Oh dear ...
http://www.noswearing.com/dictionary
I was going to say that we could probably do a pretty good job at coming up
with a list ourselves, then I saw this site and realized I'm a complete
novice ...
Could we also filter at the MP server level? It might be nice to filter at
the sending level so you could give the user some positive feedback if they
type something that won't get passed along. But as imperfect (and possibly
entertaining) as any list would be, it might not be a bad idea to do some
basic screening of the more common words. That stuff is unnecessary and in
real life you'd probably get your license yanked if you were caught using
foul language on the radio.
As with the rest of life, it's nice to run a 100% completely open and free
system, until a few idiots start abusing the privilege and then we are
forced to start clamping down. :-(
Another thought. I know it would be a huge effort to setup a system with
user id's and passwords, self registration, captcha's, email verification,
etc. Even more interesting if we want a distributed authentication system
on top of our distributed mp server system. But if we could expand the MP
system to include a user id with the intent of eventually tying this to a
user account/authentication system, then we could flag and identify abusers.
We might have some developers or participants who are really good at this
stuff and would love to setup a system??? If we developed it in parallel,
we could still have the current system running by default as we bring an
authenticated system on line. Then we'd be able to determine if the
authenticated system works well, makes sense, helps address abuse, etc. And
at some point when it's working well, we could cut over to it. Or
individuals could make their own personal decision about which system to run
on (hopefully the tide would shift over to the authenticated system.)
Abuse could involve more than language or threats on the chat system. It
might be worth slapping someone for leaving their AN-225 parked at the end
of 28R at SFO for 3 days straight or perhaps doing other things
intentionally to disrupt the realistic flight experience of others on the
system.
I know we have some good php/mysql jockies in this project ... I don't think
we need to be cryptographically secure in our system. Just thinking out
loud here: maybe the mp server computes a random "key of the day" (16bit or
32bit random number). You have to authenticate with user name/password to
get the key, and then there would be a slot in every output MP message from
your system for this key. (This would all be handled internally to
FlightGear some how ... maybe you could set your username/password via
command line options or properties in the config file, or set them in a
dialog box and then they'd be saved in your autosave.xml file.) Messages
that don't have the matching key would be silently discarded. Sure this
could be hacked, but I think some basic simple levels of authentication
would take care of 99.99% of the riff raff.
Regards,
Curt.
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:01 AM, Jack Mermod wrote:
> > Hi Everybody,
> > I recently was on Multiplayer, flying with a friend, minding my own
> > business, when another pilot asked a general newbie question: "Where can
> I
> > find the Nimitz?". In only good intent, I replied: "Look around the
> Golden
> > Gate Bridge, you'll find it eventually." The pilot then proceeded to
> > criticize my short answer(typing long detailed replies isn't easy when
> > you're trying to land on a carrier), and soon began insulting me, using
> > foul, profane language, and finally proceeded to threaten to come to my
> > house and kill me and my family.(I'm 68 and I even learned some things!)
> <snip>
>
> I thought you were 24 (based on your forum profile)?
>
> One fairly easy option would be to filter MP chat messages in nasal
> based on a set
> of unnacceptable words. We could do this on the receiving client and simply
> not display such messages. I've been thinking this would be a good idea to
> make the FG MP environment more child-friendly anyway.
>
> I'd also be tempted to filter on the sending client as well, and not
> allow a message
> to be sent with such content. This would at least notify the sender of the
> standard of language we expect, though they could bypass it fairly easily
> if they hacked the Nasal.
>
> Probably the biggest challenge would be finding a GPL list of naughty
> words. I
> haven't yet done any research so see if such a list exists. One feels that
> this
> must be a problem other chat systems have had to solve.
>
> This won't stop the problem completely but might discourage such behaviour.
>
> -Stuart
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Download new Adobe(R) Flash(R) Builder(TM) 4
> The new Adobe(R) Flex(R) 4 and Flash(R) Builder(TM) 4 (formerly
> Flex(R) Builder(TM)) enable the development of rich applications that run
> across multiple browsers and platforms. Download your free trials today!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/adobe-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Flightgear-devel mailing list
> Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
>
--
Curtis Olson:
http://www.atiak.com - http://aem.umn.edu/~uav/
http://www.flightgear.org -
http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/curt/<http://www.flightgear.org/blogs/category/personal/curt/>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download new Adobe(R) Flash(R) Builder(TM) 4
The new Adobe(R) Flex(R) 4 and Flash(R) Builder(TM) 4 (formerly
Flex(R) Builder(TM)) enable the development of rich applications that run
across multiple browsers and platforms. Download your free trials today!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/adobe-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Flightgear-devel mailing list
Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
