The Bynk Zone: Parent your own kids!

« More silliness on the Intarweb | Main | We have a slogan! »

Parent your own kids!

Okay kids, now I'm pissed. Not annoyed, not bemused, but honest to god angry. Once again, "Protecting Children" is being used as a reason for my access to adult, (No, NOT porn, but adult, in the sense of "For grownup sensibilities") entertainment and information to be made still harder. This time, by Kirk McElhearn writing for iPodlounge, in his column called Editorial: Apple's Porno Podcasts, Explicit and Unlabeled.

I can't even say that on the surface it seems reasonable, because it's only reasonable if you're one of those parents who demands that everything on the friggin' planet be reduced to a level suitable for a six - year - old with self-esteem issues. (We'll let the idiotic title go in this case, it's just Dvorakism writ large.)

Kirk is all concerned and worried because ...there are over 3,000 podcasts available for free through the iTunes Music Store. And if that wasn’t enough, there’s a pretty big selection of pornographic content, too. It seems that podcasts such as CrossOver, Fetish Flame, Rope Weekly, and GayPorn Talk are just a huge problem because the lack a voluntary tag that marks them as explicit. (even though at the moment, Fetish Flame does have that tag, and GayPorn talk appears to have disappeared from the site.

Kirk is six kinds of worried because Apple’s iTunes Music Store is designed to appeal to a young demographic, and it surprises me to think that Apple added all of these podcasts without screening their content in any way.. I mean, it's easy to spot the porn right? The title's a dead giveaway as he says: In some cases, the names of the podcasts or descriptions of the episodes are dead giveaways: “check out two dirty stories about couples that cook up some very naughty holiday surprises...”

Well Kirk, I don't see the problem, unless you let small children have unhindered, and unsupervised access to the Internet. You can't be that kind of parent, right?

But Kirk's an open-minded guy...Now I’m no prude, nor a member of any religious or political group crusading against pornography - from my perspective, consenting adults have an indisputable right to choose what they listen to. Moreover, I have no issue with podcasts legitimately presented as educational - as are some of the ones in the screenshot above of the podcast directory section called Health > Sexuality. But, as a father he's very concerned, because he's disturbed that Apple...a company I’ve trusted to have good judgment, seems not to be concerned about the presence of pornography in their podcasts. At least, Apple should provide Explicit warnings on all these podcasts; at best, they should sort through the podcasts they have added (because Apple expressly chose to include these podcasts when launching iTunes 4.9) to weed out what is incompatible with a substantial fraction of their users. Users can subscribe to individual podcasts by adding entering their URLs in a dialog, so those people who want to listen to this type of audio content can do so with no restriction.

See? It's simple. If you want something that's not on the level of Radio Disney, you can just manually enter the URL. Easy access is only for the kiddies. You people who want "that kind" of content can just enter the URL manually. No ease of use for you! After all...Freedom of choice is very important. But free access to porn through a portal designed to attract young users is a big error of judgment. Apple needs to be more responsible about the type of content it provides - not to censor it, but to appropriately label and restrict its access.

Well, pardon me Kirk, but isn't restricting your child's access to content you judge inappropriate for your child your job. Obviously Kirk couldn't be bothered to listen to the podcasts he's stigmatizing as pornography. While Rope Weekly is a bit on the naughty side, CrossOver is simply a podcast for those in the Transgendered community, and sounds like the BBC. Damned preverts, thinking they should have a right to easy access to a podcast of interest to them. You just shut up and listen to Raffi.

Please note that like Kirk, I too am a father. I've an eleven year old son, who has his own Mac. He's got an iPod. Guess who controls what he sees on the internet? Is it some bit of software? Nooooooo. Is it me lobbying RoadRunner to clean up the Intarweb? NOOOoooo. It's me. I do this. I'm a single parent, with a latchkey kid and guess what, I am the one who takes care of the parenting. I preview movies, I blatantly censor what he has on iTunes, I peek in on him with Apple Remote Desktop at random, and I hold the keys to his buddy list and his Address Book. Yeah, it's a lot of work, but that's okay, IT'S MY DAMNED JOB!!

See Kirk, I get very pissy when lazy parents like you demand that any.entity.other.than.yourself dumb itself down to Radio Disney level so that you don't have to keep an eye on your kid. I LIKE having easy access to entertainment that while not pornographic, (or hell, even if it IS porn), is simply not suitable for my child. I don't demand that you live your life according to what I think is appropriate, so how about you return the favor. It's not my job, it's not Apple's job, it's not Britney Spears', Nomar Garciaparra's, Howard Stern's or anyone else's job to raise your kids. It's yours. Don't like it? Tough.

Also, don't give that, "I'm no prude, I think adults have a right to whatever entertainment they want" right after you say you want all content you don't approve of to not be listed in iTunes, and only available via manual URL entry. That's called "hypocrisy" because you obviously don't want anything you don't like to be available with any kind of convenience. Of course, if it's not listed, then how is anyone to know it's there? I guess preverts have their own mailing list or something. It's intellectual cowardice. You obviously only want the content you approve of to be easily accessible, and everyone else can just pound sand, as long as you can turn your kids loose on iTunes with no adult supervision. You remind me of the idiots who assume that people in bookstores and video game stores should not only hide everything but whatever you approve of in the back room, but that they should also watch your kids for you so that you don't have to expend the effort. It reeks of entitlement issues, and parents like you really piss off parents like me and my friends who DO spend considerable effort doing the damned job themselves, because we have this odd idea that our children shouldn't be someone else's burden by default.

So how about you actually get up and do your job? If you can't be bothered to perform all the duties of parent, then you shouldn't have become one in the first place. But in either case, stop lobbying Apple to hide everything that's more mature than "Billy sees a bug" away from iTunes. Because it's not their job to protect your kids, it's yours. Period.

Posted by John C. Welch at 18:50 | Permalink

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.bynkii.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/83

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Parent your own kids!:

» Parental Control for Podcasts? from LameZone
I read an interesting article about the need for parental controls on Podcasts from inside of iTunes. I also read John Welch’s response . Wow. Hey guys, you think we can meet somewhere in the middle? Somewhere that doesn’t involve ce... [Read More]

Tracked on July 7, 2005 11:01 AM

» iTunes for Porno? Get Real. Get Responsible. from NSLog();
You know, I've gotta side with John on this one. As a parent (hey, I can say that now!), I believe in teaching kids to be responsible and in being responsible myself. Part of that responsibility is knowing what my... [Read More]

Tracked on July 7, 2005 01:38 PM

» Podcasts, Parenting, and Censorship from Andyâ€™s Blog
Letâ€™s see, where to start? First, read this article at iPodLounge which discusses the potentially explicit content on Appleâ€™s podcast directory. (You can also read Jobsâ€™ take on the issue at ABC News.) Then for a rebuttal, you can read... [Read More]

Tracked on July 15, 2005 12:12 PM

Comments

We don't allow children to drive cars and many other things. If it's decided that children can't handle the Internet, why do parents insist on letting their kids on? If it comes down to taking content off the net to 'protect the kids' or taking kids off, I would easily choose the latter.

