GameChat Filter - your input

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

Oh my....political correctness to the extreme...

Remember boys and girls, sticks and stones may break your bones, but names....

Hey, why don't we ask the Pope to be our new moderator of chat, GEEEEEZES CHRISTMAS!!!

[Woodruff]

Oh my....political correctness to the extreme...

Remember boys and girls, sticks and stones may break your bones, but names....

Hey, why don't we ask the Pope to be our new moderator of chat, GEEEEEZES CHRISTMAS!!!

Respect and courtesy are not the same as political correctness, you do realize, right?

[jiminski]

Oh my....political correctness to the extreme...

Remember boys and girls, sticks and stones may break your bones, but names....

Hey, why don't we ask the Pope to be our new moderator of chat, GEEEEEZES CHRISTMAS!!!

Oh my....political correctness to the extreme...

Remember boys and girls, sticks and stones may break your bones, but names....

Hey, why don't we ask the Pope to be our new moderator of chat, GEEEEEZES CHRISTMAS!!!

Personally I like political correctness... it makes people think before they utter a racial slur in the name of humour, which in turn alludes to racial 'superiority'.
It makes the boss not slap the secretaries arse, passing it off as a joke or his right as king (ahhh better days!)
It is probably even part of why shops and community buildings now ensure wheelchair access.

In fact Political Correctness is the champion to minorities in the face of arrogant majorities; too ignorant to empathise....


But not saying fuck or bugger in front of kids is not the new imposition of political correctness, it's an age-old social convention.


We can not halt the move to being a family site, with all that implies. As we have seen, our view on the direction of the site to being a more commercially viable, kid friendly site is extraneous. This change will not ask for your opinion, nor will it allow your protest after.

So, as i see it, the choice is to bitch, moan and get banned or to anticipate the move, trying to influence it... even in some small very subtle way.

Either way, your and my opinion is worth little to nothing if it does not reflect the direction we are already moving in, so just try to have a little fun in the process.



Back on to specifics of the choice i made: Optional Parental filter accompanied by full GameChat Moderation.

[xelabale]

So, as i see it, the choice is to bitch, moan and get banned or.....

so just try to have a little fun in the process.

Of course some may see the first quoted section as representing the second.

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

So, as i see it, the choice is to bitch, moan and get banned or.....

so just try to have a little fun in the process.

Of course some may see the first quoted section as representing the second.

Or, it means that political correctness means that the administrators can control our thinking. Just like "1984."

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

jiminski » Sat May 02, 2009 1:28 pm
Back on to specifics of the choice i made: Optional Parental filter accompanied by full GameChat Moderation.

Does this include a pacifier and bottle?

Gotta go now, Mommy got to change my diaper.

[jiminski]

So, as i see it, the choice is to bitch, moan and get banned or.....

so just try to have a little fun in the process.

Of course some may see the first quoted section as representing the second.

Or, it means that political correctness means that the administrators can control our thinking. Just like "1984."

everyone we come into contact with controls our thinking.. i am controlling yours now as you read my post... and you, previously controlled mine into controlling yours with this response... It's a never ending cycle! A cycle within which we merely battle for the self-delusion that we retain ultimate power over our own thought process. That can of course be true, in any circumstance, but only with the correct psychological philosophy.... tricks upon our own minds.


That's why i am very happy to see the introduction of an optional Gamechat Filter with Gamechat moderation...
...maybe it is brain washing... could I be giving up the ghost and falling in-line... or it could merely be a trick i am playing upon my own mind to retain 'power' over my own psyche? ..

... ultimately they all just point to my acceptance of the inevitable ...... but as we have to accept that tricks upon the mind must be perfect in their delusional qualities in order for them to be successful ... .. who can tell!?

[jiminski]

jiminski » Sat May 02, 2009 1:28 pm
Back on to specifics of the choice i made: Optional Parental filter accompanied by full GameChat Moderation.

Does this include a pacifier and bottle?

Gotta go now, Mommy got to change my diaper.

Thank you, I would also like facility in my gamechat filter to change 'Diaper' to 'Nappy' , 'Fanny' to 'Bum' and 'Economy' to 'Shit'

[stahrgazer]

For me personally, the actual "real problem" on ConquerClub is that flaming is allowed to happen unabated within the game-chat. Absolutely repulsive and abusive behavior (unless it fits very narrow guidelines, such as extreme racism) is excused away with a simple "put them on foe" statement...which is absolutely ridiculous to me.

