[Mod] bad_words - Warn or kick on certain words

[mld]

-

[Calinou]

Your phone or window isn't wide enough to display the code box. If it's a phone, try rotating it to landscape mode.

Code: Select all

["privs"] = {reason = "Please do not ask for privs", value = 0},
["admin"] = {reason = "Please do not ask to become an admin", value = 0}

The code above has too many potential false positives.

Please, package your mods properly: give them a license and put them in a .zip, with maybe a Git repository.

[Krock]

How about "fu" and "fück" and "fuk you"?
Ingame moderators are a much better software.
Example messages:
"Who's admin here?" -> Do not ask for admin thingie
"Who has the grant privs? I'd like to have interact" -> Do not ask for privs
"BitchBunny: Why do you have a such weird name?" -> Do not swear

[4aiman]

"BitchBunny: Why do you have a such weird name?" -> Do not swear

To my mind, nicks like that should not be allowed in the first place ;)
Anyway, it's better not to warn, but to substitute swearing with appropriate equivalents.
Here's some lists with replacements.
Here's another one :)

[spootonium]

Reminds me of the bowdlerizing word-filters on somethingawful. And the ones on 4chan :-D

I think, however, that it would be more useful and effective to have a /report server command than an automated filter. That way you have a real, thinking human in the loop, who can differentiate between a deliberately offensive epithet, and a string of characters which could very well be perfectly harmless when considered in context.

edit: Today, I learned of a wee Spanish town, called Cunt. Today is a good day.

[4aiman]

/report is good :)
Plus, no one said that there shouldn't be any "human" filter ;)

But it all depends on people and, well, together, some impolite but very-real-thinking-it-is-funny-humans can make someone harmless to be in the reported list. And then an admin would read hundreds of such "reports" searching for smth really inappropriate.
So, my belief is in that it's all or nothing: you swear ANYWHERE - you get warned. You swear 2 times in a row (say, within a minute) - you get kicked. After 3-4 kicks in 5-10 minutes, you get banned for a week. Smart enough to realize that? Ppl on a server probably report about you w/o any "/report" chat command.

Besides, occasional swear is hard to categorize.
But, if you're from Cunt, you probably won't go and tell this to, like, everyone you meet.
So, one would be perfectly safe from getting banned for answering a question like "Where are you from?" with the system above.

RegExp can help searching things like "I'm from C*u*n*t" too and report that to admins. The more time the server lives - the more rules there'll be to distinguish "bad" from "good".
Besides, maybe it would be nice to have a rule on a server to do NOT ask such a "personal" question.
Having some kind of profile within the game is the best way to let people once-and-for-all decide what info they want to share. (Hmmm.. I'll make that into my game :)

[spootonium]

As the OP appears to have abandonned thread, It doesn't look like we'll see server word-filtering or instabans any time soon.

We shall have to agree to disagree on their value, however. I would suggest, though, that wrongful kicks and bans would cause as much frustration, if not actual work, for mods and admins, as specious "/reports", or even lewd language itself.

If by "profile" you mean something like a forum "karma" score, then I should point out you've just implemented a type of report system. If, instead, you're talking about a forum-style profile page, then that itself could easily prove to be another channel for abuse.

[4aiman]

@spootonium, excuse me, but how can anyone be abused by profile? Threre's no place to write anything let alone something abusive.

The profiles itself may be checked automatically and reported to the administration. A good look by a human is all we need by that time. People with some kind of harassment there are to be banned until they fix their info and notify the admin.

NO PMs are allowed.

But my point was different (it still is)
Profile would help players to provide as much info as they are eager to provide.
Any questions like "where from are you?" or "what are you, ten?" (© J.D. Salinger) would be stupid. That would help to avoid mention some inappropriate city/town/village names in game chat too.

