Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Filters
Helleri
Member UncommonPosts: 930
I am curious to know what your thoughts are on In-Game Chat Filters.Primarily this is in regards to Profanity filters And weather or not you think they are necessary or even all that useful. Secondarily, it is extensible to things like website spamming and scamming attempts.
So, here are some starter questions to get it going:
- Do most of the filters you have seen or are familiar with accomplish what they set out to do; And, if so how well (e.i. Sufficient/too well/not nearly well enough)?
- Can you think of an example of a really good/bad chat filter, that you have experienced, and what the strong/weak point(s) of it were?
- What would you do to improve chat filters?
Comments
Ok Ill bite,
1st and fore most chat boxes should be sizable and detachable. Usually we have a few layers all in one box in a fixed location and they should be moveable -on the fly- and detachable so I can view all the layers at the same time if i wish to. That means each detachable "pane" should have its own customizable filtering.
Now the filters them selves, Here I will say most games have a decent filter system. Meaning you can filter the usually suspects guild, gen, local, trade, ally, race/faction and, help. These are all very important and sometimes game specific. The main thing I see games fail at here is the block player ignore and temp/perm chat ban features the game implements.
Seeing there are so many options for each player, the block/ban options should be implemented in a way that blocks a player from a certain pane/filter only -per instance- of block/ban. This way games can have the rowdy unruly chatters -have their own- permanet chat rooms and not have them clog up and push out the "other" chatters in the normal gen/world chats but not push them completly out of chattng.
This option alows like minded players to congregate with other like minded players without the typical finite lines of comunication breaks. Also this will allow a mod to iimplement a chat ban in a real and perminate way but still not leave that player with a game that is lacking one of the most important features. Chat
As far as parental blocks profanity filters and the like, I have never been "let down" with a game in this manner. When it comes to these filters though you need to realize that most players who frequent chat rooms are well versed in "beating the filter" and you might consider adding anyone who has had or is curently banned from -any- chatting options to simply be added to the profanity filter upon it being toggeled on. That I am sure isnt the easiest solution for the coder as most filters are cut/copy/paste with a liecancing agreement attach but from my point of veiw that kind of dedicated work can create a new liecencing for its producer.
That one part i didn't quite understand, could you rephrase?
In general I think I see what your getting at. Players having a high level of control over filter options. Which I can Agree is very important.
While you can't think of a game off hand where there is a pretty bad filter in place. I definitely can. World of tanks...Their general chat and in-match filter is a good example to me of an overprotective filter. It sensors far too many innocent words because of partial spellings containing aspects of what could be considered a profanity. And there is no toggle for this filter that i have been able to find. Additionally when the devs do make exceptions to either unblock certain words or add a new block, they tend to make really bad choices on that game.
But, I have also seen some that are simply extremely limited (largely due to age and neglect) like Active Worlds. Which these days should change it's name to Inactive Worlds. Some of the most basic features of any other MMO simply do not exist there. Like the closest thing they have to private messaging is telegrams (they actually call them telegrams and I am surprised they don't call them telegraphs).
Now as a really good example I can think of. Runescape...All the things you talk about they have. Every channel has a chatter filter. And, you can split/merge, dock/float resize, and snap to borders just about every aspect of the interface. The toggles go deep filter wise. All the stuff you were talking about pretty much, plus the ability to change text colors for the different channels and alter the deep interface.
I think the MMO with the most control over communication on the user end though is Second Life. Depending on the viewer you use it goes astonishingly deep. There is also a dark side to this as certain sl tools and viewers allow one user to give near absolute control to another user.
When a player gets a temp chat ban most times that time only acts as a build up and vent cycle and to manage that aspect I am suggesting a "per filter" and/or "per pane" block/ban option for both players and moderators.
A player who finds a certain chatter is unwanted they can choose to block them from a particular filter where as they will still be able to chat with them in a different filter or block them on all. Trade chat being one of the larger issues with certain games. A player might want to prevent general chat from a certain player but also may want to still leave the option to trade with them as their gold is still well ...gold!
