> Well on the mud I've been on for a few years now, we have two ways to
> string. We have a mob that will do strings. Costs 50 glory and any mortal
> can go to him to do it. You can also go to an immortal and have them do
it.
> Now if your worried about inapropriate things. You can also do something
> like the mob. And then do work filters like str_infix(string, "butt") And
if
> they try using any of those words just have it kick them out. If you do
that
> tho remeber to use something to strip the color off the string. So it's
> looks at words not {RB{ru{Rt{rt{x :PThere's more ways to be inappropriate then just using forbidden words though. And there are certain words that are perfectly acceptable in some situations, which would not be appropriate at other times (i.e., "a pair of rubber pants" might be okay, but "a giant rubber" would probably not be the kind of thing you want to occur). Also, do you want mortals the ability to restring something like a ring with a short description of "Thomas' ultimate super cool weapon of doom" with the keywords "pie is fun" and a long description of "There is nothing here, move along now." While there is pretty good reason to believe they don't do anything _this_ outlandish. But restringing objects with keywords that don't match the description in order to avoid looting issues is something that 'resourceful' player killers will be more than likely to utilize. Allowing mortals to restring things from what they are (a ring) into something they aren't (a sword) is more of a subjective call, but generally its not something I try and encourage. But a lot of these judgment calls really can't be made by simply parsing the string and doing word comparisons. Well, they could, but it'd be an incredibly complex algorithm. I still think having a trusted user (like an immortal) at least say "Yeah, that looks okay" is probably the best solution, as opposed to trying to track down abuses after the fact. -- Thomas Hughes
