much. | |
I like how Chatters handles filtering. By default, "bad" words are filtered, but a user has the ability to turn his filter off. Additionally, the user has the ability to add words to his own private filter.
| |
Wizkidd0123 wrote:
I like how Chatters handles filtering. By default, "bad" words are filtered, but a user has the ability to turn his filter off. Additionally, the user has the ability to add words to his own private filter. Right. I also have this feature in all my games that have filtering. It satisfies both sides & lets the player have fun with replacing certain bad words with comical phrases or words. | |
I dont censor anything I work on. I don't care if players swear, unless it gets out of control.
If your not old enough to see a 4-lettered word, get off the net. | |
You didn't read what I said. I meant a speech filter, so if someone doesn't trust in their ability to not swear. I don't think I should have filters for everybody.
You missed the entire point of my post. I think that having filters for everyone gives people the attitude: "If you don't like my behaviour, you should turn on the filter." Obnoxious behaviour is not to be tolerated. | |
I'm nearly the same way, but I feel that when I swear, I don't come across as intelligently as I usually do, so I try to avoid it.
I think though, that the filter is simply an excuse to continue unacceptable behaviour in a game. | |
Eh? Why the attitude? I do not believe I missed anything, though I could be mistaken. I simply pointed out that 1) players who aren't aware of measures are sometimes less likely to circumvent them (which addresses the whol liscence to harass thing) and 2) AGREED that you have a point and stated my own thoughts on uses for filters.
I then made a general statement of how target audiences can affect filter selection. Where's the problem? I don't think that anyone would seriously dispute that obnoxious behaviour is not desirable. Perhaps this is better addressed in the context of a visible policy and active admins, though. At best, any automatic system will only catch some harassment. As these boards demonstrate, vigilant watch is necessary to maintain whatever standards the game designer decided are most appropriate. | |
Sorry about the attitude in the last post. I didn't even realise it came across as that offensive; it had been a while since I'd had a cigarette when I posted that, was starting to get kind of edgey. I know it isn't a good excuse, but it's the best I can give you. Sorry.
I agree with your standpoint, filters are a desirable thing, but not a global filter. I think it's more irritating to have a filter than to not, but other people don't always think the same way. Some people don't even want to see the language, they don't care if they are being insulted, so long as they aren't being cussed at. As for vigilant administration, I also agree. Even though you can't be there all the time to monitor speech, you can make an example out of someone every now and again. It usually keeps the rabble in line that way. I do think personal filters for outgoing and incoming messages are the way to go. Since both are optional, and the filters are there, nobody should complain. Administrators should set a good example, and filter their outgoing messages if they feel they can't control their mouths. Of course, nothing they say should even include deleted expletive, but "fudge" is better than yelling loudly the f-word, and then muting someone for offensive language or verbal assault. This can, as I have stated, backfire. Players will deliberately step around filters, and will defend their obnoxious behaviour with: "You have a filter, turn it on.". This is primarily what I'm debating. | |
Ter13 wrote:
This can, as I have stated, backfire. Players will deliberately step around filters, and will defend their obnoxious behaviour with: "You have a filter, turn it on.". This is primarily what I'm debating. You could easily fix that with a disclaimer upon logging in that states that the existence of the word filter does not give people the right to excessively curse, and that action will be taken against that as though the filter didn't exist in the first place. Citing that your filter is more for an auto-warning than a "hear no evil" might help. I think. How's that? | |
That could help quite a bit, but really, how many people read rules when they first enter a BYOND game? They are still responsible to follow them if they don't, however... So it may work.
| |
Well I can tell you from expierence, that players don't read rules.
Like it or hate it, I help run Majins and Mystics Remastered, a game based off the orginal idea by Kuljia. As soon as you log in, there is a very large, unremovebale end user agreement, that follows all the basic rules and what is expected of players, the only way to get rid of it, is to wait a few moments, and itll close it self. I think it stays open for about a min, maybe 2. Anyways, player STILL dont know the rules, even when they are forced to look at it every time they log in. | |
No worries! I didn't take it personally, just thought maybe I missed something :-)
Yeah players will do that, but that's because players suck. Seriously; their will always be players that do everything in their power to abuse exploits, piss off good players, annoy staff, and just generally make things miserable. Maybe it makes them feel special. Who knows? You are dead on that admins/staff acting incompatably with game rules will really mess things up. It violates the whole expectation of fairness (hey, didn't say it was a reasonable expectation, but most people have it;-). | |
Anybody else have any thoughts on this? Think I'm wrong? Tell me! I want to hear BYOND's opinion! It doesn't matter if you do or don't have a filter. This always seems to hold true. http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2004-03-19&res=l | |
Actually, I hadn't considered that many people tend to ignore the rules.
Then again, you can't exactly walk up to someone, pull a weapon, rob them blind, and then claim you were never shown a specific rule against doing that. :D Ignorance of a rule doesn't mean it's not there, so the disclaimer thing I mentioned then doubles as something to point back to, making it impossible for someone to whine about unfair punishment. | |
-- Super Squirrel
((-.- Tired..))