Moderator: Community Team
Mr Changsha wrote:You know, I read the original post and thought to myself "now this is a nice piece of satire. Very dry. Very ironic." And then those with 'moral issues' over fairly everyday things like language, music and maybe even breathing started to agree with the op.
Mr Changsha wrote:You know, I read the original post and thought to myself "now this is a nice piece of satire. Very dry. Very ironic." And then those with 'moral issues' over fairly everyday things like language, music and maybe even breathing started to agree with the op.
I hope jiminski knows what he is doing. The moral majority may not be the brightest, the wittiest, the drollest or for that matter the most sensitive to dry humour, but there are a lot of them and once you give them an idea they tend to run with it. Give them an idea which includes some heavy censorship and really it is just wet dream territory at that point.
jiminski wrote:Mr Changsha wrote:You know, I read the original post and thought to myself "now this is a nice piece of satire. Very dry. Very ironic." And then those with 'moral issues' over fairly everyday things like language, music and maybe even breathing started to agree with the op.
I hope jiminski knows what he is doing. The moral majority may not be the brightest, the wittiest, the drollest or for that matter the most sensitive to dry humour, but there are a lot of them and once you give them an idea they tend to run with it. Give them an idea which includes some heavy censorship and really it is just wet dream territory at that point.
Although there are attempts at humour and a certain jaunty slant to my posts, I am genuinely engaging with this concept, in order to begin a dialogue.
I am certain that the site has already considered a Gamechat Filter, i am certain that they will put one in before long.
So the point is to try to make the best of this inevitability; balancing the progression toward a Child friendly atmosphere with common sense.
As i have said, a compulsory filter would seem to be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
With an optional filter, those who do not wish to be affronted by endless pages of asterisks are happy and those parents paying for their childs premium can customise what their children are exposed to.
However this is all pointless unless there is Gamechat moderation!
If we are to assuage those fearful for their children's corruption, then it is essential that there be official monitoring or at least arbitration on heinous behaviour in games.
If Gamechat filtering does not go hand-in-hand with official responsibility then this is a very irresponsible move from the site. Indeed a filter without moderation would be a cynical misrepresentation of the situation.
Again, if the site attests to being the guardian of sensibility without employing bespoke stewardship, it could almost be seen to be a trap to lure in the unsuspecting innocents!
The parents think the kids are safe and yet they are open to abuse, threats and even grooming! (The latter may sound far-fetched but, as i understand it, one member was banned for just that crime!)
So, Gamechat filter should be:
- Voluntary and on Parental setting - As mentioned by Hayes, the kids can not pay for it without Adult intervention, so this should be sufficient. The older members who do not wish to see swearing can supposedly turn this on themselves.
- Accompanied by GameChat Moderation - without this any filter would be at best pointless! as the worst misdemeanour can be committed with no hindrance from any automated system.
HayesA wrote: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.
HayesA wrote: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.
HayesA wrote:My first point was sarcasm. Good job getting it. It really went over your head.
HayesA wrote: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.
HayesA wrote:My third point: No, I meant free users. What do the admins/mods care? They DON'T PAY! No business there.
HayesA wrote:Fourth point: Again sarcasm. Good one, m8.
HayesA wrote:Last point you quoted: Good job making my point. It's not possible.
Mr Changsha wrote:You know, I read the original post and thought to myself "now this is a nice piece of satire. Very dry. Very ironic." And then those with 'moral issues' over fairly everyday things like language, music and maybe even breathing started to agree with the op.
I hope jiminski knows what he is doing. The moral majority may not be the brightest, the wittiest, the drollest or for that matter the most sensitive to dry humour, but there are a lot of them and once you give them an idea they tend to run with it. Give them an idea which includes some heavy censorship and really it is just wet dream territory at that point.
xelabale wrote:Of course we should also filter home chat. Who hasn't sworn when they've accidentally hit end attacks by mistakes? No room for that in my CC.
Woodruff wrote:Mr Changsha wrote:You know, I read the original post and thought to myself "now this is a nice piece of satire. Very dry. Very ironic." And then those with 'moral issues' over fairly everyday things like language, music and maybe even breathing started to agree with the op.
I hope jiminski knows what he is doing. The moral majority may not be the brightest, the wittiest, the drollest or for that matter the most sensitive to dry humour, but there are a lot of them and once you give them an idea they tend to run with it. Give them an idea which includes some heavy censorship and really it is just wet dream territory at that point.
I'm far from a "moral majority" type of person. However, I very much do believe that people should be expected to treat each other with respect. I'm sorry to hear that you disagree with that, to be honest.
Mr Changsha wrote:Woodruff wrote:Mr Changsha wrote:You know, I read the original post and thought to myself "now this is a nice piece of satire. Very dry. Very ironic." And then those with 'moral issues' over fairly everyday things like language, music and maybe even breathing started to agree with the op.
