> There's more than two facets, and you do not know yours is the right one. Just because someone has a contrary opinion to my idea doesn't mean my idea is now

> There's more than two facets, and you do not know yours is the right one. Just because someone has a contrary opinion to my idea doesn't mean my idea is now unknowable and equal in weight to their contradiction. I don't like this postmodern idea that "everything is subjective, so nothing has real value." It would be easy to contrive an example of a degenerate game idea which only purpose is to harass specific people and serve racist desires. You are saying that our society is unable to ethically categorize this game differently than any other game? I don't think it's required that we mathematically determine what's "good" in order to set reasonable boundaries. Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it's impossible to quantify their place in society. Sure, there's a fuzzy line that controversial topics straddle. Keep those all, I say. The games you mentioned are not even close to what I'm talking about. I'm not saying to get rid of controversial stuff, but to set an upper bound. It just seems like a conflict of interest to have zero guidelines about a thing they will profit over.