Fixing the Industry: Platonic Pandraliskian Action Plan

[Pandralisk]

Pandralisk Major:

The Pandralisk Motto:

Want to encourage the development of fresh and creative games that encorporate adult themes? Want to liberate gaming from the tyranny of mindless for-profit sequels and the cult of “family friendly” gaming?

Here are the steps:

1. Wipe out the “AO” rating level and boost all current MA games to a strict 18+ age limit. Reformulate the ESRB rating system. Protect AO content by erasing the fictional, absurd, and counterintuitive barrier between AO and MA.

2. Lobby lawmakers to draft anti-copyright laws that effectively destroy console licensing agreements currently used to control, manipulate, and censor content.

3. Allow the free market to function at a retail level. Allow consumer demand to fuel the production of games marketed and sold for adult consumption.

4. Once the conditions listed above are met, encourage passing laws that strictly police the sale of adult games to minors. Shift the focus of this debate from “save the children” to “censor ‘immoral’ content.” Defeating freedom hating morons is far easier than defeating frenzied parents who have a valid point at times.

5. By law, government critics cannot actually censor the content of games. Censorship right now occurs at a micro, supply side, level. For critics who enjoy bitching, allow them to bitch and cry themselves into the corner. Their absurd morality and gullible superstition are applicable only to those deluded to believe such nonsense. Properly enforcing step four should kill most bitching of this type.

Optional Step 6: Continue illustrating the irrelevancy, contradictions, absurdity, and evil nature of contemporary moral norms derived from superstition. Replace superstitious value systems with value systems that respect personal and moral autonomy. Make it clear that fictional forms of entertainment, that cause no direct harm to anyone, function outside the realm of morality.

Pandralisk Minor: (female).

Ditto, yo.

[Brokenscope]

Ok, now the real question is, are you going to continue to clutter up the new post discussions with this?

[KN]

Keep telling us beautiful lies. Go on. It eases the pain.

[ezacharyk]

Um...Yeah.

[Pelor]

I got nothing to do tonight (actually I have a garbage bag full of homework), so I'm going to respond to this post. Basically, I'll lay out why this is a bad idea.

1. Wipe out the “AO” rating level and boost all current MA games to a strict 18+ age limit. Reformulate the ESRB rating system. Protect AO content by erasing the fictional, absurd, and counterintuitive barrier between AO and MA.
It won't protect AO content. It will hurt MA content by pooling it with more adult products.

There's actually a term for this (I didn't realize it until today). It's called adverse selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_selection). In this case, you're pooling AO and MA content into one category. Public perception of an MA rating will change to reflect the current perception of an AO rating. MA will, in effect, become the "new" AO.

Since there's no rating between MA and T (for teen), companies may modify the content of their games to qualify for a T rating and differentiate themselves from more risque or violent games.

So, your plan will cause a chilling effect in the industry and result in more self-censorship.

A better solution is more descriptive labels: violence, sexual content, unlawful violence (that which separates GTA from Halo), mutilation, etc.

2. Lobby lawmakers to draft anti-copyright laws that effectively destroy console licensing agreements currently used to control, manipulate, and censor content.
It would also wipe out parental controls on consoles and make the need for government intervention greater.

Licensing agreements don't really have an effect on content outside of a blanket ban on AO games. I suppose theoretically, if R* were to make a Taliban game, Nintendo and company would yank it's license.

4. Once the conditions listed above are met, encourage passing laws that strictly police the sale of adult games to minors. Shift the focus of this debate from “save the children” to “censor ‘immoral’ content.” Defeating freedom hating morons is far easier than defeating frenzied parents who have a valid point at times.
"Strictly policing the sale"? You mean like porn, cigarettes, and alcohol? It's not going to work. You could still find young teenagers looking at playboys (before internetz), with ciggies in their mouths and brewskies in their hands.

"Save the children" is still used against these products, even with strict enforcement.

