1  |   Order by index

Dec 27, 2003, 11:25pm

ok i dont mean that the users browser will censor all chat in the chat
box, i mean it would censor anything the user says themself, like if you
type in something that has cussing in it, and click enter.. the browser
would aultomaticly censor any cuss word and outcome in the public chat
will be s*** or something

and this would ony be in effect in world like G and PG, and the list of
world for censoring i guess can be simmilar to the list for ejecting by
the customs aide

the reason this would be better is that his would pervent any cuss word
from being in the public chat at all, unlike the customs aide which can
only eject you AFTER you say a cuss word and caucing that cuss word to
be in open public chat.

This could also be controlled from the server the chat goes through so
that people can not create a crack for the browser to bypass the
censoring. and have it could be a world setting to specify if this
censoring is only in effect in Ground Zero. and also maybe a bot setting
for CT bots to enable it in the bot's area so that the same thing could
be in effect in special public areas that are not in GZ area, like
building contests areas or games areas, etc.

Dec 28, 2003, 1:32pm

great idea alex.

--
Brock
AW: 308723

Administrator:
IceFlare Starbeam Network
IceFlare Digital Entertainment
[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2003, 3:45pm

What about an option on the world server 'Disable Cuss' lol!

~John

[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2003, 6:40pm

I don't see how you can have the world server try to detect or
prevent cracked browsers from bypassing a form of security
that is implemented in the browser itself. To do that, they would
need to actually do the same thing the browsers were doing
anyway, and there would be no point in having the browser
do it at all.

But I also don't see why the browser couldn't filter all incoming
chat according to a file that is retreived from the object path
that has the filtering rules in effect in that world.

The browser could also merge a local filter file that a parent
could set up to provide more filtering than the world servers
rules dictate.

People who don't want any filtering could disable it. People who
want more filtering could have stronger filters.

If you think about it, it's up to each individual what is
objectionable language or not, and that is the issue at the
heart of all of the arguments about language, ejections, GK's
etc.

I have already been given a personal 'mute' button.

If language filtering is added to any part of AW, it should
be completely under the control of the individual user.

There are also valid technical reasons to have filtering done
in the recipients browser.

For one thing, I would not like to see the world servers I
lease from AWI slow down because people who also lease
them start using them to perform a lot of complex filtering
on every word of every chat line in every world.

For another thing, the changes neccessary to have the world
server maintain a list of banned words of arbitrary length for
each world, and to load this list, and compare each word of
chat text with each word in the list before sending it would
be a very significant change to it's current behaviour.

In contrast, having the world server transmit a filename to
the browser that represents a file with banned words to load
from the object path is not much of a change in the world
server itself.

Getting the browser to load this list and use it to filter the
incoming chat would be no harder certainly than what you
proposed, and would certainly be less risky than the kinds
of changes needed for the world servers to do it.

[View Quote]

Dec 29, 2003, 2:27am

whatever way.. if it could happen, then it should be done :)

[View Quote] > I don't see how you can have the world server try to detect or
> prevent cracked browsers from bypassing a form of security
> that is implemented in the browser itself. To do that, they would
> need to actually do the same thing the browsers were doing
> anyway, and there would be no point in having the browser
> do it at all.
>
> But I also don't see why the browser couldn't filter all incoming
> chat according to a file that is retreived from the object path
> that has the filtering rules in effect in that world.
>
> The browser could also merge a local filter file that a parent
> could set up to provide more filtering than the world servers
> rules dictate.
>
> People who don't want any filtering could disable it. People who
> want more filtering could have stronger filters.
>
> If you think about it, it's up to each individual what is
> objectionable language or not, and that is the issue at the
> heart of all of the arguments about language, ejections, GK's
> etc.
>
> I have already been given a personal 'mute' button.
>
> If language filtering is added to any part of AW, it should
> be completely under the control of the individual user.
>
> There are also valid technical reasons to have filtering done
> in the recipients browser.
>
> For one thing, I would not like to see the world servers I
> lease from AWI slow down because people who also lease
> them start using them to perform a lot of complex filtering
> on every word of every chat line in every world.
>
> For another thing, the changes neccessary to have the world
> server maintain a list of banned words of arbitrary length for
> each world, and to load this list, and compare each word of
> chat text with each word in the list before sending it would
> be a very significant change to it's current behaviour.
>
> In contrast, having the world server transmit a filename to
> the browser that represents a file with banned words to load
> from the object path is not much of a change in the world
> server itself.
>
> Getting the browser to load this list and use it to filter the
> incoming chat would be no harder certainly than what you
> proposed, and would certainly be less risky than the kinds
> of changes needed for the world servers to do it.
>
[View Quote]

Dec 29, 2003, 9:53am

Alex... option on world server. Think about closed worlds where the owner
doesn't change their thing from 'G'. They swear and it comes out in *s.
Could be annoying.

~John

[View Quote]

Dec 29, 2003, 2:13pm

I have an idea. I have a forum for my world and the worlds of two of my
friends. Its set up so that if a person swears the swearword is replaced by
a word of phrase that either is funny or will make them sound childish. like
for example the world sh*t is replaced with poop. I think something like
that would be cool and it may also make ppl not want to swear.

www.aawr.net/forum

[View Quote]

Dec 29, 2003, 2:17pm

I have an idea. I have a forum for my world and the worlds of two of my
friends. Its set up so that if a person swears the swearword is replaced by
a word of phrase that either is funny or will make them sound childish. like
for example the world sh*t is replaced with poop. I think something like
that would be cool and it may also make ppl not want to swear.

www.aawr.net/forum

[View Quote]

Dec 29, 2003, 6:03pm

how about an option to set it on or off, and it be off by default then.

[View Quote]

Dec 29, 2003, 6:14pm

Thats what I suggested!

~John

[View Quote]

Jan 2, 2004, 7:11am

what about that annoying customs aide bot? what if so many words became
censored that you couldn't talk about certain things? if AWI applied the
same filter from the customs aide bot and put it on alphaworld... *shiver*

1  |   Order by index