Conquer Club

It is fairly clear that CC is becoming a more child-friendly website.
I welcome that, i always aspire to be courteous and at the very least omit crudity from my text, unless it is necessary for context.

As such, perhaps it would be sensible for us to discuss the basis of the GameChat filter which will follow at some stage in the future.

This is inevitable so we may as well try to have some input and thereby more happily usher-in this change.

So, i don't think we need to mention the obvious 2 (sounds like 'Suck Hunt') but there will be words at the margin which some will feel should stay and others will feel they should go.

I'll start with a couple of soft ones:-

Wanker - will we permit this or even the replacement Merchant Banker

Bollocks (Bollox) for example; this is a fairly tame word and not really aggressive in tone.
- At worst it could be used as follows:
"Man! you are talking Bollocks! you have attacked me in every bollocking round!"

How about Bullshit? - or BS? or simply shit!? - acceptable or not?


Then we move into the ambiguous expletives with multiple* usages, rhyming slang or euphemism, for example:
Cock, ducking, pistol,Tosser, flange, Tank, shot my bullet, Rusty Bullet-hole - to name just a few.

Would we end up with the Sentence in gamechat using the above phrases or terms:
"I ****ed my ******, **** ** **** and now there is a ***** ******-**** in your army ****'s ******! You ******* ******!"

Anyway, I think this thread can at once be useful and fun.
It would be wise if the site allows discussion about this change, as opposed to making it a 'joke' played upon one section of the community.

If we talk about this now instead of brushing-it-under-the-carpet* it will be a much less painful and alienating process!




* a filthy phrase in the wrong hands!

the following is from C.C. guidelines and I see no reason to change things now,

# Banter and some trash talking IS allowed in the Game Chats, so don't waste time complaining about that.
# You may not be used to hearing or reading those "four-letter words", but some people do and will use them. This isn't a reason to open a complaint about the player; just kindly ask them to stop or ignore them.

I do not consider myself to be verbally abusive , but i do occasionally swear. I do not believe in all this politically bullshit nonsense thats been going around, nor do I believe in censorship, I say leave things alone, I do not like change and I am not a fan of how this site changes things, this site was awesome back in 2007 when i joined, after a handful of "changes" since i do not feel the same way.

Things are fine as they are, for the hot house flowers that can't take it there is always the foe list. Otherwise just don't read the game chat, a simple solution really.

I agree jim, honestly some of the things that are said in game chat are a bit extreme even for an online game site. If it were in real life the ref or ump or whatever official would kick you out of the game!

As someone who has been known to go off a time or two in game chat, I've been on both ends of this question.
While I applaud the removal of Flame Wars , CC is still a competitive site and the characters, both friendly and not-so-friendly, are part of what adds to the experience.
The ability to foe other players seems to me to be enough. -If you have a problem with someone's usage of objectionable language, all you have to do is foe them and you won't have to see it or be in future games together.

Censoring would take a phrase like:
"You ****ing idiot! You've ****ed me in every round. Teal is holding half the board, so pull your head out of your a** and open your ****ing eyes."
and cause the player to rephrase it like this:
"My, old chap. It appears you've attacked me in each round while those jolly troops of teal are the real threat. Might I suggest you review your tactics so that we can perhaps acheive some kind of compromise?"

Kind of loses it's punch.
And always remember:
Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser!

Good idea to have a filter. Would certainly cut down on the (perceived) hostility level. I'm one of the worst when it comes to spouting profanities after losing my temper. I am one of several people who'd benefit from being gagged (at the very least ).

Dagnabit poltroons, don't take me cusses away. Blistering barnacles...

clapper011 wrote:I agree jim, honestly some of the things that are said in game chat are a bit extreme even for an online game site. If it were in real life the ref or ump or whatever official would kick you out of the game!

Now there's a thought!

Eliminated by excess profanity! If multiple accounts weren't against the rules I'd make an account called Excess Profanity right now. Too bad it's such a non-starter as no one on TeamCC would countenance the extra workload that would surely follow the implementation of such a suggestion. The foe list remains the best option for dealing with annoying 'foul mouths' who's names I won't mention here, because it'll give just Night Strike an excuse to lock this thread under the pretence of preventing flaming.

Can we please not focus too much on the slim minority of unpleasant players with the intent of trying to use their misdeeds as justification for the addition of extra PC bullshit that we just don't need or want.

clapper011 wrote:I agree jim, honestly some of the things that are said in game chat are a bit extreme even for an online game site. If it were in real life the ref or ump or whatever official would kick you out of the game!

true flower but which words should we filter? It becomes tricky with words of duplicitous definition.