It's not a panacea of any sort, but it's a way to avoid talks like:
- Do you know Tim? He said he's from Nahui, got it?
- Ha-ha! Gonna tell everyone!
And to make them look like this:
- Here, look at this guy's profile.
- He's from...
- Tschh... Swearing is prohibited here. Go tell the others! Let them have a laugh :)


Some kind of /report may be send every time when player changes his profile. Maybe based on karma.

Karma - may be based on confirmed/unconfirmed "/report"s + notes made by the administration with (for example) Krock's player_notes mod - is just one thing to be shown in the profile.

Here we aren't to discuss karma in particular, but one vote per player should be granted. The weight of anyone's voice should vary and be based upon the karma of those who voted for that very someone.

Example:

+ Spoiler

- Ted just came to a server. His karma is equal to 1.
- John joins. His karma is equal to 1.
- Ted has turned out to be a good fellow and helped John a lot with wood and cobble.
- John votes for Ted.
- Ted's karma goes up by 1*John's karma. Which is 1.
- Ted's karma is equal to 2 now.
- Kate joins. Her karma is equal to 1.
- Ted helps her too.
- Kate votes for Ted.
- Ted's karma goes up by 1*Kate's karma. Which is 1.
- Ted's karma is equal to 3 now.
- A new guy by the name of Kent joins. Her karma is equal to 1.
- Kent want to build but don't want to dig.
- He asks Ted of resources, 'cause he is acquainted with Kate and she has told him that Ted's a nice person.
- Ted lets Kent to have what he needs 'cause Kent have told him he's from Kate and Ted never had any issue with Kate. Ted did this due to lack of time - he wants to have some adventures, not to be some kind of supplier.
- Kate votes for Ted.
- Ted's karma goes up by 1*Kent's karma. Which is 1.
- Ted's karma is equal to 4 now.
- Kent creates something really awesome! He even lets Ted live inside a new building in a room, specifically made for him.
- Ted votes for Kent.
- Kent's karma is equal to 5 now. He's supposed to be the most adequate person... But he isn't!
- Kent invites two friends of his and votes for them. Both of them have karma of 6.
- May joins the server and see two guys with karma of 6.
- They tell her they have build almost everything here. Well, they and Kent.
- The tell May that she can get any resources from Ted - Kent's best friend and a supplier.
- May does so.
- Ted is pissed off with this behaviour. He finds out who has told May she may have anything she want form him.
- Ted votes against Kent's friends.
- The latter two have karma of 2 now.
- Kent starts to defend his friends and eventually banishes Ted from a house he built for him.
- Ted feels awful he had helped such a guy and withdraw his vote for Kent.
- Kent's karma is only 1 now.
- Kent's friends' karma got recalculated: they had karma of 2 only because Kent had karma of 5. Now Kent's karma went down by 4 and so his friends' karma. So, Kent's friends have karma of 2-5=-3.

The above one is just an example, but having this implemented as a mod would be a nice thing to happen if you ask me.

This karma may be used to decide, should the admin be notified or not if someone swears and no one /report him. After all, there are some places where netiquette is not the most valuable thing.

To sum it up:
I'd be glad to be able to /report some abuse w/o changing someone's karma (maybe because it's not something that concerns me and I just wanted to help someone by reporting but don't want to make sad a person I'm reporting on too much), and I'd be glad to be able to show that I approve/disapprove someone's behaviour by voting and affecting other players' karma.

Tell me who's a friend of yours and I'm gonna tell you who YOU are. Weighted-votes-karma is a good mechanism.

Of course there should be server rules posted ingame or @ server's forum.

[Sokomine]

It does take a human beeing to decide what is appropriate in a certain situation and what not. Automatic filters are very problematic. Most of the time they just inspire players to find ways around them and thus say any swearword they might think of, while at the same time annoying normal players whose chat messages contain something that under some circumstances (just not under those it was used) might make up a swearword. Automatic filters are stupid by design. If a player misbehaves, go and talk to that player - or, as a last resort, revoke shout.

[4aiman]

Sokomine, +1.
Human being should be in charge. But some statistics wouldn't hurt. :)

[spootonium]

... revoke shout.

