Conquer Club

GameChat Filter - your input

Talk about all things related to Conquer Club

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the community guidelines before posting.

How extensive should the GameChat Filter be?

 
Total votes : 0

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby Mr Changsha on Thu Apr 23, 2009 10:16 pm

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.
Image
User avatar
Colonel Mr Changsha
 
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:42 am

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby Timminz on Fri Apr 24, 2009 5:03 am

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.

Agreed. I feel jimi made an excellent point in the op, and that nothing much needed to be said in addition to it. But of course, some people just need to talk (er... type).
User avatar
Captain Timminz
 
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: At the store

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby jiminski on Sat Apr 25, 2009 1:37 pm

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.
Image
User avatar
Major jiminski
 
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:30 pm
Location: London

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby firstholliday on Sat Apr 25, 2009 3:17 pm

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.

:shock:
Image
7 firstholliday 3589 (58%) General 128-2 Netherlands
User avatar
General firstholliday
 
Posts: 1338
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: Amsterdam (the fun city)

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby xelabale on Sat Apr 25, 2009 5:28 pm

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.
User avatar
Captain xelabale
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:12 am

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby Woodruff on Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:00 pm

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.


I have moderated newsgroups previously (which are similar in nature to forums and in-game-chat. I am also a computer programmer and Unix system administrator by trade so I am familiar with many of the technical aspects, as well.

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.


Sure, you can...and then your ability to do so will be removed. THAT'S my point. You may be able to do so once, but that's the only opportunity you will get.

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


Given that some other users have said similar things in discussion of this general topic (to include the FlameWars forum) and appeared to very much mean them and given that sarcasm does NOT translate well at all into a printed medium, I would suggest that your delivery wasn't as good as you seem to believe it was.

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.


It depends on the nature of the complaint against the co-worker. If someone is being abused by a co-worker (even if only verbally), I GUARANTEE you that any boss that wants to succeed WILL want to know about it. Nobody wants a lawsuit. I certainly wouldn't be willing to work for a boss who allowed co-workers to abuse each other. I think you really didn't think your correlation through very well here.

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


Yet where do paying customers come from? From the free users. Generally speaking, folks are going to try out a site like this before wanting to pay for it.

HayesA wrote:Fourth point: Again sarcasm. Good one, m8.


Unfortunately for you, you haven't done a very good job of understanding the ramifications of using sarcasm in a printed medium. You should work on that. Then again, it's always easy for you to go ahead and CLAIM that it was "just sarcasm" once your argument on that point has been thoroughly eliminated.

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


If you believe I was making your point, I suggest that you need to work on your reading comprehension a bit. I may have included your point as part of my rebuttal, but it was certainly rebutted.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby Woodruff on Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:02 pm

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.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby Woodruff on Sat Apr 25, 2009 6:04 pm

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.


Your desperation is palpable.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby Mr Changsha on Sat Apr 25, 2009 8:04 pm

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.

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!!!!!"
Image
User avatar
Colonel Mr Changsha
 
Posts: 1662
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 1:42 am

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby Woodruff on Sat Apr 25, 2009 10:09 pm

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.


Unfortunately, many view the internet as their opportunity NOT to learn that particular bit of understanding. Or, more often, to deliberately act against it even though they know it to be so.

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!!!!!"


I actually agree. That's why I don't particularly care about what words are used, but rather if they are used in an abusive manner or not. For me (and I recognize that others disagree with me on this point), that is what the "nanny" needs to be there to stop.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby sinctheassasin on Sat Apr 25, 2009 10:49 pm

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.
Woop Woop, i love conquer club, why'd i leave for a year?
Who LIkes finishing what they started? :D
Image
User avatar
Corporal sinctheassasin
 
Posts: 490
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:57 pm
Location: probably in chat room, advertising conquer crater

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby Woodruff on Sat Apr 25, 2009 11:10 pm

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.


Yes, I'm absolutely certain that's precisely what is bound to happen. Great point!
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby sinctheassasin on Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:18 am

sorry if i repeated what anybody said, i didnt bother to read the posts before 8-)
Woop Woop, i love conquer club, why'd i leave for a year?
Who LIkes finishing what they started? :D
Image
User avatar
Corporal sinctheassasin
 
Posts: 490
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:57 pm
Location: probably in chat room, advertising conquer crater

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby Woodruff on Sun Apr 26, 2009 10:39 am

sinctheassasin wrote:sorry if i repeated what anybody said, i didnt bother to read the posts before 8-)


You didn't. I apologize for another example of sarcasm (this time on my part) not translating into text-based media very well.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby xelabale on Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:15 am

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?

If you think I cry myself to sleep every night because FW is gone you're sorely mistaken. 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. Have you seen GD recently? It's full of FW material. Why, because there's nowhere else to put it. 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. But don't do it in GD, do it in a nasty corner where only you and I (if I choose) can see it.

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?

Come to think about it, by simply dismissing my and other's opinion without having the courtesy to engage in it, you are showing a lack of respect, young man.
User avatar
Captain xelabale
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:12 am

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby Woodruff on Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:56 pm

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?


