orannis62 said:
mokes310 said:
orannis62 said:
The ESRB is not perfect, but it's a necessary evil. Think about it: this VOLUNTARY organization decides to stop, then the government will step in. Do we really want Hillary Clinton rating our games?
The I ask of you: Do you really want a
voluntary board with no oversight rating your games and movies?
I am firmly against censorship on all levels and would much rather see the government set up a board to review media than independent groups like the ESRB or MPAA. They are FAR worse than the government.
How do you figure?
Please read my response below Horny Ico.
Horny Ico said:
That's really tragic if you honestly believe you can trust government, especially on matters that involve shitty parents wanting everything done for them.
Ok, first we need to look at how various "private" boards like the MPAA and ESRB operate. I am by no means an expert on the ESRB, so I can only infer that their methodology is similar to that of the MPAA.
The MPAA, as many of you may or may not know, is the shadowy organization responsible for rating the movies we here in the US, view in theaters. Now, I won't bore you with their history or their ties to industry executives, but I will tell you how they review and rate films.
While a film is past the post production stage, it is sent to the MPAA for a Ratings Review. The film is reviewed by a panel of anonymous "Average American Parents." To most people, this is harmless, but upon further review, this process can be seen as patently absurd. Many of the Movie Reviewers are either: A) not parents, or B) parents of grown children. If we want average, every day parents of American children to review our movies, then why are people who aren't parents, or parents of grown children allowed to voice their opinion?
Second, if you disagree with the rating that your movie receives, you are allowed to appeal the rating to another anonymous ratings appelate board. This board consists of other "non-parents," as well as clergy members of the two most popular ecclesiastic churches in the United States. If you're still reading and not pissed off, then you need to re-think your media usage.
As I previously stated, these review and ratings boards are anonymous. Jack Valente, the former head of the MPAA stated that the reason for this was to, "...protect the reviewers from unlawful reprisals..." Take a step back and think about how we operate as a country. We can all agree that (most of) our laws are designed to insure security. Obviously, murder, rape and other things are punished accordingly. When we look at how they are punished, we see that: first, we are innocent until proven guilty, and second, we are garunteed a trial by a jury of our PEERS. Obviously, these instances are far more life-changing, and have far greater implications than the measly rating of a film, would you agree? So why is it that we aren't worried about reprisals towards jurors and judges, yet we're terrified of reprisals towards movie raters? Is this ok? HELL NO!
The main problem that I have with the MPAA and other "private" ratings boards is that they lack accountability. When they do things that are unethical, they are never held responsible. Conversly, our politicians are held accountable for their actions through public elections.
Now, I'm not saying that the Government is the be-all-to-end-all in terms of regulation, but in this instance, I feel that they would do a much better job than the MPAA or ESRB. Now think about this hypothetical option (and this is just one suggestion). If we were to have a bi-partisan review board consisting of four members from each of the two parties, who's decisions and reasonings were open to the public the instant they were made; would you feel better about how your games and movies were rated and the board that passed judgement?
I know this was a little long, and I do appreciate anyone who read this and thoughtfully replied. If you would like to know more about the MPAA, I would strongly suggest you watch the film, "This Film Is Not Yet Rated."