Heh. It occurred to me to suggest this as a compromise. As much as censorship riles me, if an admin finds it absolutely necessary to protect the delicate sensibilities of his patrons, it would be far preferable to muzzle, than to exclude, especially when there exists the possibility (no matter how remote) for false positives.

It's still my firm opinion that tolerance will breed tolerance, wheras suppression only engenders resentment and rebellion and thus even more deviant behavior.

[4aiman]

@ spootonium, don't you agree that there are things that should not be tolerated?

Offtopic. I've remembered this:
- So, you have a sign on your back saying you're a very tolerant, I-don't-care person. Is that really so?
- Yep.
- So, would you care if I'll punch you in your face?
- Nope.
- And how about kicking you in your back?
- Nope.
- Then how on Earth you're an I-don't-care person anyway?
- I DON'T care I have that sign on my back.

@ all
I'm all for people being nice towards each other, but there are too much buts. Spell the last one with double "t", if you feel it'll be more suitable here :)

[spootonium]

I had a scathing (and eloquent, if I do say so myself) reply to this, but my login timed out while I was writing it. Here's the tl;dr version:

1. I am more than familiar with the "paradox" of tolerance. Indeed, tolerance must have limits, but that cannot by itself invalidate tolerance as an ideal. The very notion of tolerance is that it denies absolutes of behavior, therefore, it is no contradiction that tolerance itself cannot be absolute. Speaking of absolutes of behavior...
2. Your arguments thus far only acknowledged one possible context in which a "bad word" might occur: a deliberate desire to cause personal offense. While I agree that such an attack is unhelpful in any context, and inexcusible in most, it is not the only possibility. In judging behavior, context, motivation, intent, and consequences are far more important factors than the naked act itself, or even a series of acts. Computers generally (and scripts especially) are ill suited to such complex and nuanced appraisal. This is one big reason why we still have judges and juries, instead of Blake's 7-esque justice machines.
3. If a community summarily (indeed automatically) excludes an individual, without the possibility for discussion, moderation, reparation - in short, without the possibility of justice - nothing can be resolved. The victims can gain no closure, and the perpetrators become victims of the (literal and fugurative) system. The net result is resentment, leading to defiance, leading to further (and worse) delinquent behavior, and so on. That considered, we'd have been better of simply ignoring the behavior.
4. A climate of censorship, in which people cannot openly express what they think, not because of the intrinsic consequences, but for fear of external punishment, is a decent and polite society in appearance only. In truth, it conceals an act of violence by those wielding authority against those without.

Ok, not so tl;dr, but the point is that what you have advocated in this thread runs against the grain not only of FOSS (and therefore Minetest), but pretty much all of the modern (little "d") democratic ideal. Sorry, dude.

[Inocudom]

I had a scathing (and eloquent, if I do say so myself) reply to this, but my login timed out while I was writing it. Here's the tl;dr version:

(...)

I pretty much agree with what was said here.

[stormchaser3000]

why did the maker of the mod blank the topic?

[4aiman]

@spootonium:
Please, don't try convince me I'm wrong if you didn't get my point.
Your pp #3 & #4 clearly show that you didn't. Besides, democracy is a lie in a society where the freedom of speech is used to abuse people.

I already said that there should be a human "in-between". Just read my posts with a little bit more attention.

Just in case, I'll duplicate my thoughts below:
1. We should give people some way to share a certain amount of personal info they are eager to share. In some countries it's considered impolite to ask any personal questions to a stranger. Speaking of tolerance, we should credit that possibility. That's why profiles w/o mailing system are a good choice.

