What if we scrapped a "rating" and included a minimum age for target audience?

This would display, on behalf of the Administration, an expression of intent on the minimum age they feel that the material within the MUD would be appropriate?

Maybe some classifications could be:
-Everyone
-Pre-Teen+
-Early Teen+
-Late Teen+
-Adults

Everyone might be redundant with Pre-Teen+, but that along with a disclaimer that the content considered is the static and moderated content, and that it should only be used as an indication of what the Administration intends, not a irrefutable measurement of what a player might experience throughout their stay on the game as a result of the Human interaction.

I'm sure we could debate to death where a 'kiss' social might fall in this structure, but I think we could also all exercise some common sense (and maybe use ESRB ratings, movie ratings, TV ratings, etc. as a general guideline) as to what you could expect from each classification.






You seem almost defensive here, like you are concerned over what your MUD might be rated if this went into affect. If you don't have anything to hide, and are proud of the game you are working on, then I don't really see what the problem is.

Classifying a MUD as Adult or checking a box that it is explicitly violent isn't necessarily a -bad- thing, and if you think that it is and you are concerned for your MUD as a result, maybe you have some thinking to do…


I think the more things that can be implemented to narrow down a potential MUDer's search and to better represent what can be expected going into a new MUD can only be a good thing, within reason of course.

Also, after going into games that are based on children's cartoons and seeing R-rated language, sexual content, racism, etc. I think that a push toward things like representing that this is what people can expect going into a game would be beneficial. If this led to some sort of accountability like with license following or blatant lies in listing submissions, I think that would also help tremendously because I would at least hope that someone designing a game after a children's cartoon might be a bit more hesitant to have such blatant inappropriate content. It would be like me selling pornography out of an ice cream truck.

I don't see anything wrong with that idea, especially if it's expressly listed as "This MUD's Adminstration's intented audience" or some such to indicate that while playing your experiences may vary, but that this is what the mud's staff and administration are trying to achieve and will, presumably, punish folks for exceeding the implied limitations thereof.


*sigh* Personally, I think much of what the FCC allows these days even in those aforementioned children's cartoons is pretty horrible too. :mad:

Or, perhaps, like the guys all over this country who regularly sell drugs from their ice cream trucks? :mad:

Thank you for your attempt to analyze my state of mind and posting style, simply for my disagreeing with a proposed rating system. Is this an expertise, or assumption made because I disagree a rating system is needed?


What use does a rating system hold for this site? Does a rating sytem enhance the code, or make the game more enjoyable? Does it provide more players? Will it cause more conflict then not having one currently does?

Perhaps that will help you "see what the problem is".


The qualifier in that sentence is "necessarily". Limitiing potential players based on arbitrary ratings is not good for a game.


I find the system useless for this site, and believe that it will add nothing to the listings other then grounds for arguing over whether a game is properly rated, or even what those ratings should be. I will skip the flame bait on the "thinking" you believe I should do.

Actually I quite disagree with that. If a MUD is kid-oriented, somebody who does something like that will presumably be dealt with by the administration. Clearly, you cannot prevent it from happening before it happens, but you can do your best to get rid of it as much as possible. To be distinguished from the game where such behavior is tolerated. A rating system could help you know what kind of MUD it is.


So you think no indication would be helpful at all? Even for, say, a MUD that actually has a sex-oriented component to it? Although I think KaVir's suggestion of just two check boxes is insufficient, it is a whole lot better than the nothing you appear to be advocating.

Agreed. However, we dont see this with conventional rating systems, aside from perhaps a titty during the super bowl. Not being able to essentially read/watch the material and then apply a fixed rating means that all we can do is say, "Hey, this is what it *should* be like." I guess that's better than nothing though.

I think the degree of vagueness of the rating should be left up to the MUD's administrators. It varies so much from game to game that I think if we just toss up a bunch of checkboxes we'll be forcing it and the ratings will end up being inaccurate, meaningless, or just disregarded.

I have no good solutions, but I'll concur that an OK solution > no solution, as long as it's not too restrictive.

From what I've been reading out of the last 45 posts here (my own withstanding), I'm still thinking that, as far as a rating goes, the best solution proposed so far was the idea of a field where the admins listing the site can select the intended audience and explain in a few words why. Something like checking the teen+ box and supplying "this game contains heavy violence and may briefly contain sexual innuendos or language which the administration does not approve of when unavoidable" or perhaps even just a set of target ages as was suggested with a MudBytes wide list disclaimer that "This is the rating the adminitration of this mud expects to be maintained while you play there but your own experiences may vary, please be sure to read the mud's rules/laws once you enter the game." sort of thing.