5. By law, government critics cannot actually censor the content of games. Censorship right now occurs at a micro, supply side, level. For critics who enjoy bitching, allow them to bitch and cry themselves into the corner. Their absurd morality and gullible superstition are applicable only to those deluded to believe such nonsense...
Last time I checked the statistics, 90% of this country is what you consider "deluded [enough] to believe such superstition."

Pandralisk Minor: (female).

Ditto, yo.
By the way, isn't it sexist for the man to be considered "major" and the woman "minor"?

[kurisu7885]

Last time I checked the statistics, 90% of this country is what you consider "deluded [enough] to believe such superstition."


Wouldn't that also lump in anyone who has spiritual beliefs, period, regardless of what those beliefs are?

[Brokenscope]

I'm rather uncomfortable telling a company it has to give someone else its software.

There is nothing stopping me from installing my own software on my xbox. I'm just not going to be able to boot the box or run the programs. Hardware lockouts are not illegal. Let me restate that, licensing agreements only exist because of the need for special code to run a game on the box. If a developer wanted to they could make their own custom OS to run the box and play the game, MS/N/SONY would just make a minor hardware revision to make the OS unbootable. Next time a machine logs into their network the issue a firmware patch that does the same thing.

To make it more clear. If you don't hack their software SOFTWARE SOFTWARE SOFTWARE to make your software work on their system they can't touch you legally. Good luck doing that however, the software and the hardware are designed to need one another to function. That is the only reason Microsoft can use a licensing agreement. Software IP laws can be left for another discussion.

Not to mention the price of consoles would jump if the big 3 couldn't squeeze royalties via licensing agreements, not that I wouldn't mind seeing the PC rise to dominance once again, but still.


I'm also not comfortable telling a company it has to sell a certain product. If someone doesn't want to sell hustler, they should be allowed to make that choice. Even if they still stock playboy and penthouse.

[Pandralisk]

I got nothing to do tonight (actually I have a garbage bag full of homework), so I'm going to respond to this post. Basically, I'll lay out why this is a bad idea.


It won't protect AO content. It will hurt MA content by pooling it with more adult products.

There's actually a term for this (I didn't realize it until today). It's called adverse selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_selection). In this case, you're pooling AO and MA content into one category. Public perception of an MA rating will change to reflect the current perception of an AO rating. MA will, in effect, become the "new" AO.

Precisely my point. MA content will be hurt, but AO content will recieve the breath of life it deserves. The barrier between AO and MA establishes a series of hazy and artifical criteria used to censor game content at the whim of a review panel. Realism rules the day in the realm of game critique. Can we also not assume that public perception of the "MA" title will also reflect the fact that many, if not the overwhelming majority of MA games under such a system, contain a level of violence and sexuality comprable to "R" rated films?

The sole function of the MA rating involves designating games as not intended for children and should not legally pass into their hands.
Allow adults to police content and regulate moral norms [through their purchasing power] within the broad label of "MA." If you judge this one step by itself, the plan might appear to cause a recipicole form of censorship, but I ask you to judge it in the full context. Despite its deceptive consequence, this regulation only serves to liberate games from absurd moral norms.


Licensing agreements don't really have an effect on content outside of a blanket ban on AO games. I suppose theoretically, if R* were to make a Taliban game, Nintendo and company would yank it's license.

Developers produce games to create profit. Licensing agreements force developers to exclude logical units of violent and sexual content for the sole purpose of avoiding an AO rating (and thus yanking this license and destroying all forms of profit). How is this NOT self-censorship? It represents censorship in its most blatant and analytical form.

"Strictly policing the sale"? You mean like porn, cigarettes, and alcohol? It's not going to work. You could still find young teenagers looking at playboys (before internetz), with ciggies in their mouths and brewskies in their hands.

The fault lies not with the product not intended for minors but with the parents, adults, and law enforcements officers responsible for ensuring that minors do not ascertain products intended for adults. I do not see how this point is relevant.

Last time I checked the statistics, 90% of this country is what you consider [i]"deluded [enough] to believe such superstition."

