Cussing/Inappropriate Filter

Discussion in 'Suggestion Box Archives' started by RED_Spy1, Aug 6, 2012.

  1. Please tell me if this has already been posted.

    I'm sure you've all seen people cussing or saying inappropriate things in the EMC chat. And who knows what some people might write in books? Therefore, I think if someone tries to say something inappropriate or tries to cuss in either a book or chat, the person can't say or publish the comment/book until it has no inappropriate content. :)
    xI_LIKE_A_PIGx likes this.
  2. Interesting. We've discussed selective censorship, which we ultimately decided would only encourage inappropriate language, but I've never thought about a filter that blocks the whole message if foul language is detected. I just don't know what kind of performance impact that would have, either on the server or for the players.
    xI_LIKE_A_PIGx likes this.
  3. Also, I've been told that another server takes away a bit of in-game money every time a player cusses. We might want to do that, too. If they hit zero, they couldn't get tomorrow's daily bonus.
    xI_LIKE_A_PIGx likes this.
  4. What AusQB said ^

    I don't like this. In the way of having to type the whole message again instead of making the word go ****.

    I've been on servers where if somethings have certain letters in their words they just get censored. Example: Pass

    It'd be nice if it just Censored the word as **** not the whole message. and only if it's used as a Foul conjunction.
  5. I see your point. But the server would need to blank out more words around it, so that people couldn't just tell what word it is.
  6. If that's the price people have to pay for wanting to swear, then that's their problem.

    Our language filter, if we were to implement one, would be smart enough to distinguish a swear word from one that happens to be a substring of a perfectly fine word.

    Like I said before, the reason we don't have a censor system is because people might feel that they can get away with swearing and by allowing that, even if it's censored, we are effectively encouraging the sort of bad behaviour and attitude that accompanies the use of foul language.
  7. If there was a way to do it without lag then I don't think it should be *ed out, but instead replaced with something like [PLEASE REPORT ME FOR SWEARING], that way people wouldn't get away with it. However, I can see a possible way of reverse doing it.

    Make it so if someone's reported for swearing then Square can auto-check the chat logs and automatically kick/ban them from SYSTEM (depends on how many times they've done it - similar to the spam filter). That way, yes people would see it but even if no mods were online, it could be sorted. I think this would cause less lag since it wouldn't have to check everyone's messages, just the person's that was reported (and probably only around 5 minutes of them).

    For books, I also don't really see it lagging up the server if the words were *ed out or [REDACTED] since they don't seem to be tick based. I might be completely wrong here, but I think if done right them it wont strain the server much/at all.
    bartonkids_deco1 and mba2012 like this.
  8. *ing out words in books would have to be a client side mod as what people write in books is managed by the client and not the server.
  9. What's written on the books is stored as a .txt file on the server though. I don't think it would be that hard to hook up a system where the .txt files are automatically checked and any blacklisted words are replaced with *s or [REDACTED]s.
  10. What about a limit on the words only 50 pages so if someone fills the whole thing with random stuff then if the censored word is longer then the swear etc then it wont work
  11. Okay, with that being said then it'll have to be *s for books. That way it can't put the book over the limit.
    Eg: If the word "Jeremy" was censored then it would be replaced with "******".
    nfell2009 likes this.
  12. yeah that would work ;) i think i was kinda off topic XD
  13. Oh I did not know that. It would just be a spell check style thing.
    JackBiggin likes this.