2. Community is NOT the key to punish people. But community CAN help. Weighted karma points is good enough to show the relationships between players. Especially if the list of those who like/dislike any particular person are publicly shown in the profile.
One can't do anything to avoid some *jackal* from licking administrative *butter* to get buffs of any kind - like positive karma. But it would be obvious for anyone where this karma goes from.
So what has changed? Statistics.
Statistics like weighted karma shows who has gained respect and by what means. If someone was made moderator by the admin - it'll be shown. If community liked or disliked this new moder - it'll be shown.
So, my point is: any common administrator (who can't play all day but have some other business to do) will benefit from this system. It's about getting info, not banning!

3. "Censorship" is a harsh word for what I was proposing. Substitution of words isn't something that I've invented. It wasn't invented a couple of days ago too.
The point is: There is no excuse for letting anyone abuse others with swear. Ppl on a server would guess what was meant to be said anyway - they're not dumb. But substitution will secure minds of those who can't understand what word was replaced. Some ten Y.O. girl probably shouldn't know some words (if there are parents who have taught her the basics of the art of being nice to people). I deliberately avoid words like ethic and aesthetic, but I don't want to hear words like "блядь" or "ёбаный гандон" in a chat. (Sorry, if you know Russian and this abuses you, but it's the very essence of my point.)

4. Why are you so sure that with substitution people wouldn't be able to express themselves?
They will. But w/o too much harsh words. There isn't a way to block all swearing, but even a little part being filtered is good enough. Besides, there are ways to make this filtering more "intellectual".

5. Fear of the external punishment isn't so bad. Your country DOES have some laws. Do you really think that all of your countrymen are so lawful only because it's their inner ideal to not harm the nearest person? If you do, then you have far too idealistic views. There are tons of *freaks* who want to harm others. I myself was nearly squashed by some jerk and his car just because he wanted me to feel fear for my life. One may say it's because I pissed off him, but no - he was a total stranger.
But I'm not talking about that kind of people. I'm talking about those who can "stay clean" only if there is a Drug Court watching them (just google for "drug courts" or "Matthew Perry"). I'm talking about those who KNOW they'll do smth inappropriate if there would be a chance to get dry out of water. Not only swearing, but stealing, scheming etc.
If fear is the only way to help them contain themselves - so be it.

But nothing will stop someone if he/she wants it and has no fear to be punished.
On the other side, if you're a nice person, you have nothing to fear anyway.

Besides, there's a human being which decides who was naughty and who gets a real present for Xmas.

PS: It's always funny to read about tolerance - none of the authors have any idea of what he/she is talking about. Even limited tolerance can be more dreadful than total anarchy.

TL;DR: Rules are meant to be broken. I want to help the system which is about to be broken to last a little bit longer.
One can say anything about tolerance or freedom, but there are mods like this, player_notes, future_ban, autoban, protector, simple_protection, shared_autoban and others. Don't you think there are reasons for such a variety of restrictive mods? I do.

[CWz]

why did the maker of the mod blank the topic?

because everyone might have scared him off. i still have the mod somewere

[4aiman]

why did the maker of the mod blank the topic?

because everyone might have scared him off. i still have the mod somewere

Too bad TS did it...
BTW, I remember that old MT forums had a rule that promised a ban for clearing topics. (Was introduced after community pissed off some members of it so much.)

I hope that author reads this and this thread would stir him towards making an awesome mod.
I also hope he didn't take all of this personally.

[spootonium]

Before things get too heated, I want to make absolutely clear that no personal attack is or has ever been intended by this or any previous post. I am, after all, arguing for tolerance, moderation, and a measure of leniency. Nonetheless, what I cannot tolerate, and what I am attacking in this thread, is the notion that an appeal to propriety, seemliness, sensibility, or polite reserve can ever excuse any degree of censorship. And no matter how softly and prettily one tries to package it, an attempt to remove, obstruct or curtail an individual's ability to express themselves openly constitutes censorship.

In this thread, have at various times been advocated:

• Summary exclusion (kicking and/or banning) of individuals, based on triggering an automatic word-filter,
• Automated expurgation (redact-&-replace) of public speech, based on same,
• Restriction of personal expression, based on same.

