27 Nov, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 61st comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
KaVir said:
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.

Why is this a problem?


Because "an adult who doesn't want to unwittingly enter a sex-oriented MUD" might actually want to find a violent mud. In fact I know that's true, because it describes my preferences exactly.

DavidHaley said:
KaVir said:
The problem is that the rating doesn't differentiate between sex and violence.

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.


You really need to stop trying to put words in my mouth, it's a dirty habit. What I said was "Those category levels sound highly subjective to me. Personally I'd rather just see a couple of checkboxes for "Extreme violence" and "Sexually explicit"."
27 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 62nd comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir, I don't feel that I'm putting words into your mouth… the intent of what you said was clearly that you didn't think the separate categories were worth it. That's what it means to not like something… and to "rather see something else" means that you don't like something as much as something else. :shrug: In any case, it seems, given your previous couple of comments, that we now agree that at least some sex vs. violence granularity is required to be most helpful. I think that, unless there is an issue with that statement, we can leave it at that and move forward…

To reiterate the proposal that appears to be emerging as a quasi-consensus for at least some of us:

1. Three levels (kid, guidance, mature)
2. An optional field indicating the reason why the rating would given

This gives both a general feel for a game, in addition to giving people more information in case they have more specific preferences. It is simpler than having three levels for both violence and sex, which people have objected to on the basis of being too complex and/or subjective. The broad levels are simple; the optional field lets you add complexity if you feel you need it.
27 Nov, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 63rd comment:
Votes: 0
Hades_Kane said:
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.


A text box won't help much when running a search - the player who isn't interested in sex-oriented muds is still going to have all the violent muds filtered out of his search, or else he'll have to manually go through them all.

To make the option useful for searches you'd need to have separate options for each category. For example my UK copy of "28 Days Later" has a little box on that back which states:

LANGUAGE: Frequent, some very strong.
SEX/NUDITY: Some moderate references.
VIOLENCE: Frequent, strong.
OTHER: Strong horror.


Of course that then goes back to the whole subjectiveness issue…
27 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 64th comment:
Votes: 0
Basically it comes down to a question of having your cake or eating it. If you want the interesting searches, you need the category ratings. If you don't have the specific ratings, you can't search over them.
27 Nov, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 65th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
KaVir, I don't feel that I'm putting words into your mouth… the intent of what you said was clearly that you didn't think the separate categories were worth it.


That's utter rubbish - read the thread for yourself (emphasis mine):

DavidHaley said:
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".


KaVir said:
Those category levels sound highly subjective to me. Personally I'd rather just see a couple of checkboxes for "Extreme violence" and "Sexually explicit"."


(later)

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


KaVir said:
The problem is that the rating doesn't differentiate between sex and violence.


DavidHaley said:
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.


I've made it repeatedly and abundantly clear throughout this thread that I'm (1) in favour of separating sex and violence, but (2) against multiple levels within a category, because such levels are too subjective to be useful.


DavidHaley said:
To reiterate the proposal that appears to be emerging as a quasi-consensus for at least some of us:

1. Three levels (kid, guidance, mature)
2. An optional field indicating the reason why the rating would given


That combines the worst elements of both ideas - there's no way to distinguish between sex and violence when doing an automated search through the listings, and the category levels are subjective.

I still favour the idea I proposed back at the start:

Extreme violence? YES/NO
Sexually explicit? YES/NO
28 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 66th comment:
Votes: 0
I disagree with your characterization, KaVir, but am trying to move forward and focus on the issues… so, with no further ado…

Your new proposal has all the problems of subjectivity of the old one. The only difference is that you propose "none" vs. "all", whereas I have proposed "none" vs. "some" vs. "all".

I believe that your proposal is much more likely to induce disagreement because it's so all-or-nothing: either you are "extreme" or you are nothing at all. There is, therefore, absolutely no way to say: "look, I'm not completely kid friendly, but I'm not explicit either". For instance, there is no way of allowing slight romantic relationships on the MUD without either lying and saying you are completely kid friendly, or saying too much (and again mischaracterizing yourself) and saying you are sexually explicit.

I have trouble understanding how it is that "none" vs. "all" removes the subjectivity problem. But it appears fairly clear that it knocks out a huge middle ground. Not all non-kid-friendly MUDs have extreme violence or explicit sex.
28 Nov, 2007, Guest wrote in the 67th comment:
Votes: 0
My own version of the "basic 3" rules David suggests:

* Content suitable for all ages.
* Content is suitable for teenagers. Parental guidance is suggested.
* Mature content. May contain sexual situations or depict graphic violence. [Can split this into separate boxes, and check both if need be]

These ratings should be based on what the game itself supports by way of code. If it comes with specific support to "have sex" and can accurately depict that in words, then it should qualify as mature content. Yes, I think that would include X-social systems provided by the codebase.