And the same for moderation. If a player gets a few (or even a single) complaints by moderators and a temp or perm chat ban is being implemented it can be done in the -filter- the infraction happened in alone leaving the option for one or more heavily moderated filters while others are less so allowing the players to choose where they will communicate.
One such example(I think) would be uncharted waters where players can be banned from certain filters though the system is lacking in most other areas including a limited block list an a non intuitive management system.
The primary issues are as follows:
* language barriers
* euphemisms
* evolution of speech
To elaborate, quite a few of the chat-filters you'll run into, particularly among the Free-to-Play genre, were designed for a singular language (Chinese, Korean and Japanese being the major contenders). This presents something of a localization issue when it must be converted for use with a foreign tongue; I would cite Ragnarok Online 2 as the most recent example I encountered, wherein the symbol "0" (zero) and "O" (oh) were both prohibited by the filter as their Korean equivalent may be used for some manner of profanity. Consequently, chat was filled with "l**king f*r s*me*ne t* help..." and so forth, which was a marked improvement over an earlier state wherein merely including either in a word caused it to be entirely censored, as in "******* for ******* ** help....". Furthermore, foreign languages are rarely prohibited within a chat filter, thus while common English vulgarisms, such as "b****" may be filtered, using Russian or Chinese to insult a fellow player is unlikely to be censored.
As for euphemisms, well, I've yet to encounter a single person who can grasp them all, much less an automated script. For instance, if I were to write that (pardon the crudity of my example) "last night i was with this chick, she was wetter than a waterslide and panting like a dog but it was like throwing a hotdog down a hallway" well, you can likely infer my meaning, but would a chat filter? I can distinctly recall a number of instances in FreeRealms, a child-friendly MMO, where several players conversed euphemistically at length concerning subjects that few, if any, parents would care to have their children privy to... and my example, in compare, was quite tame.
Finally, the evolution of the English language is such that new terms are constantly being created or tweaked for derogatory purposes. For instance, I can recall a now-defunct online shooter that, in an attempt to mitigate players tea-bagging on another, prohibited the word "tea" from being written in chat (along with "tb" and the like). It sounds harmless enough, right? After all, how many gamers discuss a nice Earl Grey or Darjeeling? Yet, that selfsame filter lacked context, thus you'd end up with "***r them a new one" and "s***dy now" or "can you ***ch me how to do that?" Even assuming context-filters are in place, you are still denying your players access to a typically innocuous term for no more reason than that it may be used for one express purpose. By way of further example, "fag" is commonly among the terms entered into a chat-filter (and may well be in this site's) and was with one high-profile MMORPG I played wherein my guild, comprised of quite a few Scots, Brits, some Aussies and other folk for whom it is merely another name for cigarette, came to laugh at our little inside joke of pausing a raid for "homo time" as one of our leaders was in the habit of asking to stop "for a quick fag." No harm was intended, nor offense, yet the filter rendered his otherwise sterile response abruptly lude and thus unpublishable.
See above. Ideally? Employ an artificial intelligence to monitor the chat in realtime... yet if you requested a less facetious response I'd likely have to settle for something along the lines of community monitoring. Mind, I am not referring to "community volunteer GMs" or the like, nothing that entails any semblance of power being vested in a singular community member, but rather a system akin to that proposed for the forthcoming XBOX One: players who consistently utilize the chat in a manner that is deemed inappropriate enough to be flagged by others are eventually prohibited from using such or restricted solely to contact with those who behave in a similar manner. You may argue that it is little better than discrimination, yet what it genuinely boils down to is a self-imposed caste system: those who use profanity without regard and those abhor it, wherein never the twain shall they meet.Some of this seems completely nonsensical to me in that when you add in the *** portion you not only enable a player to use their imagination but you bring even more attention to the hidden meaning and make it even more profane/obvious.
No IMO it must be done on the per chatter and not the per character(symbol)
Did you even bother to read what I wrote or just assume the context out of hand?
Had you read it, you would have gathered that those italicized sections containing asterisks are examples of my personal experience with chat filters, which I firmly denote as ludicrous. They are not suggestions and, should you have continued reading into my final paragraph, you would have noticed that I agree with you: censoring ought to take place on an individual player basis, not per comment.
