Monday, April 27, 2009

Is Linden Lab's proposed content rating system in trouble before it begins?

Posted by Bettina Tizzy

Miss Tateru Nino still has not been able to find two people who can agree on Linden Lab's proposed definitions of PG and Mature for Second Life® content, according to her just-published post on Massively regarding the anticipated rating system.

One point that came up in conversation with her last week is that, and this is a direct quote: "The G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17 ratings were established for rating motion pictures and may only be used in connection with motion pictures that have been rated by CARA" (See Section 1A). Tateru asked, "In theory, PG sims should be marked PG®? I mean, if we're following trademark rules and all..."

"That's why things like games in the USA don't use the same codes," added Tateru.

Could Linden Lab's proposed rating system be stepping on an even bigger entity's toes?

Posted by Bettina Tizzy at 9:32 AM

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

View blog reactions

6 comments:

Unknown said...

I already wrote a comment on Linden Lab site regarding 'content rating'. The whole thing is ridiculous. I'm told the next thing is all SL residents will have to wear red sneakers and open eggs from the small end only

April 27, 2009 at 10:36 AM
sororNishi said...

There was an unnecessary amount of pain and tribulation that resulted from the lack of clarity over the Open Spaces definitions when it eventually had to be cleared up.
Sowing the seeds of another such fiasco would be exactly the wrong move.
Are things currently so terrible that drastic action needs to be taken? I haven't noticed any increase in dodgy behaviour....

April 27, 2009 at 1:49 PM
HomerTheBrave said...

What does LL want? LL wants their most lucrative potential market (educators, professionals, corporate clients, etc) to be able to rez for the first time at an infohub without encountering hookers or greifers wearing sculpty penises. And I say: Right on. No problem. Do that.

What do kid-av people want? They want to go through their second life role-playing as kids, without pervy people soliciting them. And without the fear that some stupid person will AR them for inappropriate behavior simply for having a kid av. And I say: Right on. No problem. Do that.

What do the money-making LL-customer hookers and pimps of SL want? They want to be able to ply their trade and do some fun stuff and make some money and not have to worry about some straight-vanilla person ARing anyone. And I say: Right on. No problem. Do that.

Segregation solves these problems, much the same way it solves similar and analogous problems in the real world. Whether it's called 'adult' or 'non-PG' or whatever is irrelevant.

The big mistake is that there are actually two axes, and not just three points on the same line.

One axis is behavioral: Call it 'nasty' vs. 'vanilla.' The other axis is content-oriented: Call it 'PG' vs. 'not PG.' Encounter nothing objectionable in vanilla-PG-world. Be a freak in nasty-non-PG-world. Make art in vanilla-non-PG world. And.. uhm.... I'm not sure what happens in nasty-PG-world. :-)

April 28, 2009 at 10:21 PM
someone somewhere said...

@ HomerTheBrave:

nasty-PG = ... bathroom humor? lol

April 29, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Tateru Nino said...

"LL wants their most lucrative potential market (educators, professionals, corporate clients, etc) to be able to rez for the first time at an infohub without encountering hookers or greifers wearing sculpty penises."

The infohubs are already PG and that does nothing to prevent it. It might even encourage it, for all I know.

It's already actionable behavior, but action is not taken or is only taken *eventually*. I don't see how any of these changes improves that situation.

April 29, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Nexii Malthus said...

Well, Google is trademarked, but do we care? I think that this talk about trademarks is more sad and ridciolous than the actual talk of the policy changes coming into effect soon.

May 4, 2009 at 5:12 AM

Post a Comment