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