...also, why on Earth did you quote the entire bloody reply for the sake of leaving a few sentences? A simple @SaintGraye would have accomplished the trick without resorting to essentially double-posting my response.
EDIT: It occurs to me that I may have misconstrued your reply. If so, I apologize for jumping down your throat, though I'm not overly optimistic that's the case.
Fixed as well I am suggesting the same PoV as you so calling me out on it only is a deterant from the point we both share..
Odd you wouldnt like that...
As noted, the possibility did occur to me that I may have misconstrued your response, for which I did and do apologize. In the interest of allowing you to respond without appearing to react to... well, nothing, I opted to leave my initial comment.
Still, as we obviously agree, no harm, no foul, aye?
Honestly this is mee too but all the same I do understand there is a need and the curent systems out there are not doing the job. I tend to chat in non-moderated rooms for the most part though I do block spammers occasionaly.
Profanity filters are generally ineffective since they are easy to circumvent and filtering profanity won't necessarily stop some of the most hurtful things being said. Despite all this I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing to have, considering it doesn't take a lot of effort to implement. I do think good moderation (GMs for example) works far better at keeping trolls and spammers out.
Filters will occasionally filter out words they shouldn't because they contain profanity within them even if the word itself is not profanity. Some examples are words like circumstance, cockatrice, and titillate. Sometimes words that are used by the game itself in a context that won't be considered profanity get filtered: for example bastard sword.
As far as a bad example of filtering goes, I believe in Neverwinter if enough players report you, you receive a temporary ban on chatting. This system is easily abused as a guild or group of players can harass other players by shutting down their chat with a few reports and continue this harassment. Leaving moderation in the hands of other players is almost always going to be a bad thing.
Improving chat filters would be tricky, because the more sensitive you make them the more you risk filtering too many words. People will always find ways to circumvent the filters anyway, so really I wouldn't improve the filters and just leave them the way they are. Focus more on moderation and tools to improve that instead.
@5luck
I get your meaning now with you having put it another way, thanks...I think that much filter control might be a tad excessive though.
@SaintGraye
Given the bulk of what you said about the limitations of the software used and the limitation of filtration in general. I tend to think that what it really boils down to is an instance of dev and community diligence. And, yet another instance where devs should elect to write their own code and not use prepackaged products.
But also in regards to what you said about a sort of segregation of worst offenders...I like Runescape's method for this. That being, Quick Chat. When a player insults people constantly and uses an excess of profanity in normal conversation (a single slip now and then of a profane word is usually not a punished), They are temp muted. And, until their mute is lifted they can only use emotes and the Quick Chat (for some things it's a 24 hour offense, for others it requires going through the account action appeal process). The quick chat is a menu entered into by double tapping enter. It has some first pane short answers like yes, no etc. as well as numbered categories, under which are lettered subcategories, and then things to say.
The quick chat is pretty easy to navigate and can let a player do things like state their level, ask levels, ask about location, and state suggested activities. But besides being muted many players find it useful. Because for instance with stating a level, well...quick chat doesn't lie. also learning a few quick chat codes makes communicating while bossing easier.
@AIMonster
I think players being able to flag only works well if their flags do not have an immediate effect. I would like to see a system where flags alert an actual moderator to take a closer look and make a final decision on it. But agreed that players alone with the power soley in their hands tend to go mad with it.
In Runescape we have player moderators. Their only ability really is that they can report like any other player...but the reports they make go to the top of the pile and stay there until addressed (I think they can also temp mute for like an hour or something in case it is something that needs to be addressed quickly, and disputes against them are handled very seriously. So they must be certain they are in the right). There are problems with this system of course. Primarily that there are not many player moderators. Also that there is no clear path to becoming one. And, that they are not motivated to due a great job by any kind of pay or compensation. Also they have a silver crown in front of their name. Which as you can probably guess can become a burden.
[also i am aware of how often I reference runescape but it is the game i am most familiar with having played it for 12 years.]
Well.. Hrmm.
I can see where that many options might be cumbersome but there is a few upcoming devices that may be of some use.