Superstition varies in both depth and intensity. It takes quite a superstitious person to suppress the artistic and creative freedom of others. Also, the amount of people who believe in a false premise does not increase the truth of a premise. Millions have knelt before Thor, worshipped the Sun as the Throne of God, and believed in a geocentric universe. The sheer number of believers does not in turn effect the validity of a belief.

Fallibity intrinsic within superstition illustrates why superstition should never bind others.


By the way, isn't it sexist for the man to be considered "major" and the woman "minor"?

Only if you deconstruct the term both literally and out of its context. I am major because I post 95% of the content. She is minor because she posts approximately 5% of the content (and usually peeks over my shoulder when I type, =/).

[Pelor]

Precisely my point. MA content will be hurt, but AO content will recieve the breath of life it deserves. The barrier between AO and MA establishes a series of hazy and artifical criteria used to censor game content at the whim of a review panel. Realism rules the day in the realm of game critique. Can we also not assume that public perception of the "MA" title will also reflect the fact that many, if not the overwhelming majority of MA games under such a system, contain a level of violence and sexuality comprable to "R" rated films?
No, it's not precisely your point, because it refutes all your claims.

And no, AO content would not receive the life it deserves. What part of "MA will become the 'new' AO rating" don't you understand?

Are you going to just ignore the effects of adverse selection and pretend it doesn't exist?

And no, we cannot assume that public perception of MA content will remain the same after you merge it with AO. And furthermore, if you go ahead with your plan to abolish licensing agreements, pornographic and ultraviolent console games will be made, and they'll have more in common with an X and NC-17 rated movies than they will with R rated.

And unfortunately for your plan, "Interactive Adventures of Lesbian Martians" will still be rated in the same category as fun, wholesome games like "Halo". And that's adverse selection for you.


The sole function of the MA rating involves designating games as not intended for children and should not legally pass into their hands.
Allow adults to police content and regulate moral norms [through their purchasing power] within the broad label of "MA."[/quote]
Maybe you can explain how a broad and vague rating is going to inform parents about the game's content.

For example, I hold in my hands right now an M-rated game. Tell me, is it appropriate for my 15-year old kid? Or perhaps you would like a more descriptive rating?

If you judge this one step by itself, the plan might appear to cause a recipicole form of censorship, but I ask you to judge it in the full context. Despite its deceptive consequence, this regulation only serves to liberate games from absurd moral norms.
No it doesn't, for all the reasons I said in my first post, which you glazed over and ignored.

The fault lies not with the product not intended for minors but with the parents, adults, and law enforcements officers responsible for ensuring that minors do not ascertain products intended for adults. I do not see how this point is relevant.
It is relevant because law enforcement is unable to allay parent's concerns over strip clubs, cigarettes, etc. and yet you simultaneously claim that police will be able to completely cull parental concerns about violent videogames.


Superstition varies in both depth and intensity. It takes quite a superstitious person to suppress the artistic and creative freedom of others. Also, the amount of people who believe in a false premise does not increase the truth of a premise. Millions have knelt before Thor, worshipped the Sun as the Throne of God, and believed in a geocentric universe. The sheer number of believers does not in turn effect the validity of a belief.

Fallibity intrinsic within superstition illustrates why superstition should never bind others.
That has nothing with what we are discussing. Let us review our comments.

First, you implied that there was nothing to worry about because "absurd morality" only works on deluded people.
Then, I pointed out that "absurd morality" would work on 90% of the population.

Now you can either concede the point and admit "absurd morality" will still effect the content of games;
Or you can argue that 90% aren't really deluded.

[kurisu7885]

Likely shouldn't bother.Pandra has already decided that his choice is arbitrary and the only way to fix the industry's problems and there are no other options.
No, ignore that the rest of us may think differently on this,one person's choice should decided this. :rolleyes:

[Pandralisk]

No, it's not precisely your point, because it refutes all your claims.

And no, AO content would not receive the life it deserves. What part of "MA will become the 'new' AO rating" don't you understand?