Now, to exercise reserve and decorum in one's own speech is indeed desirable, even laudable. It demonstrates a degree of sensitivity and respect, and an assumption of cordiality and goodwill. I hope it has been noted, that despite arguing firmly on the side of free speech, I have nonetheless refrained from being too liberal with my own language. What I must argue, notwithstanding, is that there is a significant and vital difference between a simple desire for politeness, and an enforced demand for conformity, or imposition of an arbitrary standard. The one does not, and cannot, justify the others. Instead, such a demand or imposition necessarily negates any assumption of cordiality or good faith, to say nothing of respect. One cannot claim to be encouraging good - or even appropriate - behavior, by denying any alternative course of action. To promote good behavior through coercive means is self-defeating.

@4aiman: Relax, man. It ain't about you.
It ain't about me, either, for that matter.
It ain't about who is right.
It's about what is right.

[Sokomine]

1. We should give people some way to share a certain amount of personal info they are eager to share. In some countries it's considered impolite to ask any personal questions to a stranger. Speaking of tolerance, we should credit that possibility.

No chance to know such things beforehand. There are players from all over the world mixed up on servers. The only way is to be tolerant and talk to each other and explain if something goes against what is considered appropriate in one culture. It might be perfectly innocent in another. The /msg command can be a great help here.

Some time ago, I read a web page (partly) explaining the mysterious behaviour of some Americans. They sometimes get so exited about things that Germans get puzzled and believe they did something utterly wrong (i.e. are not taken seriously, a joke beeing played on them, the other side used bitter irony), while the American is just trying to show that it was the perfectly right thing and he's happy. On the other hand, when the American side seems extremly happy and satisfied (by German standards), it might just be politeness and anything but satisfaction. That's quite diffrent over here. In the German culture region, we do utter critizism if something is not absolutely perfect - but that's no problem. It's an indication that we care, do take an intrest, and want things to progress and improve even more, and are happy :-). Now, those cultures are not even that far apart. Still, mutual understanding isn't always guaranteed. We all need to talk to each other and try to figure it out.

Weighted karma points is good enough to show the relationships between players. Especially if the list of those who like/dislike any particular person are publicly shown in the profile.

Urgs. I'm afraid such an approach is pretty dangerous with human beeings around. That'd open grounds for quite a lot of mobbing. It can destroy a community. IMHO it's far worse than a few people swearing here and there. Of course poeple do like each other to a diffrent degree. But to show it publicy as a value is very very dangerous.

So, my point is: any common administrator (who can't play all day but have some other business to do) will benefit from this system. It's about getting info, not banning!

Hmm. Perhaps as a statistic of who used how many suspicious words (in relation to how much the player said at all) might help in order to identify players whose behaviour might be problematic and where a closer look at the chat might be appropriate. That might indeed help. The display of those statistics ought to be limited to moderators. If misbehaving players can view their own statistic, they will be motivated to increase their score by showing even worse behaviour.

But substitution will secure minds of those who can't understand what word was replaced. Some ten Y.O. girl probably shouldn't know some words (if there are parents who have taught her the basics of the art of being nice to people).

Perhaps they do know those words. Still, an automatic filter might help a bit if your player base contains many very young players. Kind of like not letting those too young on the Internet without supervision.

here are tons of *freaks* who want to harm others. I myself was nearly squashed by some jerk and his car just because he wanted me to feel fear for my life. One may say it's because I pissed off him, but no - he was a total stranger.

That is very bad. Hope that person gets his driving liscence revoked and taken care of. Such behaviour is a criminal offense over here.

I'm talking about those who KNOW they'll do smth inappropriate if there would be a chance to get dry out of water. Not only swearing, but stealing, scheming etc.

Ah. Filters as a way of helping people who can't control themshelves enough, perhaps even installing those filters on those people's requests? There may be some people who may want this. Rare, but can happen.

On the other side, if you're a nice person, you have nothing to fear anyway.