Similarly with graphic violence. Not just the simple descriptions of "you see the leg of your dead victim here" but something more like a graphic description of how your blow severed the leg, sprayed large amounts of blood all over everything and everyone, and how the victim then fell to the ground writhing in pain as they lay bleeding to death leaving behind a putrid mess of a rotting leg… well you get the idea :)

I think these are basics that formed the systems used in movies, TVs, and video games were all derived from anyway. So it makes sense that if some sort of system is to be implemented, using the basics is just fine.

If that means other sites take notice and follow suit, that's even better.

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


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".


Actually I think the responsible thing would be to do both. Put the ratings and warnings up on your MUD and your website. But also put the warnings in your advertisements too. A MUD listing here is basically just that - an advertisement.

Products are advertised in the media using the same philosophy - especially prescription drugs. Wanrings and disclaimers are commonplace, and it's the responsible thing to do. Companies who don't do this run not only the risk of being seen as irresponsible, but might also be seen as deceptive.
28 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 68th comment:
Votes: 0
I like Samson's descriptions, especially for the 3rd category. I would quibble slightly with the 2nd but let's pass for now. I also like the idea of having the checkboxes under the 'mature' checkbox to indicate why. How about this:

Rating, pick 1, 2 or 3:

1- kids
2- teen
3- mature:
[checkbox] sex
[checkbox] violence
[checkbox] other [textbox]

where of course you put more intelligent descriptions for the categories.

This lets you indicate clearly why your MUD is 'mature', and also leaves wiggle room for MUDs that want to note that it's probably best for adults, but that might not have sex or violence but have intense horror genre (or whatever).
28 Nov, 2007, Conner wrote in the 69th comment:
Votes: 0
Why not, if we're going to use the ESRB system as a guideline, just put a slider (check boxes if you prefer) for each of the categories we're talking about rating with the scale for each being "general audiences", "teens"/"parental guidance", "mature" (or whatever 'ratings' we're using) for each slider (or check box column). So we end up with, like the example Kavir gave of:

KaVir said:
LANGUAGE: Frequent, some very strong.
SEX/NUDITY: Some moderate references.
VIOLENCE: Frequent, strong.
OTHER: Strong horror.

but instead of using a text box to explain each field we've got a searchable slider setting or set of searchable check boxes (which only allow selection of one for each category)? Perhaps for the other field we could have a text box to explain the rating given as well. *shrug*
28 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 70th comment:
Votes: 0
That's going back to what I proposed quite a bit ago now, the idea of having several levels per category of thing being rated. We'd said back then that it was too complex, even though it does provide the most granularity. It's a sad truth in life that it's very hard to have richness of representation at the same time as simplicity. :wink:
28 Nov, 2007, Conner wrote in the 71st comment:
Votes: 0
You know, David, I never disagreed with your idea, I'm just trying to find a compromise here that everyone can agree on. Personally, I'm ok with no ratings at all or just a simple letter system (like the ESRB uses) with a text field for an explaination, but if we're concerned about whether we're rating it based on language, sexuality, violence, or other, then let's break it down to those categories and allow each admin to check off which apply and to what degree, provide those degrees don't become too many over the sake of allowing everyone to be totally happy. Remember that in a good compromise everyone walks away feeling like they got something out of the deal (other than shafted) but no one walks away feeling like they won either. :wink:
28 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 72nd comment:
Votes: 0
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were disagreeing, Conner. :smile:

The main reason I like a system with checkboxes (or similar) is that it lets you search things more easily; you can say "violence is ok but sex is not" and you can find that automatically, instead of having to read through the text boxes yourself.
28 Nov, 2007, KaVir wrote in the 73rd comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
Your new proposal has all the problems of subjectivity of the old one.


As I said last time, "It is still subjective, but personally I think it's much easier to judge consistently if it's a simple yes/no."

DavidHaley said:
The only difference is that you propose "none" vs. "all", whereas I have proposed "none" vs. "some" vs. "all".


Not quite - I propose "non-extreme/explicit" vs "extreme/explicit". As almost all muds have combat, the "extreme violence" checkbox would be used for those which take it a clear step further. Equally, as practically every mud has socials such as "kiss" and "hug", the "sexually explicit" checkbox would be used for those which take it a clear step further (such as including xsocials). In other words, the two checkboxes represent "mature" ratings.

In fact the only difference between my proposal and Samson's is that Samson's also requires muds to decide whether or not parental guidance is suggested. If you really want that sort of information, then I'd suggest having it as another checkbox, so you could have something like:

RATING SECTION

[ ] Child-friendly.
[ ] Sexually explicit.
[ ] Extreme violence.
[ ] Mature theme/content.

Further details [textbox]


Note that clicking "child-friendly" would automatically switch off the other three checkboxes, and vice versa (although you could set all of the other three if you wished).

The most important thing about the above rating system is that each of the options represent something that goes clearly beyond the norm - meaning that the majority of muds wouldn't click any of the boxes. This helps reduce the subjectivity, as there's a reasonable standard that the categories can be judged against. Some examples follow:

RegularMUD:

RATING SECTION

[ ] Child-friendly.
[ ] Sexually explicit.
[ ] Extreme violence.
[ ] Mature theme/content.

