onRemotePlayerChats(obj, str) for NPC's
 

It would be awesome if it would trigger when an NPC's chat is changed as well, or at the very least, get an onRemoteNPCChats(obj, str).

This would make much more sense I would think, but I'm not sure exactly how it would work since simply reading when the npc's chat changes wouldn't always work if the NPC, for example, repeats itself (assuming that's how the function would be called, since the client can easily tell when a player chats due to the chat bar but it's not so simple for npcs).

I would like to have a way to change the own player.chat locally. Yea, I know, sounds awkward. Let me explain. Let's say the player enters "Hi there" into the chat bar and hits enter. Let's also assume that some dork added "there" to the clientside swear filter. Last, but not least, the player has this swear filter enabled (it's optional :redface:), but most of the other players don't. My goal: filter the word locally for the player, and show it to those who have the filter disabled.
Way too complicated explanation for such an easy thing. Well, you hopefully know what I mean anyway.

like in a game not allowed to be discussed on the forums?

Then just use something like this clientside:
Other players won't see the change because it is clientside.

Well you could just use onRemotePlayerChat, which is clientside; All you have to do is have this function for those who want swear filters, and have it filter the remote player's chat. As it's clientside, it will only apply to the player who is running the swear filter, and not for all the players it is actually censoring.

I guess I forgot to tell you guys that onRemotePlayerChats() doesn't get triggered when you yourself chat.

Edit: Also, it seems you misunderstood me, Dusty. I want to achieve a swear filter which each player can toggle for themselves, so they either see every swear word, or they don't. There's not supposed to be a mix between visible swear words and censored ones.

So your own chat doesn't get filtered? Kind of see it as a benefit... I mean, if I want others to be censored, that's good. I mean, what difference does it make if my own chat is filtered? That just means while I may not want to hear curse words, those who don't care can hear them, even from me.

However, I wouldn't be opposed to a sort of player.localchat var or something.

edit: That's exactly what onRemotePlayerChats() will achieve. I can toggle on swear filter and then use onRemotePlayerchats() to censor the chat of all the other players on my screen without actually changing what they say. They get to swear and I get to censor it for myself.

Well, I think it's a bit awkward if your own chat doesn't get filtered.

Well if they don't want to see cursing then maybe they shouldn't curse? Or just go ahead and censor their chat anyways with onPlayerChats to show everyone else they have their chat censored.

It would be filtered for other people who have the swear filter, though. Plus, it would stop people trying to evade the swear filter so much by modifying the word beyond recognition, because they wouldn't even be aware what was filtered and what wasn't.

And it's relatively easy to filter out the commonly used filter evasion tactics. Most people simply just do not do it.

Personally speaking I think a word filter is useless. It would be much more efficient and logical to have an option to ignore/unignore an individual player's chat in-game, which would simply prevent the ignored player's chat from being displayed to the ignoring player at all. ^^

If such a private filter is implemented most people would not need to try to evade it as it's so low-key that it'd be nearly impossible to tell who has their chat filtered and who doesn't. It's so non-invasive that most would have no need to try to avoid it.

I don't disagree, I just don't see the need to implement a filter where a simple ignore option should otherwise be available. If a person is truly offended by another player's chat, "filtering" one or two words isn't going to change the obvious meaning of the offending statement, thus the offensiveness still remains and the filter has just been invalidated.

Consider: "You're an a55hole noob loser." > "You're an ******* noob loser."

There is no difference between the two as both are obviously meant to be insulting. The fact that the insulting nature of the statement doesn't change is reason enough to simply have an ignore option.

Just my opinion of course, but again, I see little to no real logic in implementing a filter. Being completely ignored has a much more dramatic impact on asinine people, as it is generally the attention they garner from upsetting people that provides them with the motivation to do so. Remove the motivation, the behavior tends to change. For those people who don't care, my suspicion is that they don't care to the extent that it will lead to their no longer being able to play for other reasons (committing violations that leave them jailed and/or banned for periods of time).

Because there are varying degrees of what people want to tolerate? Some people just don't like to hear cursing, it doesn't mean they don't ever want to hear what a person has to say. Most of the time it doesn't even come down to insults. Sometimes people just don't like to hear/see the words, whether they are meant in an insulting way or not. If this is a private thing, why does it matter to anyone else what this person wants to censor for their own personal benefit?