Posted by: nolan | July 7, 2005 08:45 AM

Couldn't agree more.

Posted by: FredB | July 7, 2005 10:11 AM

This whole post is a strange overreaction and a bit on the ad hominem side. Which way do you want it? You claim a parent should raise their own child, but then get unreasonably irate at the suggestion that warning labels might be applied to things to help a parent discern what is okay and what isn't. McElhearn suggests in his article that "...Apple should provide Explicit warnings on all these podcasts" which seems not only reasonable, but perfectly in line with what society demands of other content providers (TV, movies, music, etc.) So how does a parent make the kind of decisions you claim are their responsibility if they don't have that information?

Also, it's erroneous on your part to assume your situation is applicable to everyone out there and just because something works for you means it has no flaws or shouldn't be reconsidered. I don't agree with everything McElhearn says in his article, but he does make some good points. Your rebuttal is terribly immature and doesn't adequately respond to his better points.

Posted by: Rick Anderson | July 7, 2005 01:37 PM

Read Kirk's article again. He wants all content that he doesn't approve of for his kids to be only accessible by manual URL entry. That's kind of going to kill everything that you relegate to that ghetto, because you'll never be able to browse for it.

Secondly, perfectly define "Explicit". That is, define the word in a way that fully covers every situation that every parent with access to iTMS podcasts would use it. That means that no one anywhere will ever disagree with you.

Then, once you've done that, ponder how long it would take Apple to hire enough people to listen to *every* podcast that is on iTMS or submitted to it, compare it to a perfect definition of explicit, and decide if it gets the label.

Even if this weren't an impossible task, you'd be lucky to only take a year for a podcast to be listed on iTMS.

You can't do this, you cannot even come close. In fact, trying to create some magical definition of "explicit" that Kirk, I, and everyone else agrees on is a fool's errand.

That's the problem. My explicit is not your explicit. The *best* you can do, MAYBE is go by "the seven dirty words". But then, not all of those words have the same implications in every culture, even if we limit this to english. Heck, you can't even do it just in the US alone. Janet Jackso showed that.

So what then? the current system is imperfect, but the least offensive. You rely on the creators of the podcast to decide, and apologize if they mess up.

But I fail to see HOW I'm wrong in not expecting Apple, or anyone else to decide for me what is appropriate or inappropriate for my child. That's my job. No one else's. And I take it seriously. I do maintain control over what he has on his computer, what movies he sees, etc. It's a pain in the ass, but that's part of being a parent.

Kirk wants Apple to somehow magically read his mind, so that their definition of "explicit" matches his. That's just ridiculous. If Kirk doesn't want his kid seeing certain things, or listening to certain things, booyah for him! But why should stuff that *I* or anyone else doesn't find offensive be unbrowseable, and why should anyone else have to jump through hoops just so he doesn't have to do his job as a parent?

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 7, 2005 02:07 PM

Apple could serve its own interests, and those of its users by extending the iTunes Rating star system to let the iTunes community set its own standards for the Podcast content. One of the big issues it faces in positioning itself in the center of the Podcast universe is finding the good content. A natural way of doing this is to extend functionality it already has in iTunes to let users share their ratings with the world.

In addition to the star ratings, Apple should add a movie style rating category [G, PG, R, X] and let users vote on the age-appropriateness of the content. Parental Controls which let the parents determine the rating of the content they want their kids exposed to would give parents a lot more confidence in letting their children use the system. Everyone knows how the movie system works - adapting it to Podcast and even music and later video content would seem to be a good thing to do. By doing this Apple also avoids liability for screening the content themselves.

Posted by: Gibbons Burke | July 7, 2005 02:26 PM

Then the people most active in the community, always a minority, become the arbiters of "what's right" for everyone. Which is a different way of creating the same problem Kirk advocates.

Why not just build good parental controls into the iTunes application and update Mac OS X 10.4's parental controls to work with iTunes? (I say in the application too so that Mac OS X 10.3 users don't get screwed here)

that would solve far more problems. It allows each parent to decide what is appropriate for their child, without deciding for anyone else or having anyone else decide for them. It removes any sort of onus from Apple, and it deals with the real problem of the ratings system, namely that it's a crapshoot at best by not creating one, and allowing the listening audience to do what's best for them.

Yes, it means parents have to screen stuff on their own, but that's their job ANYWAY, so it's a non-issue.

This way, people without kids don't have to have their choices limited or affected by people with kids. Seems to me to be the fairest, and most technologically feasible solution.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 7, 2005 03:14 PM

Following iPodlounge's editorial, Apple's CEO went on record to say that its podcasting directory should not/will not include pornographic content. See http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=892335&page=2 .

Kirk's editorial made a simple point, which Apple agrees with: pornographic content should not be easily accessible by underage users of iTunes, regardless of whether adults should be entitled to listen to it. The reason for his editorial was simple: at the time it was posted, the podcasts in question were either miscategorized, unlabeled, or both. Since then (and in any case before you wrote your response on July 6), some labels have appeared, some podcasts have disappeared from the directory, and Apple has taken responsibility for remedying the problem Kirk identified.

Speaking for myself: I have no kids, and also have no desire to see my own range of entertainment/information options limited by people who are too lazy to "change the channel." But tagging this as a parental responsibility editorial is missing the point. There's a reason that pornographic magazines are wrapped in covers at major bookstores and put on high shelves (sometimes behind the cashier). No one is trying to prevent you from consuming pornographic content; Kirk was just asking Apple to properly wrap its magazines or make sure that kids didn't snatch them. This was a reasonable suggestion, and one that Apple apparently agreed with.

Posted by: Jeremy Horwitz | July 7, 2005 05:08 PM

Okay, the porn mag example you're using doesn't fly. iTunes doesn't randomly play podcasts as soon as you select podcasts. you have to specifically select a podcast to play it. So that analogy is...suboptimal.

Would you care to explain what rational Kirk used to include a channel that talks about issues of interest to the transgendered community in his example of "pornographic" material?

Or was that an "innocent mistake" because he didn't bother to listen to it. If he had, he might not have included it. Or is anything having to do with transgendered folks inappropriate for kids?

One of Kirk's suggestions wasn't that Apple "label" things but rather that they prevent them from being browsable at all, and instead require manual URL entry to see them. Wait, here's the quote:

Users can subscribe to individual podcasts by adding entering their URLs in a dialog, so those people who want to listen to this type of audio content can do so with no restriction.

Seems to me he's asking for a defacto ban on what he doesn't like.

I find most hardcore right-wing fundamentalist screeds to be quite offensive, and don't want my child seeing them, yet I doubt that any request i have for such content to be labled as explicit will be honored.

I note that Firehouse Radio is billed as "For Mature Audiences" yet has no explicit tag. Hmm, better call Apple. Pod-porn? no label.

Obviously, Apple needs to ban all podcasts from iTunes that they personally haven't listened to to determine the 'explicitness of the content', or at least every podcast that doesn't currently have an explicit tag. Because obviously some are slipping through. Oh sure, we'll gut the selection of podcasts, but as long as we're protecting children, then any means justifies that end, right? You can't rely on the titles, people could lie. No, each one has to be listened to by Apple and then (dis)approved, and appropriately labeled.

