Thanks, I figured there had to be something there...

If you use the 'warn' action then the player gets an admin messages as warning, and the pm is of course not sent. When using filtered words in chat/nick/toalls then you get the specified warning message as chat text.

It's still not working for me. I saved Stefan's rules.txt and uploaded them directly to the wordfilter folder. I said the word... (no, not with a question mark, with a "u" :P) and nothing happened. No log, no RC message, no asterisks, nothing. It doesn't require an NPC Server, does it?

If you followed those steps, I do not see any other reason for it not to be working aside from the lack of an NPC server.

I did, so that's the only thing I can see wrong as well. *pokes Stefan*

Actually, I don't really care if it doesn't work, as it's not really needed. I was just messing around with it. :P Stefan, don't waste your time fixing it if it doesn't work without an NPC Server, we'll live.

ACTION log tellrc warn

My guess is that it is a spinoff of sendtorc, and requires an NPC server.

Well actually, we used your example rules which had the f word and the b word.
Also it seems to me that the order of the ACTIONS will change the result dramatically, in that if a certain is in front of another it might just disable some of the actions after that. Stefan, is this true?

Too bad I had removed that and actually just used log, which shouldn't require an NPC Server.

Okay, then this is far beyond my knowledge of scripting. I suggest forum pming Stefan.

Fine, I'll hold your hand as we take a trek through the wonderful world of logic.

Statement made: "It's too bad I already have a profanity system, or I'd use this one."

Logic: If you have the choice between using two things which perform the same function, and things such as cost, etc, are not a factor, which do you choose? The better one, correct? (unless, of course, the two are equal, at which point it becomes arbitrary.)

From this comes the inference. Thus, my first point's validity is proven.

Now, had he been more clear in why he did not use it (perhaps he thought they were equal, perhaps he wanted to utilize something already made, whatever), then this whole situation would not have arisen. Thus, my second point's validity is proven. :)

How could one be better than the other if they both perform the same exact function? The decision would more overly have to be arbitrary, then.
I'm sure he would've taken this into consideration if he knew people were going to misinterpret a simple flaw in his post. But that doesn't mean you should argue with him about it. That's rediculous.

hmmm
 

is it just me or is it everyone. The word cant is not in rules.txt but some reason it manages to bleep it out.

Re: hmmm
 

Probably because it's quite similar to a rather crude word that could be censored. Ask yourself: What if the 'a' were replaced with another vowel?

Of course, if you used 'can't' then it wouldn't be as likely to happen. Apostrophes are so helpful.

For one, they don't. Aside from that, two things performing the same function can have differences: I could make a script to calculate 2+2 such that it'd lag the server to hell. I could also make a script that it would do so in a microsecond. Which one is better? They both perform the same function, they just go about it differently.

I'm arguing with his attitude, not with the lack of clarity of his post. He said my posts should be deleted, and has yet to provide a valid reason that they should be.

Then in that case, it's logical to say that whichever provides more efficiency is the one that should be chosen.

Ahah, I just found a repetition. You're inferring that you misinterpreted what he said in the first situation, yet now all of the sudden I'm misinterpreting what you're saying. So you can't argue with him about that whenever you're not in a better situation than he is. I thought you were interpreting his clarity, not his attitude. His attitude has nothing to do with what we're currently talking about.

I have to agree with him. You've already proven your point. I think mine should be deleted, too. These threads are only proving nothing except for the simple fact that they are extremely off-topic.

And don't you ever get tired of begin a living smart ass?

Stay out of things you don't understand, Tyrial.

Nice, Stefan.
Would be cool if there were a 'SCRIPT/SCRIPTEND' option too for doing a few other tasks after someone swears.

How about no?


Edit: I understand enough, you are against Loriel, and he's a very good friend of mine.. so i'm gonna stick up to him.

Stop acting like you are superior than any other human being, sure you may be more intelligent and more wise, but that gives you no right to insult Loriel just because he have a negative opinion of this silly addition.

But you don't understand, Kaimestu is not 'against' Loriel, he just doesn't like the fact that Loriel seems to make the opinion of a majority his own. I fail to understand how you got Kai saying he was better than everyone else in the post, you are assuming way to much to put up a valid arguement. Plus there is the fact that he wasn't insulting Loriel, he was questioning him.

They don't, the wordfilter filters the words before they are sent to other players, a scripted one wouldn't

Loriel knows that I don't mean him any real offense. You're only making yourself look foolish by defending him against a non-existent attack.

yeah what you said didn't seem like something he'd take offense to.

Not if the actual word filtering engine was scritped to be clientside, right? The soon-to-be-filtered word wouldn't be sent to other players if the engine caught it on the clientside part before zipping to the serverside. Am I right?

I saw it as an insult, so i got in.

No really, we should rename the logo to "Graal: Argument Center."
:\

look, I was there when Stefan added it, I know how it works, when a player chats it sends the text to the server, it's always been that way, the server then sends the text to the other players which makes it appear over their heads. It sends the text to the server, the server filters it, then its sent to the other players.

Deek mistakenly used the phrase "word filter engine" to describe his hypothetical clientside word filtration script. He's arguin that if it filters it clientside before it's even sent to the server, that it would be better, or something. I'm not quite sure.

Regardless, in his version, I do believe he is mistaken - it'd still send the swear-filled text to the server, but would send replacement text shortly after that (When the next .05 timeout executed, presumably).

Perhaps you should let Loriel defend himself, if and when the need arises.

But that would only add lag, wouldn't it?
player->text->[clientside filter]->server->players
The text would be filtered before it even gets displayed to the other players.

^^

No, you misunderstand what I said. Two sets of text would get sent to the server, not one. Though, I suppose it depends on whether or not all data is passed out as it's received, or if a delay occurs between the receiving and sending.

Will the word s**t be blocked as well? I have logs/screenshots of you saying it twice and I remember seeing it in that one mountain quest on G2k1 when the one bomy says "They even eat and -insert digestive waste word here XD-"

The PW manager will decide which swears will be blocked, but I imagine that most would indeed censor that word.

And why would this be? I'm assuming is that the two texts being transmitted would be the origional draft and a copy of that draft with the world filtering completed on it.
There would most likely be a delay. Though that delay is dependable on alot of factors, not including the structure of the word filter.

Man, you people sure get offended easily.. :\

You talk -> It gets sent to server

Chat is examined and things are replaced -> It gets sent to server

Again, though, that depends on how it's handled, we'd need more information about how the client and server communicate.

Could we not just assume that Great Coder Stefan, working on Graal since eternity, knows best how to handle such things and therefore follow the path he leads us on?

:D Indeed.

Isn't a toall chat anyway?
<toall:I'm a COW>

Would like an 'IGNORE' action, so we can have words that are ignored from the censor. (I want to censor 'ass', but enable 'assistant', 'assume', etc, rather than censoring every godforsaken combination of 'ass' and an insult).

Nope. Note that you can say something overhead, such as "cheesecake is yummy", then toall, and your chat text will still read "cheesecake is yummy."