I read somewhere the new XBOX Kinect system is providing facial expresion recognition and if it can read higher heart rate and expressions of fun.. it should also have the ability to read expressions of mischif and anger and either put comments up for reveiw to a more stringent filter or outright prevent the comment from being submitted
@5luck
Well what I really should have said regarding too many options. Is something about practicality.
Like...If you are able to block someone in chat and have them remain unblocked in trade. While a feature like that is much appreciated the one time out of ten it is applicable. the rest of the time you will get people complaining about how, in order to fully block someone they have to go to each channel and block each aspect of that players ability to interact with them in a meaningful way (as apposed to having an omni button for the action). Also how often will the feature be used even if it is non-intrusive when not used? Most of the time is it just taking up contextual menu space, code space, and game screen space unused? And could development have better gone to a more immediately useful feature?
Additionally people may complain that this one aspect of the game seems unusually deep in comparison to many other aspects of the game. They might feel to much focus was put into a single facet of play. And while not technically imbalanced the game might feel imbalanced because of it. If you put a ton of attention into one small aspect like this. It is only fair to put at least that much attention into every other aspect.
So it isn't that it's not a good idea if done well. Just that it might not be the most practical approach if we can think of something that may be more effective and take less time and resources to implement. But, kicking around ideas is key.
@SaintGraye
I neglected to address your question earlier about my exact interest in this in general (had to give how to put it some thought). To put it best. It simply doesn't hurt to talk about these things. In doing so we figure out our own preferences better. And, who knows who will see it and take something useful from it. There are a good 2k guests browsing this site at any one time. And, of the frequently posting members. I know of at least one who is (or at least had been) seriously involved in building a game. Think tank topics on these forums don't have to have a specific aim because of their wide audience. An arrow will sometimes find it's mark independent of the bow mans aim if there are enough targets on the field. Besides...would you rather I post up a crystal ball thread with a troll bait title?
Sometimes it feels like our culture is on an accelerating spiral leading to the end goal of automated filters and responses being able to remove the burden of actual human thought/decisions.
Personally I do not need a "filter" on chat. Filter or not, annoying people will be annoying. I much prefer an inexhaustible ignore-list with easy addition of annoying elements.
Add the possibility to share ignore-lists, perhaps even within guilds and I will be happy.
Filters always feel counterproductive: Abusive people always find a way around them, often spamming global repeatedly in the process and filters often become annoying because they filter things they should'nt have. Example: In Guild Wars some monsters dropped a "Cockatrice staff". Saying that in chat (or even linking the item from inventory) got you filtered - Leading to annoying: "I'm wielding a ****atrice staff". And yes, even assassins had their share of problems :-)
Save the money on useless filter development and add better ignore options, thank you!
We dont need casuals in our games!!! Errm... Well we DO need casuals to fund and populate our games - But the games should be all about "hardcore" because: We dont need casuals in our games!!!
(repeat ad infinitum)
lol "Assassin" is one of those classic ones that the filter grabs hold of seemingly regardless of the specific game one is playing.
I really like the idea of a shared ignore list amongst a guild (or even friends). Wondering though, do you have an idea of how that might look and work?
The thing with an unlimited ignore list though...I feel that it would be good if it color coded names on it. There may come a point when you want to drop someone from an ignore list. And if it is too bogged down with past names added you may not be able to find the name your looking for easily. If they are color coded to reflect roughly how long ago the name was added it makes it easier to clear out (like wise a shift and ctrl + click, multi selection option would be nice).
Over all though. I view an ignore list to be a type of filter. So, maybe the issue is not so much with filters in general. But simply lack of player control over them on the whole (as it seems that many like ignore lists but don't like the standard censor).
I agree, unlimited ignore list would be hard to calculate cycles on. With shared lists amongst friends and guild it could end up as an outright recursion bomb.
I would be happy with something like:
Personal ignore list: 50 entries. With the possibility to mark 20 entries as "never delete". Once 50 entries have been reached the list is a FIFO buffer for unmarked entries.
