21 Nov, 2007, Zenn wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
Over at the MU* Wiki we've been talking about MWRS. (Imagine ESRB ratings, but more specific and better fit for MUDs). I'll copy the post here so you guys can toss in ideas..

From MU* Wikia
A MU* rating system is, in my opinion, something that needs to be more specific to MU*s than general ESRB/movie-style ratings, so I decided to toss this out there.

*X* A MU* that is sexually oriented.

*A* A MU* that contains much content not for younger kids.

*16* A MU* that may contain some inappropriate content.

*13* A MU* that is appropriate for most teen/tweenagers.

*G* A MU* that is appropriate for all ages


I think we ought to have all the MU* places (I.E. TMC, MudMagic, Mudbytes) enforce this sort of rating system on their pages.

Zenn 15:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we can force any other MU* advertising site to do that, but I think it's totally fair to ask for that sort of information on the MU*Wiki.

–Stamp 22:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
21 Nov, 2007, bbailey wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
How is this different from or better-tailored for muds than the MPAA ratings? Granted, it's a starting point, but these ratings seem even more vague and arbitrary (I'm assuming the 13 and 16 are meant to be age indicators) than the MPAA's.
21 Nov, 2007, Zenn wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
That's why I posted it here. It needs to be improved. :P
21 Nov, 2007, bbailey wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Zenn said:
That's why I posted it here. It needs to be improved. :P


Given that you thought it worthy of bringing over and improving.. what are your first suggestions?
21 Nov, 2007, Zenn wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
My first suggestion?

That other people offer suggestions.

Hehe

But really, it's just a concept.
21 Nov, 2007, Asylumius wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
One of the main reasons I've kept my nose out of the topics of MUD ratings is that I don't really feel we completely need them and/or people will regard them.

I started MUDding when I was 13 and if the MUD I played had a rating that excluded me I would have played anyway. Likewise, MUDs aren't box software on a store shelf that require a parent or ID to buy if you're too young. Branding a MUD "not suitable for young children" due to violence, sexual content, etc. is both very hard to do accurately sometimes but probably wont be taken very seriously anyway.

I'm all for adding support for some kind of volunteer rating system for our MUD list in the form of a rating or classification. Maybe even a flag on files that says they contain adult content, like a sexacts socials code or something.

Although not a bad idea, even if done correctly I doubt they would actually be used as intended. That doesn't mean it isn't worth doing, but it's something to consider.
21 Nov, 2007, Hades_Kane wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
I imagine there would be some liability for the MUDs in question if they rated their game and gave any impression that their game is appropriate by way of said rating, because it is extremely difficult to regular the non-static content in a MUD.

While I think the overall idea, giving a consistent measure of content in relation to age or maturity, I do agree it could use some work. I would advocate something like this, but I think the potential liability would need to be considered, along with obvious disclaimers that point out that said rating applies to static, Administration created content and is in no way an indication or promise on the type of content that may be encountered that the Administration doesn't or can't regulate.
21 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm more for checking boxes along the lines of: "this MUD contains graphic violence", "this MUD contains slight/moderate/heavy sexual content", etc. Let people determine for themselves what "rating" to give it. A rating seems rather narrow-minded. I suppose you could give sub-ratings, like the level of violence, the level of sexual content, the level of mature language, etc.
22 Nov, 2007, kiasyn wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
I'm more for checking boxes along the lines of: "this MUD contains graphic violence", "this MUD contains slight/moderate/heavy sexual content", etc. Let people determine for themselves what "rating" to give it. A rating seems rather narrow-minded. I suppose you could give sub-ratings, like the level of violence, the level of sexual content, the level of mature language, etc.


This sounds better than the ratings to me.
22 Nov, 2007, Guest wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
I had suggested to Asylumius recently when he asked about ideas for expanding the MUD listings that some checkboxes be included to address some of this. Soem of them for features, others for content flags, such as "contains adult-only material" or "portrays graphic violence". A system like that would probably be largely honor system since verifying accuracy would mean the need for auditors and such. Unless someone reported an inaccuracy that could be easily verified.
22 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
I think it's fine to have an honor system. Has there been a case in the past of an egregious violation that went unnoticed for a while? I think that's almost an oxymoron: if it's an unnoticed, egregious violation, who cares? :smile:
22 Nov, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Samson said:
I had suggested to Asylumius recently when he asked about ideas for expanding the MUD listings that some checkboxes be included to address some of this. Soem of them for features, others for content flags, such as "contains adult-only material" or "portrays graphic violence".