So I find it laughable that FlameWars would be removed (without explanation) while in-game flaming is allowed without recourse.

Agreed, Woodruff, as I think you are aware from other threads, only, flaming isn't allowed just in game, it's: In-game, in-other-discussions, in-social, and in-callouts.
Depending on who did the flaming and against whom.

For me, it's not the occasional curse that I find the most unpleasant. I'll curse the dice at times just like anyone else might, or "Hell, you have a rainbow already in the third round!" It's the directed-at-player nastiness I don't like, wouldn't tolerate in my house so don't believe I should have to tolerate just because the flamers aren't sitting in front of me where I can paddle their behinds for it.

Interestingly enough, three months after first request, three months after I've joined any new games, I've still not gotten that refund on my pre-purchased year. CC's about the only place I know where if you pay for a service but cancel before the service begins, you can't get a refund. I'm not speaking of the premie year I paid for that turned my av gold, I'm referring to a year that begins when this one runs out (a few weeks from now).

But back to topic...Woodruff, your statement has another error; a reason for removing Flame Wars was given. The reason was because flames were "spilling over" into other areas of the forum. It's an erroneous reason, one that misidentifies the cause of flames in other areas of the forum, but it's still a given reason.

Flame wars is gone, yet I still can't pop into chat and be free from direct-attack flaming harassments from known, continual instigators, even when mods are present. While the attending mods know I dislike it, they happen to like the instigators, so it continues....(unless I retort, then I get warned). THAT is the reason flaming is so proliferous all around CC.

[jiminski]

.....
But back to topic...Woodruff, your statement has another error; a reason for removing Flame Wars was given. The reason was because flames were "spilling over" into other areas of the forum. It's an erroneous reason, one that misidentifies the cause of flames in other areas of the forum, but it's still a given reason.

Flame wars is gone, yet I still can't pop into chat and be free from direct-attack flaming harassments from known, continual instigators, even when mods are present. While the attending mods know I dislike it, they happen to like the instigators, so it continues....(unless I retort, then I get warned). THAT is the reason flaming is so proliferous all around CC.

Hey Stahr,

none of that is in fact on topic. The topic at hand tries to take a look at the basis of a Gamechat filter. It is not about the closure of Flamewars. There may be certain parallel inherent to the subject but if you can find them, please draw the two together to create relevance.

[stahrgazer]

Hey Stahr,

none of that is in fact on topic. The topic at hand tries to take a look at the basis of a Gamechat filter. It is not about the closure of Flamewars. There may be certain parallel inherent to the subject but if you can find them, please draw the two together to create relevance.

Hey, jim, I did, in the earlier paragraphs. To explain it again, my opinion on game chat filter is inline with Wood's thinking: a filter will not resolve the problem of harassing flames and attacks. It will mean you'll see f*ck - replacing u with * but many people can flame without using the acronym-become-curse (original meaning of that acronym was from Scotland yard, "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge".)

If I want to curse at or harass you, I can find a way that will get around filters. Use of a filter is very much like closing flame wars forum to curb flames on live chat and game chat: ineffective.

But just because I know a filter will not work does not mean I want CC to do nothing. I want them to do right things. I've wanted it so much that I've stopped playing here because it's obvious CC won't. And on stopping, I find that CC is again, not doing the right thing; not giving me a refund for the portion of my service that did not even begin yet. I'm only still in these forums while I pop on to see whether they're going to give me an answer three months after my initial request for refund for the service year that begins a few weeks from now.

I'm sure someone of your intelligence can now see the parallel.

[jiminski]

Hey Stahr,

none of that is in fact on topic. The topic at hand tries to take a look at the basis of a Gamechat filter. It is not about the closure of Flamewars. There may be certain parallel inherent to the subject but if you can find them, please draw the two together to create relevance.

Hey, jim, I did, in the earlier paragraphs. To explain it again, my opinion on game chat filter is inline with Wood's thinking: a filter will not resolve the problem of harassing flames and attacks. It will mean you'll see f*ck - replacing u with * but many people can flame without using the acronym-become-curse (original meaning of that acronym was from Scotland yard, "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge".)

If I want to curse at or harass you, I can find a way that will get around filters. Use of a filter is very much like closing flame wars forum to curb flames on live chat and game chat: ineffective.