You don't appear to have understood my position regarding FlameWars and flaming in general on ConquerClub, despite my frequent statement of such.

xelabale wrote:If you think I cry myself to sleep every night because FW is gone you're sorely mistaken.


Truthfully, you do give that impression.

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.


You don't appear to have understood my position regarding the removal of FlameWars either, despite my frequent statement of such.

xelabale wrote:Have you seen GD recently? It's full of FW material. Why, because there's nowhere else to put it.


Incorrect. It's "full of FW material" (sort of, but not really) because some people seem to thrive in the idea that they can flame other people without consequence as long as they're hiding behind a persona on the internet.

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.


No, it certainly wouldn't. I'm sorry you have such a problem with people treating each other with basic respect.

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?


You don't appear to have understood my position regarding the removal of FlameWars either, despite my frequent statement of such.

Come to think about it, by simply dismissing my and other's opinion without having the courtesy to engage in it, you are showing a lack of respect, young man.[/quote]
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby xelabale on Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:13 am

Could you lay out your position in one easy place for us so we can understand. I'm getting mixed messages across the threads. Thanks XXX
User avatar
Captain xelabale
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:12 am

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby jiminski on Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:59 am

ok chaps, try not to give the mods an excuse to lock this.
(There are no longer set guidelines as to what warrants locking; they can shut what they want, under any circumstance... so please box a little clever.)

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)

So, back on thread, under what basis do you think the Gamechat filter should be implemented, if at all.
And, like me, do you feel that gamechat moderation is essential when the filter is implemented!?
Image
User avatar
Major jiminski
 
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:30 pm
Location: London

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby Woodruff on Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:22 pm

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.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby xelabale on Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:40 pm

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.

I absolutely agree with everything in this post. Like I said. ;)

Except for the even when it's expected. If you find it distasteful, fine, but so what. You know it happens there, don't go there. Everyone has the option. you don't need to see it, they don't have to stop. Everyone wins.
User avatar
Captain xelabale
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:12 am

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby HayesA on Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:34 pm

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.
A mindless philosopher.
User avatar
Sergeant HayesA
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 2:31 pm
Location: State College, PA

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby xelabale on Fri May 01, 2009 2:10 am

of course, no one's forcing, just debating in an online forum... ;)
User avatar
Captain xelabale
 
Posts: 452
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:12 am

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby Woodruff on Fri May 01, 2009 3:47 am

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.


Few? The threads regarding this subject clearly show that it's not just a few.

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.


That's the problem...I'm NOT CONSENTING, nor is anyone else who finds great issue with this. That's what you're not getting.

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.


And yet, despite your protestations otherwise, you clearly are.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby jiminski on Fri May 01, 2009 5:24 am

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.



I know where you're coming from Hayes... the machine is at work and those at the margins have no say. Sadly that is the reality on here, as it is the reality in life too. We have the illusion of freedom and liberty, in practice that only counts if you stand for the majority desire and view on everything. (what the supporters of the status quo like you to forget is that it is only affirmative action and protest which allows minorities to ever be countenanced.
The other parallel, regarding moderation, is that the police/army generally become the dedicated, partisan arms of the regime; silencing dissent in the guise of harmony. As illustrated elegantly by the Zimbardo prison experiment, people fall zealously into their allotted roles)

Saying this, there really is nothing we can do to stop this, so we may as well get on-board. The Gamechat filter is the next step to broadening the appeal of the site. (Becoming more commercially attractive; I imagine with a view to selling the site with its plethora of map copyrights, to Hasbro. That is purely conjecture but it makes sense and I would certainly be doing that in the owners position, rather than wrestling with the complex legalities recently apparent. A Risk board for every country? Christ what a money spinner.)

I have come to the conclusion that trying to assist and attempt to shape any changes, is the more satisfying, least frustrating stance. It's always nice to be on the winning side, even if your position is questionable (again illustrated by the Zimbardo experiment).
Joining the discussion is better than shouting at shadows, like an insane tramp cursing at passing suits.

So what makes perfect sense to me is the option for Parental settings, with even a customisable 'dirty dictionary' filter. You could have facility to block specific players' chat too. This means that the swearers can swear if they like, and the kids are protected.

But to go along with this, if we are truly to get on-board with being a child friendly/commercially inclusive site, we must have Gamechat moderation. Without that, any gamechat filter is purely cosmetic, more, it is misleading and dangerous.
Last edited by jiminski on Fri May 01, 2009 8:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Major jiminski
 
Posts: 5422
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:30 pm
Location: London

Re: GameChat Filter - your input

Postby HayesA on Fri May 01, 2009 5:49 am

Thank you. Finally an argument for that makes sense in an intelligent way! =D> (Being very serious here.)
A mindless philosopher.
User avatar
Sergeant HayesA
 
Posts: 244
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 2:31 pm
Location: State College, PA

PreviousNext

Return to Conquer Club Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users