Different countries/cultures have different views towards sex and violence, and this is reflected by the different rating systems they use for movies/etc. I think it makes sense to have a rating system that recognises the international nature of muds, and splitting sex and violence into separate categories sounds like a good start.



To give you an example:

Where I live, it's acceptable to have posters of naked women on train station walls (advertising for museums, etc), pornographic magazines are sometimes placed in the front window of newsagents, TV and cinema adverts can include frontal nudity, and so on. Once, while walking around my local shopping mall, there was a body-painting exhibition going on - lots of young women stripped down to just skimpy knickers/panties (i.e., topless) were standing around all over the place, being painted, while thousands of shoppers walked past (and ignored) them. You'll see nudists in my local park whenever the weather is nice (although you'll really wish you hadn't), and there are sex shops and strip clubs all over the place. There are also brothels, although they don't tend to be advertised so publically.

On the other hand, numerous movies and computer games get cut for violence - for example GTA removed the blood, cut various animations (such as decapitation), removed rewards for killing civilians, and prevented you from squishing people while driving. Last year, politicians in my state's government even drew up draft legislation for punishing "cruel violence on humans or human-looking characters" inside games. Early drafts suggested that infringers should face fines or up to 12 months' jail for promoting or enacting in-game violence…
23 Nov, 2007, Conner wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Wow, Kavir, sounds like your state's government would really love most PKers…
23 Nov, 2007, Hades_Kane wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
Conner said:
Wow, Kavir, sounds like your state's government would really love most PKers…


I think KaVir's government has their priorities straight.

But yeah, I think that a series of check boxes would be preferable to a rating.

What might be appropriate?

-Violence Level
-Sexual Content
-Drug Use
-Language
24 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
I guess those four sound appropriate, although I'd like to see more than just a yes/no checkbox; maybe three levels: "none", "moderate", "heavy".
24 Nov, 2007, Conner wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Um, who's defining these moderate/heavy categories?
24 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
That's a good question. I'm assuming that we (well, the admins, with our input perhaps) would define them ahead of time. "none" is pretty obvious; "light" might mean for violence that there are people getting whacked and maybe knocked out or "gently" killed; "moderate" means there's some blood involved; "heavy" would mean limbs being chopped off, gore, blood spurting, etc. For sexual content, "light" might mean kissing and petting; "moderate" could mean non-explicit 'frolicking' (as it were) and "heavy" would mean the textual equivalent of X.
24 Nov, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
Those category levels sound highly subjective to me. Personally I'd rather just see a couple of checkboxes for "Extreme violence" and "Sexually explicit".
24 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
So you only have a binary choice: nothing specified vs. the extreme. Clearly, we want to differentiate the extreme, but it seems equally desirable to hit the middle ground between "none" and "extreme". Besides, what is "extreme violence" or "extreme sexual content" to begin with? "Extreme sexuality" might mean different things across cultures… implicit sex (i.e. without describing the "bits and pieces") might be enough to be extreme for some people, whereas others would draw the line at explicit descriptions. No matter how you look at it, there is a fair amount of subjectivity…
24 Nov, 2007, Mabus wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
I am against general rating systems for games. I would have no problem with the issue if the rating system allows a general "NR", for "Not Rated", so that a game could choose to not rate the areas suggested.

I believe most MUDs carry a level of violence, so that should be a given.

Sex is a strange bird to pin down on a game. If you do not disallow emotes, ban any word that could be used in a sexual context and "snoop and punish" for sexual content how can you stop two players from engaging in such activity? Never had the "problem" on our game, but I find it hard to grasp how to rate such a thing. Potential for sexual content, players often engage in such content or administration support for rampant sexual content?

Drug use seems a strange one to add. From pipeweed smoking hobbits to potions, pills, herbal healing and any alcohol usage most well-formed games have some systems that could be termed (in a modern context) to fit as having some usage.

One other area I have a concern with a rating system is if you rate a game as not having one of the items are you opening yourself up for legal liability if some player then violates the standards the administration has stated and it "offends" another player?

Our ToS carries the line "User certifies that they are of legal age and ability to enter into this agreement.", so I am all for "of age" players (be it 18, 21, or whatever age a country allows for entry into a legal agreement) and would prefer the ability to just leave/check an "NR" rating.
0.0/77