4 ms·

> That is a tradeoff I can live with. That is the attitude that has led to erosion of rights, that unfortunately, I'm force to live with.

adamtj 16y ago
Rights are inalienable, but their recognition by those in power is delicate and must be protected everywhere -- even when it doesn't seem like it matters. Besides, how hard would it be to implement a reputation system instead of censorship? Bonus: they wouldn't have to pay the censors.
- teamonkey 16y ago
  > Besides, how hard would it be to implement a reputation system instead of censorship? Impossible. They host the content, they're responsible for it, they're required to uphold the age rating the game is given.
  - sigstoat 16y ago
    aren't there big notices on the box like "online interactions are not rated"?
    - teamonkey 16y ago
      It doesn't work like that. It's not some kid shouting obscenities down a crackly microphone. They're choosing to host the content, it affects the rating of the overall product. To keep the 'T' rating the content needs to be moderated.
      - sigstoat 16y ago
        i won't deny that mom and dad aren't going to care about the difference, a la penny arcade, but, from the ESRB: "Online-enabled games carry the notice "Online Interactions Not Rated by the ESRB." This notice warns those who intend to play the game online about possible exposure to chat (text, audio, video) or other types of user-generated content (e.g., maps, skins) that have not been considered in the ESRB rating assignment." has any game "lost" its rating, or had it modified, or whatever, because of user generated content?
        rubinelli 16y ago
        Rating boards aren't exactly impartial and scientific, as the "hot coffee" GTA incident showed. It would take exactly one report on Fox News about how young kids can be exposed to nude pictures while playing "SexCraft" to get Blizzard in trouble.
amanfredi 16y ago
I appreciate that in general this attitude has led to erosion of rights. However... I don't see how anyone other than Blizzard has any right to free speech on their privately owned gaming platform. Even if Blizzard has created a new medium of expression in Starcraft II maps, why should they should be compelled to enable the distribution of any map they don't like? I understand that people may not like Blizzard's decision to moderate their platform, but it's a big stretch to say that they are trampling on our right to free speech. Is a newspaper trampling on your right to free speech by choosing which editorials to print?
jasonkester 16y ago
There are no rights here to erode. It's the opposite actually. A few days ago you had no means to make Starcraft 2 maps of any description. Now you can, so long as you don't make an ass of yourself. How is that not a good thing?

adamtj 16y ago

Rights are inalienable, but their recognition by those in power is delicate and must be protected everywhere -- even when it doesn't seem like it matters. Besides, how hard would it be to implement a reputation system instead of censorship? Bonus: they wouldn't have to pay the censors.

teamonkey 16y ago
> Besides, how hard would it be to implement a reputation system instead of censorship? Impossible. They host the content, they're responsible for it, they're required to uphold the age rating the game is given.
- sigstoat 16y ago
  aren't there big notices on the box like "online interactions are not rated"?
  - teamonkey 16y ago
    It doesn't work like that. It's not some kid shouting obscenities down a crackly microphone. They're choosing to host the content, it affects the rating of the overall product. To keep the 'T' rating the content needs to be moderated.
    - sigstoat 16y ago
      i won't deny that mom and dad aren't going to care about the difference, a la penny arcade, but, from the ESRB: "Online-enabled games carry the notice "Online Interactions Not Rated by the ESRB." This notice warns those who intend to play the game online about possible exposure to chat (text, audio, video) or other types of user-generated content (e.g., maps, skins) that have not been considered in the ESRB rating assignment." has any game "lost" its rating, or had it modified, or whatever, because of user generated content?
      - rubinelli 16y ago
        Rating boards aren't exactly impartial and scientific, as the "hot coffee" GTA incident showed. It would take exactly one report on Fox News about how young kids can be exposed to nude pictures while playing "SexCraft" to get Blizzard in trouble.

amanfredi 16y ago

I appreciate that in general this attitude has led to erosion of rights. However... I don't see how anyone other than Blizzard has any right to free speech on their privately owned gaming platform. Even if Blizzard has created a new medium of expression in Starcraft II maps, why should they should be compelled to enable the distribution of any map they don't like? I understand that people may not like Blizzard's decision to moderate their platform, but it's a big stretch to say that they are trampling on our right to free speech. Is a newspaper trampling on your right to free speech by choosing which editorials to print?

jasonkester 16y ago

There are no rights here to erode. It's the opposite actually. A few days ago you had no means to make Starcraft 2 maps of any description. Now you can, so long as you don't make an ass of yourself. How is that not a good thing?