I wonder if the name John Hancock will fail the filter, like it does on some other forums that I read. It's sad when one of the Founding Fathers gets censored. Probably why he was pushing for independence to begin with.

My personal example of the filter fail in STO is when I typoed "Heart of Tard" on the subject line of an e-mail I was sending. I guess tard was filtered as an urban version of "******". But then again, maybe not.

John Hancock, John Hancock, John Hancock. <<--Just had to get it out of my system.

I just want to stand up and say that I understand cryptic's filter.

The very first thing naughty people try to do is to circumvent the profanity filter. Clearly,

"T I T" or "isnT IT" are attempts to circumvent the profanity filter.

I believe a possible solution is to add reserve words as acceptable to the filter.

For example,

"Isn't it" and "isn't it" would be allowed. "isnt it" is bad spelling, so nice dice. We could also include "assassinate", "Assassinate", "Assume," and "assume."

Then all we would need is community/developer interaction to maintain the list. In game reference would be awesome, but that is a lot of work for the devs.

We could help the devs by making a list of ridiculous phrases we need for missions getting profanity flagged, and that could start us on the right track.

Another quick solution would be allow peer review -- 5 people sign off your mission doesn't have profanity.

My problem is that I've tried to make the dialogue as "Trek" as possible, and words like da_______mn & he_____ll have both been said by Kirk, Riker, O'Brien, Picard, Janeway, etc.. Numerous times in the series and movies.

I think there should be a brief text-review by a dev before a mission goes "live", that way context can be taken into account. It will slow down mission publication, but it will also allow for better missions. Lets face it, if your first review is from a dev, you're probably going to give their feedback a bit more weight than johnny-whats-his-face.

For example, I recently published a KDF mission where you call a Cardassian Captains bluff, I wanted that Cardassian to get angry and say "Da___mn you!" and then concede defeat, something we've seen time and again in episode after episode, swearing in contempt and frustration, but noo..

Cryptics Profanity filter is set for 8 year olds (who most likely do NOT play this game), not teens and adults (who primarily play this game).

Seriously Cryptic, pull the PRUDE out of your backsides. You are taking it to ridiculous levels.

Creating ones one bad words for the purpose of storytelling has been done before. By Star Trek alum Ron Moore who went on to develop the reboot of Battlestar Gallactica, and coined the term"frak".

Perhaps a similar approach can be done for storytelling purposes.

I for one, as a reviewer, would not in any way flag a UGC mission due to a word used to show emotion in storytelling, like the example above of "dam+n" or "H-e - double hockeysticks." or"frak" being used. as long as its done so in a way thats appropriate to the events of the story.

Now having "frak off" be a responce to an admiral's hail for a mission instead of "continue" i would flag. I would laugh first, but flag it.

Personally, I think things that spaces shouldn't factor in to the filter. After all, if people want to begin changing the spelling of words, they'll find a way to bypass the filter.

Far better solution is just to ban the actual words and allow users to report the mission for attempts to get around the filter. A Cryptic employee then reviews it, just like they would any other petition.

it might help if you spell Targ correctly. LOL, sry.

yeah, the filter is a little too sensitive.