Censorship in Albion Online?

  • Piddle wrote:

    You don't get to just say things and demand that I believe they are true. Especially not something this made up and dumb. You also failed to include any of your, devastatingly important, ARGUMENTS.
    Where are the arguments at buddy? Your dog eat them?

    Peak autism detected (Lmao just read the thread, like REALLY read it).

    The freedom of speech portion (literally first 4 paragraphs of wikipedia):


    USK 12 portion:

    Hattenhair wrote:

    Neesh wrote:

    If minors are allowed to play, then why isn't the profanity filter FORCED for every bad word? Have you thought about that? Isn't that better to protect that players by doing that in your point of view?
    If there is a profanity filter, and you can deactivate it, why some words are impossible to say but others don't? Even if using both are against section 13 of the terms of conditions?
    Apparently Albion has to stretch it for a USK 12 rating because the requirements for operation of USK 16 rated content were apparently written by someone with borderline retardation.

    You literally cant run your service from 6:00 to 22:00 if you are rated USK 16.

    Optional filter is not optional part (I kid you fucking not, how hard is it to understand that even if turned off it still applies to some words?):

    PrintsKaspian wrote:

    Added optional per-language profanity filter that can be toggled via Settings




    Hattenhair wrote:

    and the best they can mutter in responce is some off-side joke

    Piddle wrote:

    Where are the arguments at buddy? Your dog eat them?
    AHAHAHAH, speak of the devil and he comes.

    No better than a shitter once again piddle, you keep dissapointing me.
  • is this some kind of trend now? The difference between let's say Facebook and Twitter and an online rpg game / forum should be clear.

    This is not a public platform where people can rant their shit and hide behind some text written by (rather smart) people in 17th century. I want more restrictions, personally. It is a fantasy setting RPG. You can bring your RL shit to other platforms. This should be about playing the game.
    IGN/Discord : Ravenar#2076
    Join Albion
  • Ravenar wrote:

    is this some kind of trend now? The difference between let's say Facebook and Twitter and an online rpg game / forum should be clear.

    This is not a public platform where people can rant their shit and hide behind some text written by (rather smart) people in 17th century. I want more restrictions, personally. It is a fantasy setting RPG. You can bring your RL shit to other platforms. This should be about playing the game.
    To be fair, Facebook and Twitter are not public platforms. They are also privately owned which is why they can (legally) do some of the things they do as far as censor/ban/etc.

    But again I argue that the OP, everyone, is free to say (type) whatever they want. Nothing is stopping them from doing that. The side affect of being in a privately owned space is that the space owners chose to not allow certain things to be heard (read) by others.

    So say what you want and accept the consequence that no one may even hear you if what you have to say breaks the owners rules.
    Are you a PvPer or a RAT? Take my PvP Challenge and find out!
  • I have a pretty good copypasta I made for 4chan posts that come up with this subject. I'll remove the bad words.


    >muh TOS
    Legit _ _ you corporate bootlicker. Just because they have a line in paragraph 425 section 2 of the CALL OF DUTY MODERN WARFARE(TM) penal code that says
    >OH LOL IF U SAY THE WORD _ WE'RE GONNA SEND A GROUP OF 20 _ TO YOUR HOUSE TO _ YOU FOR 10 HOURS AND PEEL OFF YOUR SKIN WITH A BOXCUTTER BEFORE POSTING IN ON LIVELEAK LOL SORRY
    Doesn't make it right you_ _ _ _ _ _ . Shut the _ up you _ _. Not mentioning the obvious fact that no one in their right mind is going to spend their time reading through the entire _ corporate schlick schlock terms of service, but even if you did read and understand what the _ every single line in the ToS lets you and forbids you from doing most companies have lines in their TOS that basically say
    >OH LOL BTW WE CAN CHANGE ANY OF THIS _ AT ANY TIME WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE ABOUT IT
    I'm tired of this _ _ non argument and what's worse i can't even tell if you're a corporate _ shill or just some braindead reddit _ who is actually ok with these _ _ consumer practices. No me saying "_" or "_" shouldn't be grounds from a permanent exclusion of my account because this isn't _ North Korea and i'm not insulting the great glorious leader Kim and if the _ that i'm insulting has a problem with it he can always just
    A) Take off his headphones and close his eyes
    B) Mute me
    C) Turn the game off
    D) Not be a _ and banter back
    So, please, for the love of GOD shut the _ up about your stupid _ TOS excuse.