Will we be compelled to remove competitiveness from CC chat too?

And if someone asks me where i am from and i say i am a Cockney from London.... Also how would someone explain that they were from Scunthorpe!?

It is very important to workout how the site proposes to put this into practice, as it does affect normal conversation quite severely too.

jiminski wrote:

clapper011 wrote:I agree jim, honestly some of the things that are said in game chat are a bit extreme even for an online game site. If it were in real life the ref or ump or whatever official would kick you out of the game!

true flower but which words should we filter? It becomes tricky with words of duplicitous definition.

Will we be compelled to remove competitiveness from CC chat too?

And if someone asks me where i am from and i say i am a Cockney from London.... Also how would someone explain that they were from Scunthorpe!?

It is very important to workout how the site proposes to put this into practice, as it does affect normal conversation quite severely too.

I think everything that jimi says should be sensored until he comes back to play with us

But honostly game chat filter will probably make the gaming experiance for the majority of the players better. And by all means if you can make the majority happy go for it. And how many people are really from cockney on here anyways.

Im in favour of no censorship at all. Filters are an ineffective way of stopping swearing anyway.

Rocket,

i think it would be funny at first, but it would get old fast. plus i wouldn't wanna deal w/ people typing "fu.ck you" all day. it would just get super annoying

Rocketry wrote:Im in favour of no censorship at all.

Even though some of the worst offenders are not even participants in the game they are spamming with expletives, I don't care to see game chat filtered at all. There are ways around it to cuss as well as ways to avoid people who are too obnoxious with it... ignore/foe list

If it is implimented, I would prefer it as an option/selection to be made on the control panel/game settings as can be found on many internet gaming sites.

whitestazn88 wrote:i think it would be funny at first, but it would get old fast. plus i wouldn't wanna deal w/ people typing "fu.ck you" all day. it would just get super annoying

I personally find spelling it "fvck,or bihct. they both get the point across.

Ok, I'm one that definitely thinks something more needs to be done about in-game-chat. However, I don't think "words" is the key here. I don't really care about swearing itself. If someone says "f*ck" because the rolled some bad dice, I don't have any problem with that because it's not directed at another player. My problem is when a player becomes abusive to another player...something needs to be done about those cases, but they're not currently (unless it's among a very select few "types of abusive".

Woodruff wrote:Ok, I'm one that definitely thinks something more needs to be done about in-game-chat. However, I don't think "words" is the key here. I don't really care about swearing itself. If someone says "f*ck" because the rolled some bad dice, I don't have any problem with that because it's not directed at another player. My problem is when a player becomes abusive to another player...something needs to be done about those cases, but they're not currently (unless it's among a very select few "types of abusive".

As is oft repeated in the C&A forum as well as in this thread and many other threads on the same or similar subjects;
FOE LIST

Woodruff wrote:Ok, I'm one that definitely thinks something more needs to be done about in-game-chat. However, I don't think "words" is the key here. I don't really care about swearing itself. If someone says "f*ck" because the rolled some bad dice, I don't have any problem with that because it's not directed at another player. My problem is when a player becomes abusive to another player...something needs to be done about those cases, but they're not currently (unless it's among a very select few "types of abusive".

I tend to agree!
I revel in the complexity of our means to communicate; both in ‘seemingly’ crude, colloquial and ‘higher’, formal incarnations.
The below link, on the etymological root of our most taboo of words, illustrates this point quite charmingly:

What's in a word!?

The point is that a little perspective needs to be added when we attempt to blend this, all too readily, polarised pallet. This is a multifaceted language with layers of nuance.. and even convergent linguistic evolution. As such it should not be so easily compartmentalised.

But I take your point Woodruff, a Gamechat filter will do little to curb the true problem of violent verbal attacks.
The use of a ‘dirty database’ filter will be impotent where a fellow user is casting aspersion upon the sexual proclivities of your Grandmother. It cannot hope to deter an adversary from voicing intent on hunting you down to assassinate your poodle!

The most sensible suggestion is for an optional gamechat filter, some form of Parental setting.
This could be to a variety of settings-
Slightly more liberal parents could just be rid of greater excesses of our flowery tongue - 'Scunthorpe'.
Whilst also catering to our more fragile, shrinking violets, who could obscure – 'Constitution'.

But in order for this to be a meaningful imposition, it must be coupled with GameChat moderation.

