Chat System Anomalies - Disecting the flaws.

[Edward Edgemenace]

Originally Posted by ex8404

Been playing for a couple of years now and I can safely say that in all that time, I have never used, or tried to use, the word "calendar."

Just sayin'...

Every guild with over 100 members that I've been in, has had a calendar. Just got into the habit of calling it an "event list" instead, because "calendar" was blocked for so long. Last December, I tried to coordinate and schedule a scavenger hunt on the POF calendar - it was definitely blocked from in-game chat at that time.

Originally Posted by bartholomew bladeroberts

if only i had my chat log for a couple days ago i don't know what word set it off but i was trying to say
ME ahoy krewe would you mind helping me with somthing
BBK sure what is it
ME I just got new soft ware that records games (game cam) and i was wondering if you wanted to help me test it out on a boss battle
BBK what
ME my message didn't go through
its things like that that get me a bit ticked off

Thank you - I'll add "TEST IT" to the list of prohibited keywords.

[Big Bad Wolf]

If i remember correctly, the chat started malfunctioning when the new islands and the mini player card kicked in early 2009.

It would be interesting if we could bug report it LOL.

Or even go on Live Chat and demand a straight answer as to why there is a "secret filter" in our communication and make the Live Chat rep give an account as to that (which I'm pretty sure they would not be able to answer it anyways, I think i could be a better Live Chat rep than them Lol)

The only way to combat this problem right now would be playing 2 pirates at the same time to ensure that chat flows. The other solution, highly popular but seemingly unapt for good mickey followers, is to chat on another communication platform. If the chat is flawless there wouldn't be a need to chat outside the game, so should Mickey tell us again why do they subtlely disapprove it?

[Dog Firestack]

Saying Your Black does the trick I think.

And I say it like, Did you get your black belt yet?

[Isaiah Ropeswine]

Nice job on this mate, this is very helpful to all of us pirates that chat in game. Must have taken you a while.

[Edward Edgemenace]

Added "your black" but baffled that "you're black" isn't filtered. What are they even trying to filter? Anyhow, forgot to verify "for some" when I was double pirating, so I'll add that when I double up again.

Originally Posted by Isaiah Ropey

Nice job on this mate, this is very helpful to all of us pirates that chat in game. Must have taken you a while.

Preparing for a scavenger hunt last winter, we had to verify every line of text the weeks before. On the day of the event, some lines of text still didn't get through, as the filter seems to change from day to day. It also filters differently when a speed chat plus person is in hearing range.

Yes, figuring it all out has taken a enormous amount of time. Ironically, with a smoother design, they wouldn't waste anyone's time, nor endanger anyone, nor frustrate the broad majority of their customers. (Most, who don't even realize they are being undermined by the server side filter, instead left to assume this community is just rude.)

[MacIronhawk]

Unfortunately, I think they have more things to worry about than bad behavior from players.

They're taking WAY too long on a second story quest, and in only a few months, it's the third year of POTCO. That's it, and we still haven't seen a second story quest.

There's no excuse. There's just too many more things to worry about than some chat problems.

While it's a big thing they should worry about, they just can't. POTCO is almost down the drain, and if they can save it with another story quest or two, they will, and if that means letting the chat system stay unfixed, oh well.

Extremely good observations here. It's amazing what they let through and don't let through.

[Dog Firestack]

Another one to add is for some.

[Edward Edgemenace]

Mac,

I don't disagree. For POTCO to make a comeback, they need real content - the ever promised 2nd chapter of the story quest and the Kraken boss battle.

This thread, however, is about an entirely different, relatively minor disaster. Since no other thread discusses the chat flaws in detail, it makes perfect sense to me, to compile as comprehensive list as possible here. Will Disney spend time on it? That's up to them. When the time comes that they DO decide to review or revamp the chat system, my hope is that they will find this very thread and be helped by it. They still have the option of continuing to ignore it; given past history, they probably will do just that, instead, opting to work on whatever mini-game or cellphone thing they wanna. Fix the chat? Add the 2nd story? Those things probably sound too daunting for them to work on, any time soon.

In the meantime, this thread can perhaps help players compile other restricted keywords, so we at least know what words to avoid. E.g. the word "it" - replacing the indirect article with a specific object, greatly increases the chance of a line going through. "Hit the storm reaper!" instead of "Hit it!"

[MacIronhawk]

Are there any words in the chat that can be considered offensive but aren't blocked?

[Captain Sureshot]

Originally Posted by Edward Edgemenace

... as the filter seems to change from day to day. It also filters differently when a speed chat plus person is in hearing range.

I know the white list and black list used to be maintained regularly. And yes, the white list seems to trigger based on Speed Chat Plus players being "in hearing range", both geographically and as part of a chat group (crew, guild). It appears that one of the bugs is that if a Speed Chat Plus player leaves, the white list is sometimes still used as a filter. Not totally sure though, as we never really bothered to see what all of the different scenarios are. Good luck on that EE, I feel for you lol

(Most, who don't even realize they are being undermined by the server side filter, instead left to assume this community is just rude.)

You know EE, while that may be your assumption (not getting a response so the player/community is rude) it might not be so safe to assume that it is also everyone else's assumption. For example, if I am in a conversation with someone and they seem to just stop responding, I assume they went AFK, found themselves busy with something else, or (more recently) maybe there is something buggy with POTCO lol. I am not offended and I don't categorize them as rude for something they apparently did not say. The only time I would ever consider someone rude for not responding is if they were like you, someone who is familiar with chat system anomalies and considers a non-response rude.

In real life, in a face to face conversation a non-reply could be construed as rude, in-game there are too many other possibilities for me to jump to such a negative conclusion.