    -----------

    I miss the good old days where there weren't timid taddle tells and babysitters in video games who try to police gamer words.
    I make Albion tutorial videos and have the 2nd result for SEO currently. 13,000 subscribers and counting.
    https://www.youtube.com/swolebenji
  • SwoleBenji wrote:

    I have a pretty good copypasta I made for 4chan posts that come up with this subject. I'll remove the bad words.


    >muh TOS
    Legit _ _ you corporate bootlicker. Just because they have a line in paragraph 425 section 2 of the CALL OF DUTY MODERN WARFARE(TM) penal code that says
    >OH LOL IF U SAY THE WORD _ WE'RE GONNA SEND A GROUP OF 20 _ TO YOUR HOUSE TO _ YOU FOR 10 HOURS AND PEEL OFF YOUR SKIN WITH A BOXCUTTER BEFORE POSTING IN ON LIVELEAK LOL SORRY
    Doesn't make it right you_ _ _ _ _ _ . Shut the _ up you _ _. Not mentioning the obvious fact that no one in their right mind is going to spend their time reading through the entire _ corporate schlick schlock terms of service, but even if you did read and understand what the _ every single line in the ToS lets you and forbids you from doing most companies have lines in their TOS that basically say
    >OH LOL BTW WE CAN CHANGE ANY OF THIS _ AT ANY TIME WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE ABOUT IT
    I'm tired of this _ _ non argument and what's worse i can't even tell if you're a corporate _ shill or just some braindead reddit _ who is actually ok with these _ _ consumer practices. No me saying "_" or "_" shouldn't be grounds from a permanent exclusion of my account because this isn't _ North Korea and i'm not insulting the great glorious leader Kim and if the _ that i'm insulting has a problem with it he can always just
    A) Take off his headphones and close his eyes
    B) Mute me
    C) Turn the game off
    D) Not be a _ and banter back
    So, please, for the love of GOD shut the _ up about your stupid _ TOS excuse.

    -----------

    I miss the good old days where there weren't timid taddle tells and babysitters in video games who try to police gamer words.
    Ahahha, this is gold.
  • Piddle wrote:

    Hattenhair wrote:

    Peak autism detected (Lmao just read the thread, like REALLY read it).

    The freedom of speech portion (literally first 4 paragraphs of wikipedia):
    Just read your own posts. Like, REALLY read them.

    Hattenhair wrote:

    P2: (Absolute) Freedom of speech literally means that you can express yourself in any way you desire and with no interference which comes with the added caution of receiving backlash from speech etiquette based on social norms that prohibit the usage of some topics such as pornography, gore and other unpleasantries. Note that norms dont prohibit any of those topics, and punishment of any of that would completely shatter a "Freedom of speech" scenario.
    Do you read my posts either?
    The OP didnt specify the type of Freedom of speech he was talking about, so i made an assumption what kind of it his argument talks about the most.
    Its RIGHT THERE IN ROUND BRACKETS, ILL COPY IT ONCE MORE JUST FOR YOU:
    (ABSOLUTE)

    You are sitting here trying to nitpick posts to keep your forum reputation eh?
    Well you still have 2 more arguments to "disprove", and if you dont lack common sence on a fundamental level, that would be really hard.
  • Hattenhair wrote:

    You are sitting here trying to nitpick posts to keep your forum reputation eh?
    Well you still have 2 more arguments to "disprove", and if you dont lack common sence on a fundamental level, that would be really hard.

    Talking about the USK isn't an argument. Pointing out how the filter works, is also not an argument.