Friends ignore list: 150 latest entries from up to 5 friends. This would leave room for friends 20 favorite "stalkers" + their combined latest 50 ignored annoyances. (Some processing power required for handling duplicates, determining aged/stale entries and such. A 1-5 minute delay/scheduling of updating/flushing would be ok.)
Guild ignore list: 200 entries. Almost like "friends ignore list", but without taking "never delete" flags into account. Guild leader/officers should be able to determine which guild members/ranks should have their personal lists included in the list generation.
I hope this gives you a rough idea of what I meant, and no: I haven't even chalked up pseudocode, let alone calculated on the cyclecost for a system like that :-)
We dont need casuals in our games!!! Errm... Well we DO need casuals to fund and populate our games - But the games should be all about "hardcore" because: We dont need casuals in our games!!!
(repeat ad infinitum)
With the guild and friends ignore list it would be cool if you didn't have to make any personal exemptions to it (could but didn't have to). Like an auto bump off when it reaches a max. Old entries getting removed as the newest entries are added. To make sure no one gets bumped off eventually that should always remain on it a guild leader can set ignores/bans from chat to 1 hour/8 hour/12 hour/24 hour/indefinite/permanent...none would get bumped off that have not served a fixed amount of time. and no permanents would get bumped off over an indefinite.
Maybe not quite as intricate as what I imagined. Simpler but cleaner... Would also be a better choice for "whatever chat-daemon" load... And - It would definately work for me. Overall a better design :-)
Someone should consider and expand on this "deluxe ignore functionality" - Heck publishers could save a lot of "chat-police" manhours!
We dont need casuals in our games!!! Errm... Well we DO need casuals to fund and populate our games - But the games should be all about "hardcore" because: We dont need casuals in our games!!!
(repeat ad infinitum)
All the profanity filters are utterly bad and don't work properly.
For instance, try to type the names of authors Philip K. Dick or Michael Moorcock in a game with filters on... and none are a profanity.
That's why I always turn them off. Not to mention people really willing to be rude and offend can easily bypass them.
My computer is better than yours.
At this point with all the evidence against them I really do have to agree that most profanity filters are needless. Maybe if they were written better (better as in not copy-pasted but written for the game by the games developers) they might stand chance at being useful.
Now, I had a thought on this. Maybe the approach is all wrong. Developers are using things like mute, ignore, and profanity filters to try and preempt misconduct and punish it when it occurs. But, where is the reward? Where is the counter balance. If players who who harass, curse, spam and are otherwise disruptive can be punished...Why can't players who elevate, compliment, and try to be helpful be rewarded more?
If we could as players, fame our fellow players for being model citizens. And, if this were visible to others. If their accolades in such were celebrated. Then that introduces achievement into the system. And, with something to gain from being good for the community (as apposed to only something to loose from being bad for it). Maybe players will actually try harder to conduct themselves better. Instead of just trying harder to not get caught or punished for it (which in itself becomes a self-set challenge that they probably feel good about surmounting).
Rewards for helping, encouraging/empowering newcomers to the game could/would be nice depending on implementation.
Credit for being a political correctness zealot/grammar nazi/emo chatjudge of the week: Loved you guys, have fun: I'm out of here!
And yes: I WOULD quit a game, ANY game, no matter how good it was/is if it is governed by PC evangelists!
We dont need casuals in our games!!! Errm... Well we DO need casuals to fund and populate our games - But the games should be all about "hardcore" because: We dont need casuals in our games!!!
(repeat ad infinitum)
yeah player end social moderation does go over the deep end I guess... But I do like games with a mentor system at least. I liked it in maple story. But I felt it was underpowered there, and was more of burden system then anything. I heard it said once about the bible that the entire work tries to answer a question that it poses near the start "am I my brothers keeper?"
Now, i am not religious myself. But, it is a good question. How much am I both obligated and responsible to the well being and good conduct of others. Games often have report abuse, and mute/ignore features. And, that's interesting. One gives you the ability to take action against something, and another the ability to dismiss it entirely. Maybe there is no answer to that question. or maybe we really don't want to answer it. But, I am thinking any good system for this would have to give us the option to go either way on the issue on a case by case basis to start with.