Of course, we'll have to disable the manual subscription until we can ensure a way to check the age of the person typing in the URL. because otherwise a child could type in a porn URL. Must protect the kids, Machiavelli was right.

Or, we could admit that this is a fool's errand and provide individual parents with the tools they need to lock down THEIR copy of iTunes in the way they see fit. Adding a white-list feature and controls on it would not be difficult from a technical perspective. But that's work isn't it. That makes the parents have to preview podcasts before they let their kids listen, instead of demanding the rest of the world kowtow to their offspring's needs.

Or maybe you're fine with it because it hasn't affected anything you care about yet.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 7, 2005 07:39 PM

John,

I'm not going to respond to all your vitriol, because you're really going too far - it is not possible to have a reasonable discussion with your attitude.

Let me just correct an error you made. You said:

It seems that podcasts such as CrossOver, Fetish Flame, Rope Weekly, and GayPorn Talk are just a huge problem because the lack a voluntary tag that marks them as explicit.

I _never_ cited CrossOver, which seems to irk you the most - you've mentioned it in your article and in your latest comment. It appears in a screen shot that shows a few of the podcasts I mentioned. But I never criticized it. I did not criticize any podcasts that are about gay issues, nor trans-gender issues, etc. I only criticized podcasts that are clearly pornography.

Steve Jobs has said that there would be no porn in the podcasts available from iTunes. Apple's not living up to what some of their customers expect. It's that simple.

Now calm down...

Posted by: Kirk McElhearn | July 8, 2005 01:56 AM

I too get so upset when I encounter the point of view of Mr. McElhearn. Protect your own kids and don't expect the rest of the world to dumb itself down waiting for everyone to be 18 or 21

Posted by: Sean | July 8, 2005 08:42 AM

Oh please Kirk...you made the screenshot, not me. You tarred every single podcast in that screen shot. I'm not the only one to point out podcasts that are in the screen shot that you didn't mention.

If you were only talking about specific shots, then why not edit the screenshot to more clearly illustrate your point? It seems to me that you could have easily done that with a more judicious use of cmd-shift-4, or by making your article more clear on the fact that you aren't talking about every podcast in your screen shot.

But you chose not to do that, thereby including all the podcasts in that image in your "OH NOES TEH PRON!!!" commentary. Then, when you encounter comments about that, (and I'm not the only one in that group), you start in with this attitude of "OMG, don't take the screen shot seriously, I only talked about foo, bar, and blah!"

Well Kirk, we can't read your mind. We don't "Know what you mean". If you wish people to get a specific message, then you need to strive for greater clarity in your writing. Don't expect other people to do that work for you.

Secondly, I'm going too far? You're the one demanding Apple not only label, but ban to a manual URL - only ghetto any podcast you don't approve of. Can you perchance give us a list of things you don't like, so that when things start going manual - only, we can all know what to expect? Or are we, along with Apple supposed to "Know what you mean"?

Thirdly...dude, the labeling's hit and miss. The only way for it not to be is for Apple to listen to every single podcast, and review it in a committee that then labels them or bans them.
That won't add more than a month delay to any podcast. Not bad at all in internet time. You talk about "They should label explicit broadcasts better". Okay Kirk, as an exercise, define "Explicit" in a way that will satisfy every single person in the US able to receive a podcast from iTunes. After all, if you want labeling, we should make sure that we all explicitly agree on what we're labeling. Of course, if I was a kid, I'd be cheering on labeling. It saves so much time in finding the smut when it's labeled as such. (You'd think people would learn from Tipper Gore's infamous mistake which led Donny Osmond to publicly say that he should have included a smut track on his album, as warning labels = increased sales. 'Round and 'round the historical ignorance merry-go-round we go)

You know, if you had said, "Apple should have given us parental controls in iTunes, so that parents can better manage what their kids see according to their own standards", that would have been a great point. I'm still surprised that Apple didn't, it would have avoided a lot of problems.

But you don't want that, probably because it would make you have to do the work. You want Apple to label, ban, and ghettoize whatever you think is bad for your kids so that you don't have to do any work. Of course, since there's no features built into iTunes that allows you to use labels, you'll get...no functional benefit, barring a complete ban of all podcasts you don't approve of. But you'll be able to point at the labels and tell your children in a stern voice, "You can't download those". That'll stop them. Yep, no problems there.

And as far as "All my vitriol" goes...well, one would think that a post that starts out "Okay kids, now I'm pissed" is probably not going to be a Cronkite-like analysis of your article. I'm kind of thinking the first paragraph's a clue here.

But it lets you avoid the dubious points you made like confusing "young demographic" with "Underage minors". You may want to go back and review the concept of the subset on that one. Or how everything that's not a clinical discussion of sex is suddenly pornography. So I guess you agree with the FCC allowing Oprah to devote a show to oral-anal sex, aka "Rimjobs" and "Tossing Salad", but fining Howard Stern when he has the same content. Or your "Apple should warn us about every podcast that may offend us" schtick. Like I said, when you come up with a universal definition of explicit, you let me know and we'll talk.

But my vitriol is far less offensive than you demanding that Apple turn iTunes podcasts into pabulum so you don't have to do the work of keeping an eye on your kids. If you're going to try to force your views on me, and make me have to jump through hoops so that your kids can wander iTunes sans supervision so that you can do whatever you consider more worthy of your time, then I'm going to call you on it, and I'm not going to feel any need to soft-pedal what I'm saying. I'm not sorry you don't like it, and I'm not sorry as to how I chose to say it. Don't like it? There's other places on the internet you can go.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 8, 2005 09:24 AM

One of the problem with blogs, is you need to come up with opinions to make blog posts with. It's tempting if you are the first one to notice a nitpicky thing like this, to promote it into a full blown activist opinion and use it as material for your blog.

There's no telling how sincere this is. I'm pretty sure it's exaggerated outrage. That's what we got: Supply Side Opinions

Posted by: suv man | July 8, 2005 01:30 PM

I can't speak for Kirk, but as for me, there's little exaggeration in either the content or the tone.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 8, 2005 01:55 PM

Damned straight. Great post. It's nice to see a parent approach this from the angle that it is your right as a parent to make the decisions about what your kid can and can't see.

Posted by: Sage | July 8, 2005 05:10 PM

An interesting problem is parents who don't have the technical expertise to keep up with their kids. Maybe you shouldn't let your child full empowerment in areas you can't manage to supervise, ok? You could perhaps UNPLUG THE DAMN INTERNET CABLE... if that's not too technical.

And what, Apple should label their podcasts? How about a "boring" label or a "unrepentently Christian" label. Or is that a redundancy? How about an "offensive to intelligent people" label?

Posted by: Locke | July 8, 2005 06:01 PM

Wow John, decided you missed all the comments that you got from the Lucas thread? :)

Posted by: W. Ian Blanton | July 8, 2005 07:01 PM

BTW, it should go without saying that I agree with you, John, but I'm saying it anyways.

I mean, I can dig the "Hey Apple, can we get the 'Explicit' tag on these?" angle. I'm all for an aid for some 'rents to try and filter.