Without site interjection, in the cases of aggressive and threatening text, any Filter would be purely superficial.
Reverting to the site policy of “Put them on your Foe list!” in all circumstances, is less than inadequate for the site on its path to broader consumption.

Without Gamechat moderation we might as well use this same strategy for expletive as for the use of threats and non-expletive based pejorative. (“Put them on your Foe list!”)
Indeed under these circumstances a GameChat filter would do more harm than good: the parent, having placed trust in the facade of a 'Family Friendly' site. The reality being that the site had simply relinquished moral responsibility to an automated system with no comprehension of tone.

So, in short, the only worthwhile move to being a truly child-friendly site is:
Optional gamechat filter, to run in conjunction with Gamechat moderation.

Artimis wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Ok, I'm one that definitely thinks something more needs to be done about in-game-chat. However, I don't think "words" is the key here. I don't really care about swearing itself. If someone says "f*ck" because the rolled some bad dice, I don't have any problem with that because it's not directed at another player. My problem is when a player becomes abusive to another player...something needs to be done about those cases, but they're not currently (unless it's among a very select few "types of abusive".

As is oft repeated in the C&A forum as well as in this thread and many other threads on the same or similar subjects;
FOE LIST

I'm well aware of and use the foe list. However, how is that relevant to the current discussion in any way? In fact, it is precisely that which we're trying to get away from, as I understand jiminski's intent.

jiminski wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Ok, I'm one that definitely thinks something more needs to be done about in-game-chat. However, I don't think "words" is the key here. I don't really care about swearing itself. If someone says "f*ck" because the rolled some bad dice, I don't have any problem with that because it's not directed at another player. My problem is when a player becomes abusive to another player...something needs to be done about those cases, but they're not currently (unless it's among a very select few "types of abusive".

But I take your point Woodruff, a Gamechat filter will do little to curb the true problem of violent verbal attacks.
The use of a ‘dirty database’ filter will be impotent where a fellow user is casting aspersion upon the sexual proclivities of your Grandmother.

<laughing> Exactly!

Regarding your thoughts on the optional filter coupled with moderator interaction, this makes sense to me.

i think that smack talk in games is flaming
which is quite contradictory to the fact that they removed flame wars from here (not that i went in there)
so i do agree there needs to be some kind of filter in place

dezzy26 wrote:i think that smack talk in games is flaming
which is quite contradictory to the fact that they removed flame wars from here (not that i went in there)
so i do agree there needs to be some kind of filter in place

take the dress off already!

Why is this even a topic? Seriously! A "kid friendly site?" What does that even mean? Kids are getting their hands on a credit card, and paying the yearly fee? I remember when this site hardly cared about their free users, so why now? Especially about in-game chat. What about us who pay, and run password protected games, will a "filter" have any effect on that game? What about those of us who pay, and don't want a filter? I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense to me as to why it's even a serious topic of discussion.

If you guys do decide to take it seriously. At least add a opt-out option for paid subscribers? First the flame wars, which could have been handled better. Now a chat filter?

Personally, I think the place is inhabited more by adults then by children under the age of consensual age, 18. And there is quite the argument to contend that children will swear by them selves on their own. They hear/see more on television/radio then ever before? This is like fighting fire with alcohol! Why does the mod/admin teams even care what their users say? Is this turning into 1984, and we're barred to do anything but play the game, and nothing else?

I'm sorry. But I think this is a terrible idea.

You know, more over, what's to stop an abusive player from using the private message feature? Will we get rid of that, too?!

An abusive player will always be abusive, and trying to stop it from even happening is like pre-crime from that one movie. Unless we have a fool-proof system to tell intent before it happens, it's going to cause more of a head ache in moderation then it's worth.

dezzy26 wrote:i think that smack talk in games is flaming
which is quite contradictory to the fact that they removed flame wars from here (not that i went in there)
so i do agree there needs to be some kind of filter in place

There's nothing wrong with smack talk. There's a vast difference between that and abuse.

HayesA wrote:Why is this even a topic? Seriously! A "kid friendly site?" What does that even mean? Kids are getting their hands on a credit card, and paying the yearly fee? I remember when this site hardly cared about their free users, so why now? Especially about in-game chat. What about us who pay, and run password protected games, will a "filter" have any effect on that game? What about those of us who pay, and don't want a filter? I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense to me as to why it's even a serious topic of discussion.
If you guys do decide to take it seriously. At least add a opt-out option for paid subscribers?