Are you going to just ignore the effects of adverse selection and pretend it doesn't exist?

And no, we cannot assume that public perception of MA content will remain the same after you merge it with AO. And furthermore, if you go ahead with your plan to abolish licensing agreements, pornographic and ultraviolent console games will be made, and they'll have more in common with an X and NC-17 rated movies than they will with R rated.

And unfortunately for your plan, "Interactive Adventures of Lesbian Martians" will still be rated in the same category as fun, wholesome games like "Halo". And that's adverse selection for you.

What part of "MA will become the 'new' AO rating" don't you understand?

And what part of "censorship will become a null issue when the meaning of the rating system shifts from "MA adult content" to "Adult COntent" (as it should be) and stronger laws are created to ensure games made for adults do not end up in the hands of children?" do YOU not understand? Again, you're limiting your consideration of this concept on a point-by-point basis. Judge its entirity.

It would be a wonderful thing for the creative and aritstic development of the medium if pornographic and ultraviolent games were created. If a market for an item that depicts a fictional setting that causes no direct harm exists, it should be open for production. Again, moral norms do not function at an objective level in the world of entertainment fiction. I would perfer an industry with these games, and the subsequent level of artistic freedom that would open up in other games [ie, awesome FPS's, RPG's, etc intended for an adult audience], to an industry that is monopolized, tyrannized, and sterotyped as a childish plaything for the sake of upholding absurd moral norms for "kiddie safe" entertainment.

How will the "new" MA rating inform parents? Simple.

MA = THIS GAME IS NOT INTENDED OR LEGALLY SOLD TO MINORS UNDER ANY CONDITION.

Pretty simple, if you ask me. If a game is intended for an adult audience, it is useless to try and cite subjective moral standards in an attemptto determine a game's "adultness." Any attempt -- especially the current use of the AO rating -- is a form of censorship. If a market exists for "Interactive Adeventures of Lesbian Martians," game developers should be free to design and meet the demands of consumers. It should recieve the same rating as Halo: both games are not intended or legally avaliable to children. Adults can research the content of the game and examine its box to decide if they take intrest in the game.

First, you implied that there was nothing to worry about because "absurd morality" only works on deluded people. Then, I pointed out that "absurd morality" would work on 90% of the population. Now you can either concede the point and admit "absurd morality" will still effect the content of games; Or you can argue that 90% aren't really deluded.


Nice attempt at creating false delimma, but it is not going to work. Before you strawman the **** out of this point anymore, let me remind you what the point describes. The point of that statement was to make sure that you know that absurd morality derived from superstitious hate is a form of mass delusion, despite the "majority" weight you seem so happy to give it. Moral norms, if they exist at all, are subjective and carry little deliberative weight (certainly not enough weight to justify censorship on any level). Since you seem ignorant of simple context clues, let me clarify: the concept of moral norms derived from superstion is DELUSIONAL; SOME people who enforce these moral norms on fictional entertainment are DELUDED; ALL people who practice such norms are DELUDED; HOWEVER, MOST people do not strictly enforce morality on forms of fictional entertainment.

[Pelor]

"censorship will become a null issue when the meaning of the rating system shifts from "MA adult content" to "Adult COntent" (as it should be)
because you're wrong and it won't become a null issue.

And what part of "censorship will become a null issue when the meaning of the rating system shifts from "MA adult content" to "Adult COntent" (as it should be) and stronger laws are created to ensure games made for adults do not end up in the hands of children?" do YOU not understand? Again, you're limiting your consideration of this concept on a point-by-point basis. Judge its entirity.

It would be a wonderful thing for the creative and aritstic development of the medium if pornographic and ultraviolent games were created. If a market for an item that depicts a fictional setting that causes no direct harm exists, it should be open for production. Again, moral norms do not function at an objective level in the world of entertainment fiction. I would perfer an industry with these games, and the subsequent level of artistic freedom that would open up in other games [ie, awesome FPS's, RPG's, etc intended for an adult audience], to an industry that is monopolized, tyrannized, and sterotyped as a childish plaything for the sake of upholding absurd moral norms for "kiddie safe" entertainment.