......

exactly! (You will see i have already addressed that previously.)
which is why it is essential that we fight for the imposition of Gamechat moderation to work in tandem with an optional filter.

That is the only effective way for the site to foster and police a safe and abuse-free atmosphere in-game.
Without that, I completely agree that any attempt to purify the site is purely illusory.
More than this, the aim of making this a child-friendly place without moderation in-game is like painting a bear-trap pink, putting a cookie in the middle and making it play the theme tune from sesame street.

[stahrgazer]

exactly! (You will see i have already addressed that previously.)
which is why it is essential that we fight for the imposition of Gamechat moderation to work in tandem with an optional filter.

That is the only effective way for the site to foster and police a safe and abuse-free atmosphere in-game.
Without that, I completely agree that any attempt to purify the site is purely illusiary.

Yes, agreed. Of course, asking for a harassment-free play and chat subjects the asker to more harassment; from other players and from moderators. This is why I'm offering details of my experience to those who also publicly express a desire to play games harassment-free - at least while I'm still around trying to get CC to do the right thing and return the monies on the year I prepaid before I realized CC doesn't really want to make games pleasant by doing what will work. CC only wants to appear as though they want a family-friendly atmosphere (hence the closure of a specific forum that didn't address the real problem some people have here, and hence, the idea of putting in a filter that still won't curb intentional nastiness).

But. I disagree with a need for Game Chat moderation. An easier solution for all exists: Those who dislike what they see in Game Chat should fill out a C&A report, and C&A reports should result in a warning, not "just use foelist". Enough warnings should result in a vacation. Repeated offenses should mean longer vacations.

Best of all worlds. 1) those who don't mind nasty banter don't have to complain about it. 2) those who mind nasty banter can expect mild 'curb the nastiness' action to be taken. 3) those who continue to banter nastily enough to get a ton of mild actions will have further action taken, progressively less mild, which should help to remind them to tone it down with people they don't KNOW are okay with it. 3) Mods won't have to do much more work than they currently do, will only have to enforce existing rules. 4) No additional programming time and cost necessary.

[jiminski]

Yes, agreed. Of course, asking for a harassment-free play and chat subjects the asker to more harassment; from other players and from moderators. This is why I'm offering details of my experience to those who also publicly express a desire to play games harassment-free - at least while I'm still around trying to get CC to do the right thing and return the monies on the year I prepaid before I realized CC doesn't really want to make games pleasant by doing what will work. CC only wants to appear as though they want a family-friendly atmosphere (hence the closure of a specific forum that didn't address the real problem some people have here, and hence, the idea of putting in a filter that still won't curb intentional nastiness).

But. I disagree with a need for Game Chat moderation. An easier solution for all exists: Those who dislike what they see in Game Chat should fill out a C&A report, and C&A reports should result in a warning, not "just use foelist". Enough warnings should result in a vacation. Repeated offenses should mean longer vacations.

Best of all worlds. 1) those who don't mind nasty banter don't have to complain about it. 2) those who mind nasty banter can expect mild 'curb the nastiness' action to be taken. 3) those who continue to banter nastily enough to get a ton of mild actions will have further action taken, progressively less mild, which should help to remind them to tone it down with people they don't KNOW are okay with it. 3) Mods won't have to do much more work than they currently do, will only have to enforce existing rules. 4) No additional programming time and cost necessary.

that is gamechat moderation

[stahrgazer]

that is gamechat moderation

mm... not really. "Game Chat moderation" makes it sound like there'll be random audits of game chat while a game chat filter just provides CC with another way to be inactive about C&A reports.

Instead, the idea is addressing C&A reports pro-actively. Instead of putting the emphasis on the player who dislikes the stuff that comes up "suck it up and use foelist," and allowing further harassment because someone did complain (indirectly, and sometimes directly telling the person who doesn't like it that it's his or her fault for disliking it), it puts the emphasis for change on "curb the instigator" with "you have been warned, 1st warning," and so forth.

[Woodruff]

exactly! (You will see i have already addressed that previously.)
which is why it is essential that we fight for the imposition of Gamechat moderation to work in tandem with an optional filter.
That is the only effective way for the site to foster and police a safe and abuse-free atmosphere in-game.
Without that, I completely agree that any attempt to purify the site is purely illusiary.