I think the fact that Kirk has had to clarify his article like 6 times in the comments section, pretty much tell you how well done the article was.

The big kicker is that what's "Explicit" for you, ain't for me. (or vicey versey) My 7 year old listens to and plays games that are rated well above her age, in fact, some that her older cousins can't play. It because I know what her squick factor is pretty well. You know your son's.

Stuff like "Explicit" tags are, and can only be _aids_ to a parent, you can have a completely "clean" sounding song that is amazingly raunchy.

Me? I have very few things that my daughter has watched that I haven't, and those things are usually episodes of shows that I have come to trust.

And in the end you end up with a weird kid who loves the song "The Envoy". :)

Posted by: W. Ian Blanton | July 8, 2005 08:18 PM

We have three computers in the house. One is in my office, off limit to short people, the other in the living room and my old eMac is in the kitchen. They are all connected. (You know, so we can get to the Intarweb). The other day I was setting the table and my six year old was looking at a Brainpop movie about puberty. I suggested he might prefer their dinosaur or volcano selection. No biggie. Then, today, he is looking at a cartoon in which a squirrel (who is a bartender) is asking his customer if he "wants to order, or did he just come in for a mindfuck" (Can I say fuck here, John?).

So Mommy streaked across the kitchen and killed that site. He asked why--I said that is not a kid site. End of story. I know how good filters and Nanny software are-- as good as the first time the kid tries to get around them.

A little combo I call trust, good sense, and instilling values you want them to hold fast to.

But then, maybe I'm weird. I never talked baby-talk to my kids either "Who's a widdle wubby-dubby...." ick.

Instead of dumbing down, what-say we teach our kids to think-- or HEY!! What about just Teach our kids....full stop.

Lisa

Posted by: Beseel | July 8, 2005 11:31 PM

John, I have to admit, your reactionary screed does seem a little extreme. Let me address a few points specifically:

“That's called ‘hypocrisy’ because you obviously don't want anything you don't like to be available with any kind of convenience.”

There is a marked difference between censorship and inconvenience. Specifically, there is not a right for everyone to have easy access to anything that they perceive as appropriate. You use words like “ghetto” or “defacto ban,” since you can’t actually say that those podcasts were banned…because they weren’t. So you have to type a URL to subscribe to a podcast…so what? We live in a society where access to certain things is limited in certain ways. We generally don’t have strip clubs across the street from schools. The pornographic magazines are not displayed on the lower shelf to be within easy grasp. You have to show your ID before getting into a bar. These are all accepted forms of inconvenience that we as a society have established to somewhat limit access to various forms of entertainment that we think are not appropriate for younger children. Compared to driving to the seedy side of town to visit a strip club, pardon me if I’m not welling up with sympathy over you having to copy and paste a URL.

“Of course, if it's not listed, then how is anyone to know it's there?”

Well now, this is a completely valid point, of course. I mean, it’s not like there is an easy way for someone to find podcasts on the internet. A person couldn’t just enter “podcast” and the subject of their choice into, say, a search engine, in order to find a podcast on the subject they’re interested in. That would be just ludicrous.

“Okay Kirk, as an exercise, define ‘Explicit’ in a way that will satisfy every single person in the US able to receive a podcast from iTunes.”

Yet amazingly, and apparently against all logic, Apple specifically defines “Explicit” for numerous tracks within iTunes! And while we’re on the subject, somehow the MPAA can determine what movies are appropriate for my 13-year-old! It’s uncanny!

So really, how do Apple and the MPAA manage such a miraculous feat?? Do they really poll every single person in the U.S.? Have they talked to my 13-year-old to determine what is appropriate and what he might not really be ready for? Or maybe, just maybe, is it possible that they use some sort of general definition of the word “Explicit” that is good enough for most people, without having to specifically satisfy every single person’s exact definition of the word?

See, this is where your argument gets disingenuous. Because really, honestly, you know that we already have ratings systems, and you know that these are not universally agreed upon by every single person in the U.S. You know this, and yet you persist in making these pointless arguments about, “How are you going to define this word for everyone in the U.S. specifically?” So either you are purposely ignoring facts just to support your case, or you really are that ignorant. Either way, it doesn’t benefit your argument.

So in short, neither Apple nor anyone else has a responsibility to make your access to certain podcasts just as easy as your access to every other podcast. We as a society have generally restricted access to material that we think might be appropriate for younger children. Yes, groups do find ways to rate content without asking everyone specifically for their opinion. And even if you are “inconvenienced,” that inconvenience consists solely of having to cut and paste a URL instead of clicking a “subscribe” button. Given how easy it is to access any kind of information on the internet, pardon me if I’m not more sympathetic to your “defacto ban,” which really isn’t any kind of ban at all.

Andy.

Posted by: Andy | July 9, 2005 04:28 AM

In response to Bynkii's "Parent your own kids!" blog post Andy says, "somehow the MPAA can determine what movies are appropriate or my 13-year-old! It’s uncanny!"

Sure turn your kid's over to the MPAA. That'll really show that Bynkii fellow.

"So in short, neither Apple nor anyone else has a responsibility to make your access to certain podcasts just as easy as your access to every other podcast."

But they have a responsibility to do what you should be doing... previewing the content?

"We as a society have generally restricted access to material that we think might [not] be appropriate for younger children."

Why? Because kids are very likely to try to get a hold of these things. And when do they get these things and hurt themselves and others? When the adults that should be responsible for them don't honor that responsibility.

How effective are those rules and limitations when parents don't take responsibility for their kids? Not very.

Again, Parent your own kids.

Your kids are worth your attention, and having an adult complex society is worth everyone's attention.

Posted by: arcsine | July 9, 2005 06:14 AM

“That's called ‘hypocrisy’ because you obviously don't want anything you don't like to be available with any kind of convenience.”

Right, a de facto ban. Let's examine that. de facto:
de fac·to adv
in fact, whether with a legal right or not

adj
acting or existing in fact but without legal sanction

It's that adjective form I'm talking about. Who defines what gets relegated to the URL only ghetto? Not the listeners. No, that would be too easy. Instead it's a group of people I don't know, and I have no input on. When you speak of governmental limitations, you conveniently ignore the fact that that the citizens affected by such limitations have clear avenues with which to provide input, or even change on those limitations. A private company has no requirements whatsover to provide those avenues. So you're stuck with whatever Apple's censorship committee decides on. (Yes, censorship. They decide what is and is not on iTMS. That's censorship. In this case it's legal, but it's still censorship) As well, thanks to various "Government in the Sunshine" laws, citizens have the ability to gather information related to such decisions, such as meeting minutes, etc. There's no such ability with a private corporation. So who decides on what is banned from iTMS? I don't know, and neither do you. What standards are they using? I don't know and neither do you. What tools do you have in iTunes to prevent your kids from downloading podcasts you don't find appropriate? None. What about people who find things other than sex and profanity inappropriate? Well, they don't get any labels. So your fine accepted limitations are only valid if you don't like profanity and sex. I guess people with other moral objections to content don't count.

“Okay Kirk, as an exercise, define ‘Explicit’ in a way that will satisfy every single person in the US able to receive a podcast from iTunes.”

Yes, and so thanks to that, my son is protected from any accidental viewing of a male penis regardless of context or situation, but there's no problem showing someone getting shot between the eys. Seems like that's a completely failed system right there, and hey, that makes it a rather poor analogy.

And your statement: somehow the MPAA can determine what movies are appropriate for my 13-year-old! shows a typical yet ignorant opinion of what the MPAA ratings are even for. From the MPAA information page on ratings:

The basic mission of the rating system is a simple one: to offer to parents some advance information about movies so that parents can decide what movies they want their children to see or not to see.

The MPAA doesn't decide what's appropriate for your son Andy. They voluntarily rate the films so that you can more easily decide, but the ratings are not going to guarantee that every film with a PG-13 or 'nicer' is appropriate for your son. That's your job, and at the end of the day, the only way to do that is to do a little work on your own. The MPAA doesn't do that work for you, and if you think they do, then you're a part of the reason why they're so ineffectual even now, except as a way to target specific audiences so you make the most money.

And what happens when something slips by? Because two minutes on iTMS will show you that. Wait, I'll tell you. The reaction won't be reasonable, Janet Jackson showed that. It will involve screaming and more cries for Apple to DO SOMETHING to PROTECT THE CHILDREN. Spiral down, spiral down.

What happens when it gets applied without any sort of thought whatsoever. The habit iTMS has of forcing the word "dick" to be spelled as "d**K", regardless of context very neatly illustrates how bad that system is. iTMS has gotten a little better, but even now..."D**k's boogie"...by an artist named "Dick Amberman". Wow, great system....go team. I guess that's a great message for all kids named "Dick"...their name is unfit for decent company.

And those rating systems are utter crap, and effectively useless. The various media companies slice scenes by seconds to get the desired rating, then just release them unrated on DVD, thereby bypassing the MPAA in it's entirety. Ratings are a money issue, not a moral one, ask the movie companies about the income difference between 'R' and 'NC-17' sometime. I'm not ignoring the idiocy of the MPAA in my arguments, in fact, the glorious failure that is the ratings system illustrates my point precisely. They create the illusion of doing something, but if you talk to theater workers, at the end of the day, they do no good whatsoever, as evidenced by the large numbers of young kids in the theater for "Shaun of the dead" sans parents. If you get anything worse than an 'R' for your film, your chances of decent distribution approach zero. Thanks for the oppourtunity to point that out, by the way.

Actually, it is, whether you like to call it that or not. If you have easy access to podcasts on iTunes, what's the incentive to look for content that you don't know exists? While your point of "Just use the internet to find podcasts" seems reasonable, the word "Podcast" gets you over nine million hits, and the first page has more to do with ways to download podcasts than actually getting them. So then you have to run multiple searches. In the meantime iTunes makes it far easier to find content. What do you think the difference in listenership of podcasts not on iTunes is vs. podcasts on iTunes? It's going be a significant number over time. It's not the subscription part that's hard, but the location barrier that causes the problem. Location is, as someone once said, everything.

We all talk about how radio sucks, yet radio airplay is still critical to a band being successful on a wide scale. What's the difference in box office figures of a film that gets picked up by the AMC and Regal cinema chains vs. one that only shows in art houses in a handful of cities.

So obviously, being able to easily find things is critical, and contrary to your belief, not everyone uses Google. In fact, to quite a few million people, if it's not on AOL, it's not on the internet. I can tell you that since iTMS, I have to REALLY want to find music if it's not on iTMS, and I can make Google dance. If location doesn't matter, then what's on iTMS or not wouldn't matter, and no one would care if it was explicit. The fact that this argument is even happening negates that entire theory of yours. By forcing content judged by unknown people and unknown criteria, to be only accessible by manual URL entry you create a ghetto. The effect of certain MPAA ratings creates ghettos.

Note that this ghettoizing does diddly-squat to actually keep inappropriate content out of the hands of your kids. It only gives the appearance of "doing something". I find it interesting that so far, only the folks agreeing with me have wondered why Apple didn't put better tools for parental control into iTunes. I guess that's the way to tell the difference between people interested in tools that are really effective vs. people who just want the appearance of "doing something" so they don't have to do any actual work on their own.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 9, 2005 09:43 AM

John, this response may be a little tardy, but I did want to respond to your very thorough comment.

First, and most importantly, you and Arcsine both make the fallacious assumption that, because I advocate some sort of external ratings guidelines for certain media, I am somehow implying that parents should not be involved in the process of guiding their kids’ interests. One does not necessarily follow from the other, and we could discuss this topic much more easily if you would stop assuming that “provide content guidelines” is equivalent to “raise my kids for me.” It’s not an either-or situation. That basically addresses all of Arcsine’s points. Now, on to yours…

“Right, a de facto ban. Let's examine that. de facto:
de fac·to adj
acting or existing in fact but without legal sanction

It's that adjective form I'm talking about.”

And the adjective form is clearly false in this case. The “legal sanction” is Apple, and by providing the means to enter URLs, they are giving that legal sanction to any podcast. If they took out that feature, and only allowed you to subscribe to podcasts that are in the directory, then you might have a point. As it stands, however, there is no ban on these podcasts, de facto or otherwise.

“Who defines what gets relegated to the URL only ghetto? Not the listeners. No, that would be too easy. Instead it's a group of people I don't know, and I have no input on.”

Again, you use terms like “URL only ghetto” to make it sound like something nefarious is going on here. If you said, “Who defines what podcasts are listed in Apple’s directory,” then the answer is obviously Apple, without the sinister implications.

“When you speak of governmental limitations…”

Whoa whoa whoa…stop right there. A government limiting access to certain content is in no way the same as a company making it slightly less convenient to access certain content.

“So you're stuck with whatever Apple's censorship committee decides on. (Yes, censorship. They decide what is and is not on iTMS. That's censorship. In this case it's legal, but it's still censorship)”

Please look up the definition of censorship. What Apple is doing doesn’t even come close. Even if you somehow assume that Apple has a responsibility to allow any podcasts (which they don’t), Apple does provide a means by which users can access any podcasts that they want, through the URL mechanism. It is slightly less convenient than having that podcast listed in the directory, but it is hardly censorship.

“So who decides on what is banned from iTMS?”

No podcast is banned. There is a difference between having a podcast not listed in the iTunes Music Store, and having a podcast prohibited from being listened to.

“What tools do you have in iTunes to prevent your kids from downloading podcasts you don't find appropriate? None.”

Ah, that’s where you’re wrong! I have my own involvement with my children to determine what I feel is or is not appropriate for them to download. And theoretically, with podcast ratings, that would be an additional data point to help guide my research.

“What about people who find things other than sex and profanity inappropriate? Well, they don't get any labels.”

You are correct that the “explicit” tag can not cover every possible interpretation of what is appropriate or not. Neither can the MPAA ratings, for that matter. So does that mean that ratings should be abandoned altogether? Of course not. It just means that it is one imperfect data point in an imperfect system.

“I guess people with other moral objections to content don't count.”

Those people are free to limit access for their kids based on whatever criteria they deem important. But ratings based on sex and profanity (and violence, for that matter) are commonly used throughout society, even though they don’t perfectly match any one person’s moral values.

“Yes, and so thanks to that, my son is protected from any accidental viewing of a male penis regardless of context or situation, but there's no problem showing someone getting shot between the eys. Seems like that's a completely failed system right there, and hey, that makes it a rather poor analogy.”

The MPAA ratings system is a guideline, nothing more. If you know that you don’t want your kids to view full frontal nudity, then it is useful. If you don’t want your kids to see someone being shot between the eyes, then you can be fairly certain that any PG or G movie should be okay for them. But as I have said repeatedly, no ratings system is perfect. It’s only a “poor analogy” if you assume that there exists some perfect ratings system that will satisfy everyone’s moral beliefs. I hate to burst your bubble, but there is no such system. But that doesn’t mean that we abandon ratings altogether!

“And your statement: somehow the MPAA can determine what movies are appropriate for my 13-year-old! shows a typical yet ignorant opinion of what the MPAA ratings are even for. From the MPAA information page on ratings:

The basic mission of the rating system is a simple one: to offer to parents some advance information about movies so that parents can decide what movies they want their children to see or not to see.

Thank you. That is exactly the point that I was trying to make. You throw out your little comment, “Okay Kirk, as an exercise, define ‘Explicit’ in a way that will satisfy every single person in the US able to receive a podcast from iTunes,” as if you have proven some grand point that ratings can’t be applied equally for everyone, therefore they should not be allowed. I make the statement that the MPAA defines what is appropriate, causing you to respond that the ratings are a guideline to help parents, but not an absolute declaration of what is appropriate for your child. Thus, by your own statements, it is clear that a podcast ratings system does not have to “satisfy every single person in the U.S.,” as you originally said, but is simply there “so that you can more easily decide” what is appropriate. I couldn’t agree with you more.

“That's your job, and at the end of the day, the only way to do that is to do a little work on your own. The MPAA doesn't do that work for you, and if you think they do, then you're a part of the reason why they're so ineffectual even now, except as a way to target specific audiences so you make the most money.”

No, of course I don’t abdicate responsibility to the MPAA. However, the MPAA ratings are a helpful tool, just as a podcast ratings system would be.

“And what happens when something slips by? Because two minutes on iTMS will show you that. Wait, I'll tell you. The reaction won't be reasonable, Janet Jackson showed that. It will involve screaming and more cries for Apple to DO SOMETHING to PROTECT THE CHILDREN. Spiral down, spiral down.”

Oh, I agree completely! That’s why there has been a huge outcry against Apple already, since “two minutes on iTMS will show you” that things slip through.

…Oh, wait…you mean there HASN’T already been “screaming and more cries for Apple to DO SOMETHING to PROTECT THE CHILDREN”??? Kind of takes the wind out of your argument, doesn’t it? “There will be horrible cries against Apple”…except there haven’t been.

“What happens when it gets applied without any sort of thought whatsoever.”

Yep, the system isn’t perfect. Is this supposed to be news to anyone?

“And those rating systems are utter crap, and effectively useless. The various media companies slice scenes by seconds to get the desired rating, then just release them unrated on DVD, thereby bypassing the MPAA in it's entirety.”

Right…because a DVD with “UNRATED!” plastered across the cover isn’t going to tip off any parents.

“They create the illusion of doing something, but if you talk to theater workers, at the end of the day, they do no good whatsoever, as evidenced by the large numbers of young kids in the theater for "Shaun of the dead" sans parents.”

Just because a system doesn’t work perfectly for all children, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work at all. Parents also have to be involved, which sadly is part of the reason why there were probably so many kids in the theater that day. So now, do you think that removing the ratings system would result in MORE kids in the theater, or FEWER?

“Actually, it is, whether you like to call it that or not. If you have easy access to podcasts on iTunes, what's the incentive to look for content that you don't know exists?”

By your definition, my local bookstore bans books that they don’t keep in stock. I mean, if I have a store full of all those books, what’s the incentive to special-order a book that I don’t know exists? For that matter, what incentive is there for me to look through the bookshelves, when I have a table full of “Featured New Releases” near the entrance? My bookstore is banning all those other books, by not putting them right at the entrance!

“What do you think the difference in listenership of podcasts not on iTunes is vs. podcasts on iTunes?”

What do you think the difference in viewership is of movies that are released by a major studio, vs. movies not picked up by any studio? Therefore, any movie studio that doesn’t distribute my movie is forcing a de facto ban on it. Censorship!

“What's the difference in box office figures of a film that gets picked up by the AMC and Regal cinema chains vs. one that only shows in art houses in a handful of cities.”

Siginificant. Doesn’t mean that AMC is banning or censoring any movies that it doesn’t show.

“So obviously, being able to easily find things is critical, and contrary to your belief, not everyone uses Google. In fact, to quite a few million people, if it's not on AOL, it's not on the internet. I can tell you that since iTMS, I have to REALLY want to find music if it's not on iTMS, and I can make Google dance. If location doesn't matter, then what's on iTMS or not wouldn't matter, and no one would care if it was explicit. The fact that this argument is even happening negates that entire theory of yours. By forcing content judged by unknown people and unknown criteria, to be only accessible by manual URL entry you create a ghetto. The effect of certain MPAA ratings creates ghettos.

Note that this ghettoizing does diddly-squat to actually keep inappropriate content out of the hands of your kids.”

Does anybody else see the inherent contradiction in these two paragraphs?? So you’re saying that, by not listing certain titles on the iTunes Music Store, Apple is significantly decreasing the number of people who have access to that content…except at the same time, it does absolutely nothing to keep that content out of the hands of kids.” So really, which is it? Does leaving a podcast off of iTunes affect accessibility, or doesn’t it? If YOU can’t easily find the content (and you “can make Google dance”), then how are these kids somehow able to find the content just as easily??

“I find it interesting that so far, only the folks agreeing with me have wondered why Apple didn't put better tools for parental control into iTunes. I guess that's the way to tell the difference between people interested in tools that are really effective vs. people who just want the appearance of ‘doing something’ so they don't have to do any actual work on their own.”

Ah, I see…so if you can’t have tools that are really effective, the second-best option is to not have any tools at all? Really, your logic is impeccable.

Still, your core argument is essentially flawed: If Apple removes certain podcasts from iTunes, then:

1) Those podcasts are “de facto banned,” Apple is committing “censorship” by restricting them to the “URL ghetto,” and there is going to be a “significant” difference in listenership, because many people won’t even know where to find them.

2) At the same time, “this ghettoizing does diddly-squat to actually keep inappropriate content out of the hands of your kids” because ratings “do no good whatsoever.”

3) Ratings are a “failed system” because they do not account for every single person’s personal tastes regarding what is appropriate.

4) However, ratings are also there “so that you can more easily decide” what is appropriate for your children, and requires you “to do a little work on your own.”

So you’re saying that a ratings system is there to help the parent, not to be a perfect guideline…but shouldn’t be implemented because it won’t perfectly match everyone’s morals.

And banning certain podcasts will have absolutely no effect on limiting access to children…except that parents will be almost completely unable to access that very same content, as Apple will effectively be banning it.

You may want to rethink your arguments.