This seems like it would be difficult to implement, since it would essentially mean that every player in a game would have to have "opted out" or it wouldn't have any effect at all.

HayesA wrote:Personally, I think the place is inhabited more by adults then by children under the age of consensual age, 18. And there is quite the argument to contend that children will swear by them selves on their own. They hear/see more on television/radio then ever before?

"They're probably seeing it elsewhere anyway"? That's really not a good argument.

HayesA wrote:Why does the mod/admin teams even care what their users say?

Because that's how a good business is run.

HayesA wrote:Is this turning into 1984, and we're barred to do anything but play the game, and nothing else?

Where did you get that silly idea?

HayesA wrote:You know, more over, what's to stop an abusive player from using the private message feature? Will we get rid of that, too?!

They already can't abuse using the PM feature, actually.

HayesA wrote:An abusive player will always be abusive, and trying to stop it from even happening is like pre-crime from that one movie.

First of all...no, an abusive player will not always be an abusive player. People can learn and people can change...this is a fact. Secondly, if a person CAN'T seem to learn/change, then they simply wouldn't be here for long. Thirdly, this is NOTHING LIKE "pre-crime", since any action would be taken AFTER a player was abusing someone else. There's no "pre-" to it.

HayesA wrote:Unless we have a fool-proof system to tell intent before it happens, it's going to cause more of a head ache in moderation then it's worth.

To tell intent before it happens? This doesn't make sense...action is taken AFTER the incident, as it should be.

Woodruff wrote:

HayesA wrote:Why is this even a topic? Seriously! A "kid friendly site?" What does that even mean? Kids are getting their hands on a credit card, and paying the yearly fee? I remember when this site hardly cared about their free users, so why now? Especially about in-game chat. What about us who pay, and run password protected games, will a "filter" have any effect on that game? What about those of us who pay, and don't want a filter? I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense to me as to why it's even a serious topic of discussion.
If you guys do decide to take it seriously. At least add a opt-out option for paid subscribers?

This seems like it would be difficult to implement, since it would essentially mean that every player in a game would have to have "opted out" or it wouldn't have any effect at all.

HayesA wrote:Personally, I think the place is inhabited more by adults then by children under the age of consensual age, 18. And there is quite the argument to contend that children will swear by them selves on their own. They hear/see more on television/radio then ever before?

"They're probably seeing it elsewhere anyway"? That's really not a good argument.

HayesA wrote:Why does the mod/admin teams even care what their users say?

Because that's how a good business is run.

HayesA wrote:Is this turning into 1984, and we're barred to do anything but play the game, and nothing else?

Where did you get that silly idea?

HayesA wrote:You know, more over, what's to stop an abusive player from using the private message feature? Will we get rid of that, too?!

They already can't abuse using the PM feature, actually.

HayesA wrote:An abusive player will always be abusive, and trying to stop it from even happening is like pre-crime from that one movie.

First of all...no, an abusive player will not always be an abusive player. People can learn and people can change...this is a fact. Secondly, if a person CAN'T seem to learn/change, then they simply wouldn't be here for long. Thirdly, this is NOTHING LIKE "pre-crime", since any action would be taken AFTER a player was abusing someone else. There's no "pre-" to it.

HayesA wrote:Unless we have a fool-proof system to tell intent before it happens, it's going to cause more of a head ache in moderation then it's worth.

To tell intent before it happens? This doesn't make sense...action is taken AFTER the incident, as it should be.

You're really missing the point I was talking about. Have you ever moderated a website before? Have you any idea of how much work it is? I'm not knocking you, I'm wondering. Because you're giving me the idea that you really lack any sort of "how can it be done" and you care more about the end result. Meaning, it would be more work for the mod team to play mommy and daddy for fighting children. If you get my metaphor.

First off, how do you mean PM feature cant be exploited? I'll PM you in a miute with links to meatspin, and goatse.x. Along with lots of swear words meant to offend.

My first point was sarcasm. Good job getting it. It really went over your head.

My second point you quoted, about seeing it elsewhere, was more meant to imply that Conquer Clib admins are not a user's mother, and as thus, what's it their business what players say in chat? If a player has a legit complaint against another, then sure a mod should be brought into it, or a foe list. Hence the adult word I said: Adults don't bitch to their bosses when they have complaints about each other. That's childish, and is actually frown upon in every single work place I've ever been in.

My third point: No, I meant free users. What do the admins/mods care? They DON'T PAY! No business there.

Fourth point: Again sarcasm. Good one, m8.

Last point you quoted: Good job making my point. It's not possible.