Probably, yes. I'm not sure about ages since that's just an implicit rating system (what material is suitable for 12, and what is suitable for 16?). But yes, it would be better than nothing to have three broad categories: "kid-safe", "teenager", "adult-oriented". The last one would need a better name since most people see "adult" and understand "sex" even though that's really not what it means. Perhaps better names would be:

1- suitable for all ages
2- may not be suitable for young children, guidance advised
3- oriented towards a mature audience

I personally would prefer more granularity than that but if people aren't going to use it correctly it would be better to have something simpler…

If a system is going to be implemented then I would be more inclined to use a system like this then one that had several rateable categories.

The three options DavidHaley just proposed would be adequate I think.



I think that shows the heart of the opposition to it. People more concerned over "getting more players" than considering what is truly better for the game or considering whether or not they are reaching their target audience.

What do you think would be better for a game… missing out on a couple of children logging onto your game because of a rating, or having some concerned parent taking legal action against your game for subjecting their children to graphic violence or intense sexual content?

That aside, I would rather miss out on some players by doing the responsible thing in this regard.


It puts MudBytes at the front of motivating other sites to follow suit, I think would help move the site racing toward the front of the pack. If a player is looking for a certain type of MUD and if they have more options here to sift through them, and thus have more of a chance to find what they are looking for here, then it will be MudBytes they visit to find a new game. The easier a site can make it for a user to find what they are looking for, the better.


If a rating system representing the target audience I'm trying to reach will help keep very immature players from coming in, such as the typical DBZ kiddie crowd, then yes, I would say it makes the game more enjoyable because I'm better reaching the type of playerbase I would prefer to have in the game.


It should help provide more of the type of players you are trying to reach. I'd rather have a solid core of 25 mature players than 300 immature kids.


I don't see why it would. In fact, if what a user can expect going into a game is more clarified before going into the game, I think that would help clear confusion. If such a system is decided on and implemented, I don't see why any conflict would arise because the issue is decided and implemented. Everyone here stays pretty active in the discussion, and any dissent in opinion seems to be being expressed now. We move past that and get this implemented, then why should there be conflict?

I have never been a "numbers" admin when it came to a game I was coding. I know some people look at #players or spot on a vote list as the be-all of their game. I actually enjoy coding well done mechanics. Players will come or not, and whether there are players has more to do with word of mouth, advertising and factors other then a rating. As such I do not see this system as "better for the game".


Are you stating it is your belief that I want children (do it for the kids, what an debate…) to log in, or that this system is somehow going to stop them from doing so? You would be wrong in either assumption. As I posted earlier in the thread our game's ToS requires that players be of at least "legal maturity", as they have to be able to agree to the terms of service to play. There is also no evidence whatsoever of a minor heeding a parental warning, ESRB or other rating. Quite the contrary, studies show minors prefer to go against rating systems toward games rated above their age level.


The "responsible" thing would be to put the rating or warning in your ToS, on your front page of your site and then police the player population afterward. Checking a box on a website barely related to the game is not "doing the responsible thing".


Can you provide any evidence at all that a rating system will keep the "DBZ kiddie crowd" from logging into your game, or is this an appeal to others on what you feel are undesireables to a majority of MUD owners? If you have evidence that a rating system will keep these people, whom you find undersireable, from logging into a game please present it.


First, beyond the early formative years when thought process and speech are being developed, social maturity and age have very little to do with one another. Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence that any rating system will enhance the level of maturity of a player base. None.


I know you are not saying that people will not argue over ratings on games, and whether they are correct. We will just add the "ratings police" to the "IP police" and the "license police" arguements, as well as the "coding police" that like to put down code they did not write. There will, as with previous disagreements in the mentioned areas, be people that have quite valid points. That the points may be valid will not change that there will be disagreement and arguement over any ratings system.

Fair enough.
I agree that those three categories are probably better still..
Unfortunately, we already know without a doubt that some folks won't. *shrug*




Wait, you mean we're all actually in agreement about these?!? :surprised:
Do we have any objectors to this method or can we call it a consensus finally?


I'll agree with this.


There is some sound logic to this one too…


While I maintain my mud as being as kid-friendly as I can keep it (while still acknowledging that it's a violent place…), I'd have to agree with this statement too. As odd as it may sound, I don't want my mud to ever have hundreds of players online at a time because I would rather have a "family"/"community" setting among my playerbase and staff where we can feel like we all know each other. On the other hand, I really don't mind only having a couple of players on a time, but of course would like to have more like 20+ on at any gievn time if I could. *shrug*


I happen to like numbers, so I think it's really nice if my mud can be #1 on mud listings and such, but I agree that word of mouth is far better than a rating somewhere and even if I had no players at all, my mud wouldn't be shutting down because it exists for my amusement and for me to learn to code better first and foremost.