I hope jiminski knows what he is doing. The moral majority may not be the brightest, the wittiest, the drollest or for that matter the most sensitive to dry humour, but there are a lot of them and once you give them an idea they tend to run with it. Give them an idea which includes some heavy censorship and really it is just wet dream territory at that point.
I'm far from a "moral majority" type of person. However, I very much do believe that people should be expected to treat each other with respect. I'm sorry to hear that you disagree with that, to be honest.
As a firm member of the "deviant minority" I also believe that people should treat each other with respect. However, isn't it better if nanny keeps a respectful distance, thus allowing those who do think that intelligent discourse includes such winning phrases as "F*ck your momma. Loser." to gradually learn why being a gentleman in all things has a personal, as well as societal, benefit.
Mr Changsha wrote:Filtering is the easy way out. Gagging the idiots is like brushing shit under the carpet. It is still there and it still smells even if little tommy can only see "++++ +++++ ++++++++, +++++ you!!!!!"
sinctheassasin wrote:the way i look at it is
you start by filtering the obvious,
then you start filtering the slang
then you filter the "misspellings"
then you filter everyday words that have been reformed to mean censored words
then you pretty much have to whole language filtered.
sinctheassasin wrote:sorry if i repeated what anybody said, i didnt bother to read the posts before
xelabale wrote:Look Woodruff. FW was a place people knew about. They knew what went on in there and they knew what to expect if they went in there. What's the problem with that? If a wants to swear at b, give them a playground to do it in. How is that bad for you, or anyone else?
xelabale wrote:If you think I cry myself to sleep every night because FW is gone you're sorely mistaken.
xelabale wrote:It's the inconsistency, the short-sightedness, and most of all the lack of any common courtesy in doing it underhandedly and in a cowardly manner, by not even warning people it would happen, that pisses me off.
xelabale wrote:Have you seen GD recently? It's full of FW material. Why, because there's nowhere else to put it.
xelabale wrote:Sometimes people want to vent, sometimes people want to cuss out others, sometimes people want to be, god forbid, immature. So what? Loosen up. Swear at me if you want, it'll make you feel better.
xelabale wrote:You talk about respect. What respect was shown by removing the forum unannounced like that? What respect is being shown in GD right now, there's a plethora of posts that should be censored if you censor FW?
jiminski wrote:Xel, I think Woodruff is generally happy that flamewars is gone. To temper that position, he feels that the manner in which it was done was not representative of good customer service.. or indeed common courtesy. And that although there is a great deal of monotonous and pointless protest from the upset 'Flamers', the site has fundamentally fueled this problem with its style. (Woodruff will correct me if i am wrong in tone or detail, i am sure)
Woodruff wrote:jiminski wrote:Xel, I think Woodruff is generally happy that flamewars is gone. To temper that position, he feels that the manner in which it was done was not representative of good customer service.. or indeed common courtesy. And that although there is a great deal of monotonous and pointless protest from the upset 'Flamers', the site has fundamentally fueled this problem with its style. (Woodruff will correct me if i am wrong in tone or detail, i am sure)
You've gotten the gist of it jiminski, yes. I'm not bothered at all that FlameWars is gone. I didn't personally go there, but I do find disrespectful behavior (even when it is expected, such as in a place like that) to be highly distasteful. I DO believe that the manner in which FlameWars was removed was not done in a way which a smart businessman would handle it, and do believe that good solid explanations should be given (whether the members of FlameWars don't like or don't agree with the reasons is immaterial).
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.
HayesA wrote:Well I find it absolutely appalling that there are prudes like you people on here, trying to force your life views on everyone else while few actually agree with you.
HayesA wrote:I find it extremely offensive, personally, that people find it "okay" and "acceptable" to believe their way is the only way to be. As I said in the past, I would never support a game chat, in-game chat, or forum-wide filter. For the sole reason that I find it just as childish to virtually "slap a wrist" at anybody who says an offensive word, as it is to actually say that offensive word. After all, they are only words. Talk has always been cheap, and banter between consenting adults is equally as cheap.
HayesA wrote:Please don't put words in my mouth, and say I'm the same thing as you just on a different side. Because even though I find your views appalling personally, I would never hold them against you.
HayesA wrote:Well I find it absolutely appalling that there are prudes like you people on here, trying to force your life views on everyone else while few actually agree with you. Not everyone finds flames offensive, as most take it with a large grain of salt. I find it extremely offensive, personally, that people find it "okay" and "acceptable" to believe their way is the only way to be. As I said in the past, I would never support a game chat, in-game chat, or forum-wide filter. For the sole reason that I find it just as childish to virtually "slap a wrist" at anybody who says an offensive word, as it is to actually say that offensive word. After all, they are only words. Talk has always been cheap, and banter between consenting adults is equally as cheap.
Please don't put words in my mouth, and say I'm the same thing as you just on a different side. Because even though I find your views appalling personally, I would never hold them against you.
Return to Conquer Club Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users