Posted by: Andy | July 12, 2005 07:14 PM

But if Apple is summarily banning things based on unknown criteria because they're getting bitched at to "DO SOMETHING" then I have no input whatsoever. It's been taken from my hands entirely.

“Right, a de facto ban. Let's examine that. de facto:
de fac·to adj
acting or existing in fact but without legal sanction

It's that adjective form I'm talking about.”

Okay...here's one. Only subscribe to Podcasts that you must enter manually. No browsing in iTunes. Tell me how many you're going to casually listen to when the ability to browse them is taken away.

“Who defines what gets relegated to the URL only ghetto? Not the listeners. No, that would be too easy. Instead it's a group of people I don't know, and I have no input on.”

Because that's what it is. A ghetto: "an area of a city lived in by a minority group, especially a run-down and densely populated area lived in by a group that experiences discrimination

By forcing podcasts that are "pornographic" or "Explicit" to a URL only status, they're relegated to a ghetto.

“When you speak of governmental limitations…”

Whoa whoa whoa…stop right there. A government limiting access to certain content is in no way the same as a company making it slightly less convenient to access certain content.

You entirely missed my point that when the government does such things, the entire process is open to examination and comment by the citizens. That was my point about governmental limitations.

cen·sor·ship n
1. the suppression of all or part of a publication, play, or film considered offensive or a threat to security
2. the suppression or attempted suppression of something regarded as objectionable
3. the office, authority, or term of an ancient Roman censor
4. the suppression of potentially harmful memories, ideas, or desires from the conscious mind

Seems to me that there's no requirement that the agency doing the censoring be a government agency. Any other definitions you need help with?

“So who decides on what is banned from iTMS?”

No podcast is banned. There is a difference between having a podcast not listed in the iTunes Music Store, and having a podcast prohibited from being listened to.

Um...podcasts defined as pornographic are not allowed in iTunes. That's banned. They are banned from being listed. We're talking about what gets listed in iTunes, since i've already clearly stated that I object to summarily banning content from being browseable in iTunes when there's no way to determine what standards are being used.

“What tools do you have in iTunes to prevent your kids from downloading podcasts you don't find appropriate? None.”

Yet somehow, MY desire to be in charge of what my kids see, or don't see is wrong. Asking that Apple provide *better* tools at the client end is wrong. But it's okay to have whatever content someone else decides is inappropriate unavailable. It's okay to have content listed as explicit without me even having the CHANCE to decide on my own by my own standards. But me saying, "Hey, stop deciding for me, let me handle this according to my own situation" is just completely beyond the pale, even though that's the answer you want too? Here's a word for you to look up...Hypocrisy

“What about people who find things other than sex and profanity inappropriate? Well, they don't get any labels.”

Sure it does. It's absolutely useless unless you only find sex and profanity to be "bad". It's worse than worthless because it pretends to be guidance, when in reality it's only a locator for bad words and sex. Every teenager in america loves those ratings. Saves time.

“I guess people with other moral objections to content don't count.”

But they don't get the benefit of Apple's benevolent eye. So far, the only qualifications Apple cops to is sex and profanity. Evidently, as long as the things YOU have a problem with are hidden away and labled, the fact that the system is useless to others is okay, because your problems are taken care of. How handy for you.

Why not? It's not like they're that useful. I never use them. My son wants to see a movie, I talk to others who have seen it, check out clips, and if i don't like the answer i'm' getting, I'll watch it without him so I can make an informed decision. If you bother to think for yourself, you don't need the MPAA.

The basic mission of the rating system is a simple one: to offer to parents some advance information about movies so that parents can decide what movies they want their children to see or not to see.

That's not what you said. You said that the MPAA is able to determine what is appropriate for your son without knowing you. I Pointed out that your statement showed complete ignorance of how the MPAA works. That's it. If every parent would do their job, the MPAA would have no reason for existence. It's only because parents like you demand that someone else tell them what is safe for their children that idiocy like the MPAA survives. Then when you find that the MPAA isn't foolproof, the reaction is NEVER "Wow, I should start checking this stuff out on my own". Instead its "WE NEED MORE RATINGS, YOU'RE MISLEADING US!!".

No, of course I don’t abdicate responsibility to the MPAA. However, the MPAA ratings are a helpful tool, just as a podcast ratings system would be.

Really? So every movie that's PG-13 or lighter is automatically appropriate for your son?

Oh, I agree completely! That’s why there has been a huge outcry against Apple already, since “two minutes on iTMS will show you” that things slip through.

Searching for Pornography on iTunes in google gets me 58,000+ hits. I'd say it's generating a ton of attention, along with Kirk's original article

“What happens when it gets applied without any sort of thought whatsoever.”

Yep, the system isn’t perfect. Is this supposed to be news to anyone?

Yet you happily let such systems tell you what's okay for your kid to watch and listen to. Here's another word...Abdication.

Right…because a DVD with “UNRATED!” plastered across the cover isn’t going to tip off any parents.

Snerk...talk to a video store worker about how much good that does, and how often they get yelled at for "letting my poor children rent filth". Seems to me that a very large number of parents are not just letting others parent their kids for them, but DEMANDING that others parent their kids for them. So much for ratings being worth a crap.

No change at all. THe parents who do their jobs would be utterly unaffected by it, since they don't let the MPAA do their jobs NOW. The parents who aren't doing their jobs at all aren't suddenly going to wake up and do their jobs better. But it's not like there aren't constant screams and crying about "the inadequacy of the ratings system." The recent flap about GTA: San Andreas shows that no matter how complicated you make a ratings system, it's never going to be adequate, or even worthwhile.

“Actually, it is, whether you like to call it that or not. If you have easy access to podcasts on iTunes, what's the incentive to look for content that you don't know exists?”

By your definition, my local bookstore bans books that they don’t keep in stock. I mean, if I have a store full of all those books, what’s the incentive to special-order a book that I don’t know exists? For that matter, what incentive is there for me to look through the bookshelves, when I have a table full of “Featured New Releases” near the entrance? My bookstore is banning all those other books, by not putting them right at the entrance!

You should actually try listening to yourself...you just proved my point. If you only know about what the bookstore has, then why would you even know TO special order something? Care to compare sales of books that are prominently displayed to books you can ONLY special order? Fine, I'll take the next harry potter book, you can compare it to any special order only book you want. Let's compare sales figures starting 16 July through 31 July.

“What do you think the difference in listenership of podcasts not on iTunes is vs. podcasts on iTunes?”

If you talk to a lot of independent filmmakers, they'll call it that. If you make a movie that the major distributors don't like, you have almost no chance of getting it seen by a wide audience. Sometimes, you're lucky to get it into more than one city. Why do you think things like Sundance started?

“What's the difference in box office figures of a film that gets picked up by the AMC and Regal cinema chains vs. one that only shows in art houses in a handful of cities.”

Siginificant. Doesn’t mean that AMC is banning or censoring any movies that it doesn’t show.

Actually, if you bother to look at the definition of censorship, that's precisely what they are doing. Thanks again for proving my point. You really make this too easy.

Note that this ghettoizing does diddly-squat to actually keep inappropriate content out of the hands of your kids.”