Unfortionately, with automatic filters, that's wrong. You even have to fear more if you're innocent than if you're a yerk trying to insult everyone who's not on the tree on three. People who want to can circumvent filters. But automatic filters will inavoidably catch innocent people.

One can say anything about tolerance or freedom, but there are mods like this, player_notes, future_ban, autoban, protector, simple_protection, shared_autoban and others.

I was against the Landrush protection mod for a long time due to that mod harming players who digged in protected areas - banning regular players who did nothing wrong (except not noticing that a flower was protected because they had a bit of lag or where concentrating on building). The system hit innocent people at least as often as it did guilty ones. Fortionately, the system seems to no longer harm players. That's a good improvement.

Nonetheless, what I cannot tolerate, and what I am attacking in this thread, is the notion that an appeal to propriety, seemliness, sensibility, or polite reserve can ever excuse any degree of censorship. And no matter how softly and prettily one tries to package it, an attempt to remove, obstruct or curtail an individual's ability to express themselves openly constitutes censorship.

Censorship/free speech is not that much of an issue in my opinion. Most servers are operated by individual people. They pay for the server. They make the rules that apply to those servers. If one doesn't agree to the rules, it's best to look for another server. There are other ways and more appropriate situations/places for free speech.
Some servers even forbit mentioning/advertising for other servers. This is fortionately less common on Minetest servers. There are plenty of good ones out there, and it's important that people find servers which fit to them and which they like. It's worth taking a look at other servers as well.

Short summary: I doubt that automatic filters help much (except with a very crowded server and lots of very young children). I want humans to take the final decision if something is appropriate in their eyes or not. Software just hasn't reached the KI stage necessary to make that decision. Perhaps it never will. So...use such an automatic filter if the audience of the server demands it, but please don't trust a program's decision blindly! That's all I really want to point out.

[4aiman]

@spootonium, I'm as cool as ice. Sorry if I sounded irritated.
Your words are logical. Mine too.
But... maybe it's just me, but I feel like I'm telling: "Hey, statistics are good to help an admin" and getting answered with "No, automatic decisions are bad, human should decide". I can see no logic here.
So, I decide to alter my words to show what I meant in case I sounded confusing. But the answer is the same: "Human should decide".
I won't repeat that human should decide, though. I've said that already ;)

@Sokomine and @others

All I wanted is to show ways where some statistics can help to administrate a really populated server. I guess my experience of implementing things like I have told everyone here is rather positive (summarily 4 years of hosting a minecraft server): weighted karma with extra info, profiles - all of those turned out good. There was no need to ask person of some personal info or trying to get karma points - low/high karma w/o complaints from players is just a number. And the only complaint I've heard was: "he was near my house when it had burned/exploded/etc". But there are logs for this. And those are statistics too.

So, I agree with your summary :)

[spootonium]

I'm beginning to feel that this debate could drag out forever.
However, there is one final caveat that I feel compelled to make with specific regard to statistics. (It may already have been made, but I can't find a quote, so pardon me if I'm repeating something.)

The impartiality of statistics is both variable and manipulable. That is not just my opinion - any statistician will tell you the same. "Karma score", in particular, can be a bit of a misnomer. While it is excellent at determining what/who is popular, it is markedly less reliable when it comes to gauging merit and character. It might be quite reasonable to predict that a helpful and well-behaved person will likely be popular, but it does not necessarily follow that the reverse should be the case. That becomes a problem when the number underneath somebody's name becomes a basis by which you judge them.

I hope that doesn't sound like a "Parthian shot" at your expense, 4aiman, but it seems like you were after a specific reponse. Take it as you will.

[4aiman]

Spootonium, sorry, dude, but I weren't for "a specific response".
I'll keep it short since it's hard for you to read me (on the other hand why should you?):
* "Your experience is the same as mine in terms it's definitely not the only one possible" - that was the point you've missed.
* If someone judges another one by number of excellent marks in his/her diploma - shame on that person. Life is certainly unfair and statistics is not the way to fix it.