Rule Change-

[SerLuke]

In regards to number 2, that isn’t entirely true I have the filter on I’ve also seen people do lots of things to bypass it.

[Nikolas_Wolfe]

Well that in its own regard is something different. I understand that people bypass the filter, they do so in most other games with a chat filter.

It seems that those who bypass the chat filter do so because they perhaps are unaware of the ability to remove the filter?

But I mean the general use of profanity, without bypassing the filter.

[Arrhin]

Also, run on sentences is the best sentences, don ya think?

[DumdogsWorld]

Also, run on sentences is the best sentences, don ya think?

I don't know what a run on sentence is so you should explain it to me and give me some examples and then send me back to grammar class.

Sorry...I'll leave.

[Arrhin]

I don't know what a run on sentence is so you should explain it to me and give me some examples and then send me back to grammar class.

Sorry...I'll leave.

I hate periods and punctuation, sentence flow. I type the way I talk..def no queens English here

[Nikolas_Wolfe]

Context is very important when determining whether or not a report should be acted upon, I only say so in my experience and a few friends. We have been suspended for casual profanity. We never aim harassment at another player, just for emphasis as stated above.

I even tried to explain this to the GM who disregarded pretty much everything I had said.

I feel it's incredibly biased to not view the context.

I also feel we should be told what we were reported for so we can have the chance to explain the context ourselves, as opposed to just being in the dark and unaware of what we have been reported for.

[Penthea]

I feel it's incredibly biased to not view the context.

It's just lazy. If SE don't want people saying certain words then the profanity filter should not be able to be switched off.

By having an optional profanity filter you're sending the message that the filter is only for your personal use. By forcing it on all the time you're sending the message that the words it filters out are not okay under any circumstances.

Yes I know people will find ways to use profanity around a filter but the point is they would be purposely doing so while knowing the game completely forbids it. So they would be aware that they are most definitely breaking a rule. As it is now, the profanity filter being optional can be misleading.

[Bonbori]

By having an optional profanity filter you're sending the message that the filter is only for your personal use.

It is for personal use. But the choice has nothing to do with the profanity rules. Rather, the option determines how the in-game chat is displayed on your end - modified or unmodified. The option to turn it off is there if you don't wish the chat to be altered by an algorithm that could potentially produce false positives and impact the clarity of communication. It occasionally happens and is annoying so having the ability to turn it off is simple QoL.

However, whether or not the game filters out profanity is irrelevant to the ToS which objectively and explicitly forbids it. The message that it's bad comes from reading the ToS, not exploring the options menu.

I can see your side to this, of course there is a limit when general banter becomes inappropriate.
But let's say you're in a duty roulette, you make a mistake and die to a mechanic. You say "oh s*** my bad lol"
Is that really something that should be reported? Especially when there are filters in place, and filters that are removable.

That is the only thing I just can't understand.

And according to their rules 3.3 states profanity or offensive language. Something that a reasonable person might find offensive. So you can be in your FC chat with friends, and someone you don't know well or for whatever reason doesn't like you, (maybe you had a falling out as friends) and they decide to report you and claim to be offended. Is that fair or justifiable?

I suspect the vague "reasonable person" clause is there to cover cases like this. In both of your examples, the tired, overworked GM who had the misfortune of receiving that report would be the final arbiter of whether it came from a reasonable person or not. Should they decide the report wasn't reasonable... well... abusing the report function is itself punishable for wasting the GMs' time.

It's important to keep the human factor in mind. The judgement will depend on the context, the GM's subjective policy... or even their mood that day. So that's why I advocate just... never putting oneself in a situation where they could be reported for profanity. It's a gamble one doesn't have to take - cursing in any given situation is a conscious choice - so if it comes back to bite them, ultimately it's their own fault.

[Penthea]

The message that it's bad comes from reading the ToS, not exploring the options menu.

Yea but who reads the ToS? Seriously? I haven't seen a single one that wasn't excessively long. And often they're written in a manner that even native speakers of the language would find difficult to understand, because it's essentially a legal document. Not something designed to be easy to read for the end user.

[Bonbori]

Yea but who reads the ToS? Seriously? I haven't seen a single one that wasn't excessively long. And often they're written in a manner that even native speakers of the language would find difficult to understand, because it's essentially a legal document. Not something designed to be easy to read for the end user.

Sure, but the rules apply regardless. Somehow I don't think "I didn't read the ToS, you can't ban me!" has ever changed a GM's mind.