Further details []



KiddieMUD:

RATING SECTION

[X] Child-friendly.
[ ] Sexually explicit.
[ ] Extreme violence.
[ ] Mature theme/content.

Further details [Automatic censoring on public channels, strong policies concerning swearing and offensive language, combat is cartoon-like and non-gory]



NightlifeMUD

RATING SECTION

[ ] Child-friendly.
[X] Sexually explicit.
[X] Extreme violence.
[X] Mature theme/content.

Further details [Set in a dark and brutal modern-day city, you progress by earning money in any way you can - selling drugs, prostitution, mugging, kidnapping and murder are only some of the options available to you]



Samson said:
MThese ratings should be based on what the game itself supports by way of code. If it comes with specific support to "have sex" and can accurately depict that in words, then it should qualify as mature content.


My only problem with that is that the Furry MUCK/MUSH/etc style muds, where people often go purely for online sexual encounters, wouldn't be classified as "sexually explicit" because the mudsex is handled through emotes rather than code.

While those games which do have code to support such activities should certainly have the appropriate rating, I don't think that code should be the be all and end all. I certainly wouldn't propose every mud with an "emote" command getting such a rating, but I do think the system should take into account other factors.
28 Nov, 2007, Hades_Kane wrote in the 74th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
My only problem with that is that the Furry MUCK/MUSH/etc style muds, where people often go purely for online sexual encounters, wouldn't be classified as "sexually explicit" because the mudsex is handled through emotes rather than code.

While those games which do have code to support such activities should certainly have the appropriate rating, I don't think that code should be the be all and end all. I certainly wouldn't propose every mud with an "emote" command getting such a rating, but I do think the system should take into account other factors.


I think it would be a balancing act of not only code, but also generally accepted behavior and policy. Even if you only had one room and a say channel, and no other features, but it was oriented as a cyber sex chat room, then features aside, you'd still be sexually explicit.
28 Nov, 2007, David Haley wrote in the 75th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
In fact the only difference between my proposal and Samson's is that Samson's also requires muds to decide whether or not parental guidance is suggested.

Not really. We can use the same "cop-out" that every other rating system uses. Take the MPAA: if it's more than G, and it's less than R, it's PG. Basically, "parental guidance" is the immediate middle ground between kid-friendly and with-mature-content.

I don't really like the idea of no checkboxes being checked because that makes it look like the MUD simply wasn't rated. If the lack of rating suggests "norm", why not simply go ahead and have some kind of "normal" checkbox? (i.e. the middle ground rating that you have been arguing against)

It might also be worth qualifying what "mature theme/content" is as opposed to violence/sex. It would probably suffice to tack on an "other" in front. Otherwise, it might be unclear whether or not sex counts as mature or not; if you tick sex, presumably you automatically will be ticking 'mature theme'.

KaVir said:
My only problem with that is that the Furry MUCK/MUSH/etc style muds, where people often go purely for online sexual encounters, wouldn't be classified as "sexually explicit" because the mudsex is handled through emotes rather than code.

This is why I've been advocating also taking into consideration what is allowed/permitted by the community (esp. the administration).
30 Nov, 2007, Zenn wrote in the 76th comment:
Votes: 0
After taking all your ideas into consideration I'm going to talk with Stamp about having this implemented on WikiMU*. I hope that other MU* sites will follow our example.
Also, as some areas are clear or vague I've decided that each MUD would be pre-approved by the staff, who would look over the answers and decide what "rating" to give the MU*.
Of course, the MU would still be submitted; it would just have a "Rating Pending" tag.

*WikiMU Rating System*

Does your MUD include:

Sexually Oriented Content:
[ ] None
[ ] Light
[ ] Moderate
[ ] Heavy
Comments:
_______________________

Please define the type of violence (if applicable) your MU* contains:
_________________________________________________________

Please state who your MU*'s intended audience is:
_________________________________________________________

Please define how you would rate your MUD:
[ ] Adult
[ ] Mid/Upper-Teen
[ ] Mid/Lower Teen
[ ] Everyone
[ ] Other: ________________
Comments:_____________________________________

*WMRS*

Anyone have anything to add to that?
30 Nov, 2007, Guest wrote in the 77th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
Rating, pick 1, 2 or 3:

1- kids
2- teen
3- mature:
[checkbox] sex
[checkbox] violence
[checkbox] other [textbox]


That isn't what I meant when I said you could split the 3rd box up. I mean this:

* Content suitable for all ages.
* Content is suitable for teenagers. Parental guidance is suggested.
* Mature content: May contain sexual situations.
* Mature content: May contain depictions of graphic violence.

The 3rd option being one or both options checked, not a breakdown on what "mature content" might be.

Quote
These ratings should be based on what the game itself supports by way of code. If it comes with specific support to "have sex" and can accurately depict that in words, then it should qualify as mature content.


As far as this, yes, I should have been more clear in meaning either something the software features and/or something the MUD itself encourages or supports. Not what players make of it since they can go to G-rated games and use emotes to display sexual content.
60.0/77