Goes hand-in-hand with the playerlist ignore function. Sorted. ;)

Folks, can we please get back to the original issue? Crow, make your own thread >:/

Yeah see that's nice and simple.

This just seems like nonsense to me. 'I want to see what you have to say but I don't want to see all of what you say'. If there are actually more than a handful of people who are that up-tight and anal regarding such a thing I am literally frightened. If you're uncomfortable with a person's language you are uncomfortable with that person in general and would have no reason to care what it is they're talking about. If an 8-year-old is capable of having a conversation without needlessly using profanity, so is a person in the age range of 13-50+. The fact of the matter is that people need to conduct themselves with a little more tact and class than they tend to. It's certainly not as though using profanity adds anything to a conversation, and having hangups over someone using "bad words" is rather pathetic in itself (though that's a totally different discussion).

In any event, other servers are of course free to implement whatever rules and deterrents they choose to implement, and my feelings on the matter only reflect my own opinion and intentions not to implement what I consider unnecessary on a server in which I am responsible for. I'm pretty simple in that regard: You either need to ignore someone, or it isn't big enough of a deal whatever it is they're saying.

Again, I don't disagree that some of what you said has merit, I just don't agree that a filter is a necessary device in general.

THREAD HIJACK!caps

It's not nonsense, it's peoples opinions. It's basically a lot of how cursing and censoring works. A lot of people believe that someone can get their point across without spewing a profanity every other word. They want to hear their point, but they don't want to hear the unnecessary cursing. Censoring profanity works this way because people may be interested in something but not want to see/hear some things they may not agree with. Why is it nonsense? Like I said, it's their own personal choice, no one else would be forced to be censored because they do, so why is it that big of a deal? Why does it have to be "I either want to listen to you or I don't"? That' such a black and white stance, when there is plenty of room for various mid-points and balance. I think it's silly to try to push your views as superior and others as nonsense just because you don't agree with them, especially with something as minor and non-invasive to you as this.

As for the original topic, it's done, what more is there to talk about, really?

I made it a point to state an opinion and say that my opinion was just an opinion. I certainly didn't say that the entirety of my opinion was superior, as I'm sure others such as yourself disagree, and that's also fine. I'm sure there are people who feel the same way you do, though I don't suspect that would end up falling into a majority categorization. I definitely agree that communicating with profanity is a substandard method of communication, but certainly people have the maturity to either disregard the profanity or ignore it outright. I personally see this specific instance as a black and white issue, but if players were more in favor of the filter method as a whole I would be happy to oblige their wishes. I would include the ignore option as another option for those cases that may constitute a more extreme measure.

Regarding the original topic, I'll just echo what Dusty said.

Why do they have to disregard it or ignore it if there is an alternative method? Why should we be so dictating over how people address their own views? Why should you force your opinion over theirs via gameplay methods? If I can allow someone to censor profanity because they want to, then I'll let them instead of forcing my own opinion of 'deal with it or ignore it completely'. In the end, they're the ones playing the server, not me or you.

I just said that if my players wanted a filter I would make it available. I added that I would also include an ignore option for those who wish and/or need to use it. It's the best of both worlds, having more choices as a player. I'm confused why you still seem to be arguing about this when I've already provided you with a more than acceptable compromise to my original suggestion (one that even agrees with your own).

Because no one ever said they'd exclude an ignore feature, lol... so I'm not exactly sure where you came to the conclusion that swear filter meant never having an ignore feature. Especially when we were only discussing the mechanics.

I simply meant (and I believe I stated) that on a personal level I'd rather just have solely an ignore option. That doesn't mean of course that I am necessarily correct in assuming that should somehow be the global standard, because as you said people have varying degrees of feelings regarding the matter in general. I also never drew the conclusion that a swear filter meant disregarding an ignore feature, it just wasn't really stated beforehand. In the future, I'd suggest that you ASSuming facts not in evidence can occasionally be a bad thing, and if for some reason one of my posts inferred that I was ASSuming to some extent as well then I will apologize for doing so and take this opportunity to clarify. I'd encourage you to do the same.