Yes, agreed. Of course, asking for a harassment-free play and chat subjects the asker to more harassment; from other players and from moderators.

I've been meaning to mention this for a while now...I can honestly say that I have NEVER (not once) been harrassed or abused by a moderator. I would also say that I don't believe I have ever (not once), though I may be overlooking an instance I suppose, seen a moderator harass or abuse someone else. Now, I never frequent the live chat, so maybe that's the only place it's happening?

I'm not at all saying you're making anything up, because I well realize that it's quite easy for our experiences to be different even in the same site. And I'm certainly glad you're speaking up about it, because too many people in this world don't speak up about injustice. I just thought it was worth mentioning.

But. I disagree with a need for Game Chat moderation. An easier solution for all exists: Those who dislike what they see in Game Chat should fill out a C&A report, and C&A reports should result in a warning, not "just use foelist". Enough warnings should result in a vacation. Repeated offenses should mean longer vacations.

But that IS game chat moderation, isn't it? Because SOMEONE will have to go into the game to check out the validity of the C&A report.

Best of all worlds. 1) those who don't mind nasty banter don't have to complain about it. 2) those who mind nasty banter can expect mild 'curb the nastiness' action to be taken. 3) those who continue to banter nastily enough to get a ton of mild actions will have further action taken, progressively less mild, which should help to remind them to tone it down with people they don't KNOW are okay with it. 3) Mods won't have to do much more work than they currently do, will only have to enforce existing rules. 4) No additional programming time and cost necessary.

Exactly...and I think what jiminski has been implying, to be honest. I don't think he's talking about ACTIVE moderation (moderators going into games uninvited), I think he's talking about PASSIVE moderation (as you describe above).

[xelabale]

Sort of like moderate moderation? A moderately good idea. (PS I live in a place called Moda - coincidence???)

[stahrgazer]

There's an interesting thread in General Discussion now. It's called: "God Damned vegetarian." Made me wonder, if a game chat filter were in place, would "God Damned" be one of the banned phrases?

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

Why would the words GOD and Damned be forbidden? It's in the Bible, ain't it?

If it's good enough for Jesus.it's good enough for me, DAMN IT!

[stahrgazer]

Why would the words GOD and Damned be forbidden? It's in the Bible, ain't it?

If it's good enough for Jesus.it's good enough for me, DAMN IT!

Hmm.. by that logic, "f*ck," "you," and "faggot" are in dictionaries, too. If it's good enough for Daniel Webster it should be good enough for anyone? Or, "God damned sodomite" (words in the bible) should be just fine?

It's not the words, it's how they're arranged, that makes differences.

Before anyone objects to that, please note, that was not intended at all to call GS any of the above. I picked words that IF they're used in chats, are likely to result in mod action as being curses and potential sexual orientation slurs.

Still, if a chat filter were designed to eliminate swears, would the veggie topic be blanked out? If it would be, then the existence of that topic just shows how it's not an auto-filter that's needed, it's admin addressing stuff that's needed. If the veggie topic wouldn't be blanked out, well, I wonder why a man who eats cock gets more rights than a man who eats carrots.

[GENERAL STONEHAM]

Stahrgazer,

Remember, it's ok to say that, "you pricked your finger," but never say, " you finger your prick."

[Woodruff]

Stahrgazer,

Remember, it's ok to say that, "you pricked your finger," but never say, " you finger your prick."

Well done, General...this is an outstanding example of why a GameChat filter simply won't be very effective.

[Artimis]

Well done, General...this is an outstanding example of why a GameChat filter simply won't be very effective.

And why ultimately a game chat filter is not practical to implement on this site when everything is geared towards the lowest possible requirement for maintenance! It's not going to happen, if by some miracle it were implemented it would receive next to zero mod time in monitoring it.

[Hatchman]

Thanks to Jim for this idea. Now I "distort" or veil my own foul language. Makes a difference and keeps me out of trouble. I can vent without enraging.

Cheers motherf****ers

[xelabale]

Thanks to Jim for this idea. Now I "distort" or veil my own foul language. Makes a difference and keeps me out of trouble. I can vent without enraging.

Cheers motherf****ers

Ah but it's your intention - if a mod believes your intention is bad, they will move in. Minority stylee. Sometimes before you've even finished typ...argh...ing...your sentenc....................