How will the "new" MA rating inform parents? Simple.

MA = THIS GAME IS NOT INTENDED OR LEGALLY SOLD TO MINORS UNDER ANY CONDITION.

Pretty simple, if you ask me. If a game is intended for an adult audience, it is useless to try and cite subjective moral standards in an attemptto determine a game's "adultness." Any attempt -- especially the current use of the AO rating -- is a form of censorship. If a market exists for "Interactive Adeventures of Lesbian Martians," game developers should be free to design and meet the demands of consumers. It should recieve the same rating as Halo: both games are not intended or legally avaliable to children. Adults can research the content of the game and examine its box to decide if they take intrest in the game.
Wow, this is just so incredibly a bad idea. I really don't think I can convince you, but hopefully most everyone can understand why. Also, I can't help but notice the number of large words you use, and yet you still managed to misspell just as many small ones --it's just so counter intuitive.

Let me just make sure I've got your ideas correct:
1. ESRB ratings should tell us nothing specific about a game's content (outside of a vague age-range).
2. Parents should trust the ESRB completely to decide what is appropriate for a particular age-category.
3. Parents should also do research about a game's content, but none of the information they require should be conveyed by the ESRB rating
4. A game can be rated MA (or, for sale to adults only), even though the reasons for doing so are based completely on subjective moral standards. Also, as per #3, we should keep these moral standards secret.
5. I should not evaluate numbers one through five on this list, but rather, I should judge your plan "in its entirety".

Of course, this is all assuming that companies will continue to use ESRB as a standard rating after you thoroughly neuter it. God forbid that a company (like Best Buy) should adopt a more descriptive rating system (like CSM).

Then there's a better plan which seems to be more popular with the Gamepolitic's crew.
1. ESRB rating should attempt to convey some information about a game's content.
2. Parents should use information given to them by ESRB label to judge whether the game is appropriate for their children.
3. More steps should be added between Teen and Mature, to better convey a continuity of maturation.

Also, keeping up with your theme of changing twiddledee's name to twiddledum, I also recommend that we change the "Adult's Only" rating to "Super-Fun Games for Adults". The friendlier name will make developers less likely to self-censor to earn a lower rating. Obviously this paragraph is sarcasm meant to ridicule you're ideas.

Nice attempt at creating false delimma, but it is not going to work. Before you strawman the **** out of this point anymore, let me remind you what the point describes. The point of that statement was to make sure that you know that absurd morality derived from superstitious hate is a form of mass delusion, despite the "majority" weight you seem so happy to give it. Moral norms, if they exist at all, are subjective and carry little deliberative weight (certainly not enough weight to justify censorship on any level). Since you seem ignorant of simple context clues, let me clarify: the concept of moral norms derived from superstion is DELUSIONAL; SOME people who enforce these moral norms on fictional entertainment are DELUDED; ALL people who practice such norms are DELUDED; HOWEVER, MOST people do not strictly enforce morality on forms of fictional entertainment.
How is it that you can say so many words, and yet only the last sentence is pertinent to the topic? Okay, I'll agree to your point.

[Pandralisk]

Let me just make sure I've got your ideas correct:
1. ESRB ratings should tell us nothing specific about a game's content (outside of a vague age-range).
2. Parents should trust the ESRB completely to decide what is appropriate for a particular age-category.
3. Parents should also do research about a game's content, but none of the information they require should be conveyed by the ESRB rating
4. A game can be rated MA (or, for sale to adults only), even though the reasons for doing so are based completely on subjective moral standards. Also, as per #3, we should keep these moral standards secret.
5. I should not evaluate numbers one through five on this list, but rather, I should judge your plan "in its entirety".


1. Somewhat correct. ESRB ratings should only describe the content as it pertains to its correctness for various age groups of children. Once a product is labeled for an adult audience, the ESRB should have no obligation to further explain the product.