No, do it for the butterflies! :wink: :lol:


You have a point that the kiddies out there are more likely to check out a place because the rating implies that they're unwelcome. You're also right that the responsible thing would be to state something about what's appropriate on the mud's own web site, in it's rules, (maybe) on it's front page, and so forth than to just check a box on a mud listing site. You might even be right that his statement was more of an appeal to the general non-DBZ admins than actual fact, but if so, it works for me. I've had players who were part of the DBZ crowd and, while some are players that I'm very happy to have around because they're actually mature enough to recognize that my mud isn't part of that genre, more often the players that come to me from that crowd are just disruptive to my game instead. Either way, I'd love to see statistics on this sort of thing, but I imagine that this would be one of those few areas no one has actually done research on.


Evidence or not, and specific chronilogical age aside, I really would prefer a handful of regular mature players who are intelligent enough to be able to communicate without foul language and mature enough to have fun without constant sexual or toilet based innuendos than a larger playerbase full of folks that just irritate me.


On this point I'm going to side entirely with Mabus, we already know that the group of people who post here tend to get highly inflammed about copyright/IP discussions of any sort. While it's less of a problem, by far, we certainly do still have our share of folks who feel code should (can?) be done only the way they prefer if it's to be called proper programming and anything else is hackish, sloppy, spaghetti-code, etc. It's quite reasonable to assume that folks will argue ad nauseam over whether a given mud was rated properly if they're given the chance. On the other hand, I don't think that invalidates the principle of adding a means to further categorize mud listings thusly.

I don't know of any evidence, but I suspect such a rating system would help, although perhaps not in the way it's intended. The immature players will likely gravitate towards muds listed as "oriented towards a mature audience", so to avoid such players your best bet would be to list your mud as "suitable for all ages", or perhaps "may not be suitable for young children". That way you won't sound "cool" enough to appeal to the DBZ kiddie crowd.

I suspect you may be right, which is exactly the opposite as Hades_Kane posted would happen. Children/Teens tend to gravitate toward the forbidden; One of the reasons I posted earlier why I feel a rating system is "useless" in policing for proper age. It is a feel good move, and maybe a little window dressing for a site that implements it, but does little to accomplish what posters are stating as its intended goal.

I don't believe that a rating system is meant to police for proper age… Rather, it's meant to give people who care an idea of what to expect. Somebody who cares might be an adult who doesn't want to unwittingly enter a sex-oriented MUD; a parent trying to find games for their children; somebody who doesn't like certain kinds of material; etc.

The policing for age/maturity/etc. is still the role of the administration, to some extent. It's not as if a rating system will magically make that go away…

I'd just like to chime in and add that this is exactly my view on ratings. They give me a general idea of what to expect rather than act as any sort of barrier to entry. For ratings applied by external auditors, it gives me an idea of what content already exists, and for voluntary ratings it gives me an indication of the administrators' intent and what sort of atmosphere they are trying to cultivate. I don't always expect them to be wholly accurate, but nonetheless it's another handy piece of insight when evaluating what games to try.

The problem is that the rating doesn't differentiate between sex and violence. My mud would likely get a "mature audience" rating due to the graphic violence, and as a result the adult in question would likely filter out my mud - despite the fact that I don't even have so much as a 'kiss' social.

It'd be bad enough attracting DBZ kiddies who don't think it's "cool" to play "children's muds", but the last thing I want is to find my mud invaded by mudsexers expecting some sort of online orgy.

Why is this a problem? Is that not the whole point? If I am a parent wanting to filter out mature content, would I not be equally wary of graphic violence as sex?


That's funny, I thought I wanted to have more granularity and rate violence and sex separately in none/moderate/heavy categories and you said it wasn't worth the trouble. :wink:

To take a page out of the movie ratings, when a movie is rated it usually lists what aspects made it rated as such. "Rated R for intense violence and foul language" etc.

Maybe in addition to selecting that the game is targeted toward the three options that so far seems to be in the lead in agreement, we could have another box under it that allows the Admin to write in extra. Of course, they wouldn't have to, but I think it would be useful for someone who wanted to specify that they feel their game is geared toward a Mature Audience because of violence, or sexuality, or drug use, or all of the above.

I think this might also ease some of the apprehension that some may feel over putting a rubber stamp label on their game, and again help better represent the type of players the MUD is trying to reach.

That is a good idea; it solves many problems and is probably simpler to deal with in many than splitting ratings.

Video games are the same way, this can be seen on the back of the box. An example would be: This game is rated Teen for Comic Violence, Alcohol Use, and Mild Language.