[Edward Edgemenace]

Originally Posted by Captain Sureshot

...
You know EE, while that may be your assumption (not getting a response so the player/community is rude) it might not be so safe to assume that it is also everyone else's assumption...

It is not my assumption. Your implication that I assumed anything of the sort, is insulting. I'll assume that was not your intent.

The impetus for all of this, was someone thinking I did not respond to their question. The fact that their question(s) never went through, was lost on them. Within this game, similar scenarios play out daily for me - but I'm one of the few people (probably less than 5% of people playing) that notice what's happening.

For example, if I am in a conversation with someone and they seem to just stop responding, I assume they went AFK, found themselves busy with something else, or (more recently) maybe there is something buggy with POTCO lol. I am not offended and I don't categorize them as rude for something they apparently did not say. The only time I would ever consider someone rude for not responding is if they were like you, someone who is familiar with chat system anomalies and considers a non-response rude.

Based on your bad assumption that my third person statement was somehow a first-person comment, your ire is misdirected.

In real life, in a face to face conversation a non-reply could be construed as rude, in-game there are too many other possibilities for me to jump to such a negative conclusion.

That's fine for you, but the broad majority of players in this game, in fact, do assume they are being ignored. Particularly true, when the person is right in front of them, fighting their enemy (for example.) In every way, the chat is meant to imitate normal human communication as best as possible. How often, does "silence denote consent?"

For myself, the only time I assume anything about in-game communication, is when I already know the person I'm talking to, very well. With crew matching, lookouts, public boarding and invasions, I estimate less than half my in-game communication is with someone I know well. Maybe you only interact with a small closed group of people, but most people in this game, do not.

With each example above, more light is shed on just how absurdly extensive the "black list" filter is. For most of the isolated words and phrases, it is not clear at all, what the black list is even trying to prevent.

Again, if Disney were to indicate to EITHER the sender or the listeners (or both) that the chat line did not go through, this thread would be moot. Since Disney does not give any such indication, most people are left to assume the worst.

Originally Posted by Nate Swordwalker

That's because what you should say is " I could use another gunner. "

I seriously doubt their intent is to promote proper grammar.

"Swift Foot II drank" ORLY?

"Sink 5 Navy Predator ships" ORLY?

If they are going to begin giving grammar lessons, perhaps they ought to hit the books themselves, first. A thread to catalog the game's bad grammar, would be a hundred times longer than this.

At any rate, "You can use my ship." does not go through, today.

[Captain Sureshot]

Originally Posted by Edward Edgemenace

It is not my assumption. Your implication that I assumed anything of the sort, is insulting. I'll assume that was not your intent.

no no no EE, not at all trying to insult you. No ire, either.

That's fine for you, but the broad majority of players in this game, in fact, do assume they are being ignored.

My apologies again for assuming that you were assuming how other players react in situations. I didn't want to assume that you were making an assumption, lol, but I couldn't find this information after an extensive web search. Where did you get this fact from?

Thanks again for all the time and effort you have put into this and all the other contributions you make.

[Captain Sureshot]

Originally Posted by Edward Edgemenace

...the broad majority of players in this game, in fact, do assume they are being ignored.

Where did you get this fact? Or is it an assumption on your part?

[Edward Edgemenace]

Originally Posted by Captain Sureshot

Where did you get this fact? Or is it an assumption on your part?

It is no assumption: 100% of the time chat filter has been an issue resulting in a dispute within numerous large guilds, the person filtered was offended at being ignored and said so. This is not merely dozens of times, but over a hundred times in my indirect experience. Try being an officer and mediating situations; you will find this chat filter being partly responsible almost every time.

I don't know why you would insist on your repetitious implication of the opposite. Since you have said you use other communication, you obviously can't appreciate just how frequent this is, for normal players in this game. I am assuming, based on your militant insistence, that the entire guild you are in uses some external communication method. So in-game chat anomalies do not affect you nor your guild, at all. Talking (chit-chat) as you type, it is very clear when something doesn't go through. You know within 3 to 5 seconds from the time you press "Enter."

But for normal people playing the game, it is very different. Without any knowledge of the server-side filter, the most natural human assumption is that the message did go through (because the game indicates that it was sent successfully) when in fact, it did not. Every dispute I've mediated where this chat filter was an issue, people have said that they were being ignored. Not some, not most, not merely dozens: every one.

[Captain Sureshot]

lol EE, it took a month and a half for that?!! And you still can't give me a source for your "fact" that "the broad majority of players in this game, in fact, do assume they are being ignored." I want a source for your fact. Empirical data of the POTCO playing broad majority and their assumptions. Something from when you first posted your "in fact" statement. Waiting. Yawn.

Originally Posted by Edward Edgemenace

It is no assumption: 100% of the time chat filter has been an issue resulting in a dispute within numerous large guilds, the person filtered was offended at being ignored and said so. This is not merely dozens of times, but over a hundred times in my indirect experience. Try being an officer and mediating situations; you will find this chat filter being partly responsible almost every time.

I don't know why you would insist on your repetitious implication of the opposite. Since you have said you use other communication, you obviously can't appreciate just how frequent this is, for normal players in this game. I am assuming, based on your militant insistence, that the entire guild you are in uses some external communication method. So in-game chat anomalies do not affect you nor your guild, at all. Talking (chit-chat) as you type, it is very clear when something doesn't go through. You know within 3 to 5 seconds from the time you press "Enter."

But for normal people playing the game, it is very different. Without any knowledge of the server-side filter, the most natural human assumption is that the message did go through (because the game indicates that it was sent successfully) when in fact, it did not. Every dispute I've mediated where this chat filter was an issue, people have said that they were being ignored. Not some, not most, not merely dozens: every one.

"...over a hundred times in my indirect experience"!?! well, there's irrefutable empirical data on the broad majority if I've ever seen any /sarcasm LOL