2. Absolutely. A paticular parent might contest a various aspect or call, but the parent always has the power to take a game away from their child.

3. I did not say parents should have to do research. You misread my statement that said that ADULTS [not parents] should research the content of any game beyond the 18+ rating level.

4. Unfortunately, yes. I will not bother with a normative argument for why children should have access to games with violent and sexual themes (check any critic of the industry for the reasons why). Drawing a line at "adult content" appears far more plausible and straightforward than randomly poking at "adultish adult content, seriously, AO dudes."

5. Yes, evaluate the entire list. The 4 points you listed are not representive of some of the latter points. Go back through it.

I do not wish to neuter the ESRB. I wish to protect the artistic freedom and intellectual depth of the gaming industry by erasing artifical barriers currently used to censor content that is deemed "immoral" by a perverse, deluded, and disgusting segment of the population obsessed with shoving their moral values down the throat of every single American.



Then there's a better plan which seems to be more popular with the Gamepolitic's crew.
1. ESRB rating should attempt to convey some information about a game's content.
2. Parents should use information given to them by ESRB label to judge whether the game is appropriate for their children.
3. More steps should be added between Teen and Mature, to better convey a continuity of maturation.


I do not see how a vague, two sentence, description of a game's content conveys a clearer meaning than a simple, well understood, MA rating that carriers the meaning:

"FOR ADULTS ONLY."

Your plan is fine if your objective is to silence contemporary critics of the industry, but it does not address the greater issues at hand.

External forces kill the free market supply of games and regulate the content of games intended for a market that should be free to demand any product it wishes. The current system uses the AO rating to censor content and stereotype the console medium as an intrinsically "family friendly" brand. I am content with simply informing parents that a game should NEVER end up in the hands of their children; beyond this, I could care less about the fate of the children.

I'm concerned with our freedom as consumers, and the freedom for developers to meet the demands of adult consumers. I care about the growth of the game industry and the progression of the medium itself.

Cutting out adult themes, through AO censorship, is crippling this industry by excluding logical units of content in mature games and reinforcing the stereotype of "video games for kids."

[Pelor]

@any others that may or may not be reading this thread.

So I was thinking further about this topic while in class. Originally I just assumed, under pali's plan, that retailers would just extend it's current blanket ban to all M games or, more likely, hide them behind a counter. Although it would cut into profits, the family-friendly appearance always needs to be maintained.

Then it occurred to me, it would be more economically efficient to adopt CSM's rating system. So, I guess that this action is more likely than I previously implied. It's practically guaranteed.

[Brokenscope]

Common sense media....

They don't just "rate" the game. They attempt to give it a score about how good it is.

So then we would be truly ****ed.

[POLE]

Likely shouldn't bother.Pandra has already decided that his choice is arbitrary and the only way to fix the industry's problems and there are no other options.
No, ignore that the rest of us may think differently on this,one person's choice should decided this. :rolleyes:

Sad reality.

My grandmother once told me that the real "smart" peoples in debates like this are those who can see both sides of the mirror and make compromises.

By reading this thread (and many news on the main website), I realize how true she was.

[kurisu7885]

Sad reality.

My grandmother once told me that the real "smart" peoples in debates like this are those who can see both sides of the mirror and make compromises.

By reading this thread (and many news on the main website), I realize how true she was.

Imagine how many problems would ACTUALLY go away if what you said was allowed to happen.

[POLE]

But IT happened. Not often, but it happened.

The most recent example is Glenn Coffee.

A politician whose goal is to ensure the security of it's peoples (though the real reason COULD be debatable) who was willing to look at both sides of the case (in this case, video games and the ESRB) and make compromises (educate parents instead of banning).

Peoples like this are sadly, a few roses among a bush of thorns.

Like you, I wish that it would happen more often, but we must remember that every steps counts with such a subject.

[Brokenscope]

Sometime there are things you can't compromise on without ...compromising your values.