    I'm also not required to take you seriously at all. The minute I get bored of pointing out how stupid the things you post are, I'm going to just dip. Nothing you have said so far in this thread has had any intellectual or philosophical value. You just keep saying you don't like how things are and then you go around the internet looking for justification for your deep residing sadness.

    But, you are so hungry for justification that you grab at anything you see and latch on to it for dear life, as if copying and pasting a Wikipedia entry is going to somehow finally bamboozle everyone into thinking that you aren't some flailing, frothing, little teenage yeet-lord.

    As to my reputation, I have to feel like I am on brand here. I don't know what you have heard, but belligerent narcissist is completely within my wheel house. I have been working tirelessly for years to make sure there is as close to a 0% chance that anyone will take anything I say seriously. My sort of theoretical goal is unapproachable giant asshole. This way people don't bother me too often unless they are really keen on something.

    To that end, lets do a little aside about sentence structure.

    Hattenhair wrote:

    Well you still have 2 more arguments to "disprove", and if you dont lack common sence on a fundamental level, that would be really hard.
    So apparently I have 2 arguments left to disprove, and "if don't lack common sense", or put more simply "if I have common sense", then "that would be really hard".

    So, your sentence paraphrased is, "You still have two arguments to disprove, and if you have common sense, that would be really hard."

    All I am saying is that if you want to be on this power trip where you are demanding respect and for people to take you seriously. You should probably say things that make actual sense.

    I can only assume that what you intended to say was that "You have 2 more arguments to disprove and, since you lack common sense, that will be really hard." But, you fucked it all up. Just like always. Just like Mom and Dad always said you would.
    Discord: Piddle#7413
    Did he who made the Lamb make thee?
  • Piddle wrote:

    Talking about the USK isn't an argument. Pointing out how the filter works, is also not an argument.

    I'm also not required to take you seriously at all. The minute I get bored of pointing out how stupid the things you post are, I'm going to just dip. Nothing you have said so far in this thread has had any intellectual or philosophical value. You just keep saying you don't like how things are and then you go around the internet looking for justification for your deep residing sadness.

    But, you are so hungry for justification that you grab at anything you see and latch on to it for dear life, as if copying and pasting a Wikipedia entry is going to somehow finally bamboozle everyone into thinking that you aren't some flailing, frothing, little teenage yeet-lord.


    So apparently I have 2 arguments left to disprove, and "if don't lack common sense", or put more simply "if I have common sense", then "that would be really hard".
    So, your sentence paraphrased is, "You still have two arguments to disprove, and if you have common sense, that would be really hard."

    All I am saying is that if you want to be on this power trip where you are demanding respect and for people to take you seriously. You should probably say things that make actual sense.

    I can only assume that what you intended to say was that "You have 2 more arguments to disprove and, since you lack common sense, that will be really hard." But, you fucked it all up. Just like always. Just like Mom and Dad always said you would.
    I made a low effort meme for this whole part.



    Piddle wrote:

    As to my reputation, I have to feel like I am on brand here. I don't know what you have heard, but belligerent narcissist is completely within my wheel house. I have been working tirelessly for years to make sure there is as close to a 0% chance that anyone will take anything I say seriously. My sort of theoretical goal is unapproachable giant asshole. This way people don't bother me too often unless they are really keen on something.
    Fair enough on the asshole part otherwise.

    Piddle wrote:

    Hattenhair wrote:

    But his main point still stands beyond all criticism: Optional filter is not optional.
    You don't get to just say things and demand that I believe they are true. Especially not something this made up and dumb. You also failed to include any of your, devastatingly important, ARGUMENTS.
    Where are the arguments at buddy? Your dog eat them?
    If youre gonna phrase it that way, mind elaborating what was this exact reply for?
    The OP's main point is "Optional filter is not optional", so i provided you with evidence backing up that point.
    Dont quite get it where its "Not an argument".

    P.S.
    The USK 12 part certainly gives more information as to why such a filter was introduced, if not a fully fledged argument, but it definetly gives valuable insight into the problem.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Hattenhair ().