Bruno Wolff III <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 23:08:19 -0500, > Richard Kettering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Why are we having this discussion? Why are we dedicating such > > _exegesis to a word that 10-year olds would openly laugh at for its > > quaintness? > > Because the project has a guideline that says that material isn't supposed > to contain vulgar or obscene stuff, but that guideline (a post from Dave) > doesn't give much guidance as to where to draw the line. > > If we figure out where the line is here, then we can reuse that effort later > in similar cases.
And I'm in favor of figuring out where that line is, so I don't really mind "tree-shagger" being a test case. Having different standards for campaign teasers vs. storyline text does not make sense to me -- it would be false advertising. I think movie ratings are a good paradigm to think in terms of. But I'll get to ESRB ratings. We want kids to be able to play the game, so R- or X-rated language and content is right out. On the other hand, pretending we want to be G-rated is silly; it would never happen. This is a game that includes violence and evil with a significant horror element. (Dunno about you, but *my* blood chilled in TROW when the Fool Prince said "Father!...Join...us...") PG-13 is what's left, and seems reasonable to me. I looked at the ESRB ratings page: http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp In those terms, BfW is clearly E10+, with or without "tree-shagger" (this rating permits "mild language, suggestive themes"). I think I would prefer our policy to aim at T, which is obviously designed as a PG-13 equivalent. So the policy guideline I suggest is: BfW contentent must be compatible with a an MPAA PG-13 or ESRB "T" rating. -- <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a> _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev