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
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