Nice dodging of the point, you're quite agile that way, but again, you fail. What I said was that if it's not on iTunes, then the chances of a given podcast getting a wide listnership amongst iTunes users is very difficult. BUT, if you somehow think that relegating a podcast to the URL - only ghetto is going to keep it out of the hands of kids that really want it, you're delusional. I find that underestimating the intelligence, cleverness, and determination of a kid to get something they want is a very silly mistake to make. It doesn't PREVENT kids from getting to porn podcasts in any way shape or form, it just gives them a minor speedbump to get over. Speedbump != wall. The only thing it does is guarantee that the casual browser will never get much of a chance to make up their own mind.

Ah, I see…so if you can’t have tools that are really effective, the second-best option is to not have any tools at all? Really, your logic is impeccable.

No, not at all. You conveniently ignore my point that Apple should put better controls into iTunes itself so that parents can decide for themselves what is appropriate, rather than trying to decide for them, an operation that is doomed to failure.

Still, your core argument is essentially flawed: If Apple removes certain podcasts from iTunes, then:

Yep.

2) At the same time, “this ghettoizing does diddly-squat to actually keep inappropriate content out of the hands of your kids” because ratings “do no good whatsoever.”

Because they don't. Does the MPAA completely prevent kids under 17 from seeing an R-rated movie without a parent or guardian? No, not even close. It provides what is a minor challenge at best. It's a speedbump, not the wall you seem to have convinced yourself it is.

3) Ratings are a “failed system” because they do not account for every single person’s personal tastes regarding what is appropriate.

Rather, they fail because they attempt to extrapolate the opinion of a very small group of people over a group of people that numbers over 300 million. "Statistically insignificant and useless" doesn't even begin to describe this. If you tried to say that because you found ten people who didn't like Macs meant that all Macs are crap, you'd be laughed out of the building. Yet, you seem happy to apply an even WORSE ratio as a tool for telling you what's safe for your child and every other child in the country.

4) However, ratings are also there “so that you can more easily decide” what is appropriate for your children, and requires you “to do a little work on your own.”

So you’re saying that a ratings system is there to help the parent, not to be a perfect guideline…but shouldn’t be implemented because it won’t perfectly match everyone’s morals.

No, that's what the MPAA says. I say they're utterly useless crap that only exists so that lazy parents don't have to spend any effort deciding what their kids can see. I'm not willing to allow the MPAA to do my thinking, so I don't need them. You, and far too many others, evidently have better things to do with your time.

It will have no effect on preventing kids from getting inappropriate content, and since, as i've shown, the tags are pretty much unreliable, they're not even able to do a good job of notification. So they fail on all accounts. Parents being too stupid to find stuff is your claim. I said that for people who are using iTunes as a browsing mechanism, forcing all "inappropriate" content to a URL only ghetto is a de facto ban, because, since casual browsers will have no idea that a given podcast even exists, they'll not know to look for it.

You may want to rethink your arguments.

You may want to try reading what I actually said as opposed to what you've decided I said.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 12, 2005 08:31 PM

Ratings systems "allow" kids to watch partially clad women in scenes of violence, but not love scenes.

Unfettered, unmonitored, unrestricted access to everything all the time is the problem here. No moralizing or demonizing is going to alter that.

I don't know, maybe I'm too Canadian. But there is stuff on "Family Channel" I don't let my kids watch. Do I squawk to the network/my satellite provider/ Disney and affiliates? No-- I turn off the frikken' TV-- or at least change the channel.

I don't get it, not even a little bit. Your job, as a parent, is to keep them safe. Part of that involves teaching them to use discernment and good sense so that they self-monitor, when necessary.

Lock-out channels and hide your liquor and I guarantee your kids will be having a drunken pay-per view extravaganza the next time you are out of town.

Disagree with Bynkii all you like about the fine points of his argument and his *tone*, but he's still right--see the title of his piece-- "Parent your own kids!".

Lisa

Posted by: Beseel | July 12, 2005 11:20 PM

we could discuss this topic much more easily if you would stop assuming that “provide content guidelines” is equivalent to “raise my kids for me.” It’s not an either-or situation.

You may want to reread this point, since you seem to ignore it for the rest of your response.

But if Apple is summarily banning things based on unknown criteria because they're getting bitched at to "DO SOMETHING" then I have no input whatsoever. It's been taken from my hands entirely.

1) “Selection” is not equivalent to “banning.” A bookstore carries a limited number of books, but that doesn’t mean that they are banning every other book; it simply means that they do not carry them. Similarly, the podcast directory in the iTunes Music Store is only a subset of all podcasts that are available. If Apple wanted to, they could restrict iTunes and the iPod to only those podcasts listed in the music store, and then you might have an argument that Apple is banning podcasts (although even that is a shaky argument, since anyone can put a podcast in MP3 form, which you can then put on an iPod). However, Apple does not do that, so even that point is moot. Apple enables you to set up any podcast you want, and use it both in iTunes and the iPod. Therefore, you can not argue that they are banning anything.

2) Apple is not required to give you any input on what content is visible in the iTunes Music Store. Why should they?

As it stands, however, there is no ban on these podcasts, de facto or otherwise.

Okay...here's one. Only subscribe to Podcasts that you must enter manually. No browsing in iTunes. Tell me how many you're going to casually listen to when the ability to browse them is taken away.

I must have missed where “banning” is defined as “taking away the ability to casually access something.” That’s because your definition of a “ban” does not apply here. And besides, there is nothing keeping anyone from setting up their own web page with a directory of podcasts that you can browse. Again, one bookstore can’t ban a book if another store freely carries it. It’s only banned if no one can carry it.

By forcing podcasts that are "pornographic" or "Explicit" to a URL only status, they're relegated to a ghetto.

If by “ghetto” you mean “the subset of content that Apple doesn’t list,” then I would agree. How horrible of Apple! They create a hardware platform, a music device, a free application that allows people to freely subscribe to any published podcast…but they have the gall to select which broadcasts they feature on their site!

You entirely missed my point that when the government does such things, the entire process is open to examination and comment by the citizens. That was my point about governmental limitations.

And you entirely missed my point that the government is completely different from a corporation.

Seems to me that there's no requirement that the agency doing the censoring be a government agency. Any other definitions you need help with?

Being a government agency has nothing to do with it. If Apple wanted to suppress these broadcasts, they could simply take out the ability to manually enter the URL of a podcast that you want to subscribe to. They don’t. They are not censoring anything. Unless you can find a definition of “censorship” that defines it as “making it slightly less convenient to access,” your claim does not hold water.

No podcast is banned. There is a difference between having a podcast not listed in the iTunes Music Store, and having a podcast prohibited from being listened to.

Um...podcasts defined as pornographic are not allowed in iTunes. That's banned. They are banned from being listed.

1) Yes, they are allowed in iTunes! You can enter in the URL, then iTunes will automatically download the podcast so you can listen to it to your heart’s content. Yet somehow, by your logic, “providing an application that automatically downloads and plays content” is equivalent to banning that content.

2) This is an important point, so let me be very clear: The listing of a podcast is not the same as the podcast itself. For podcasts, all the iTunes Music Store provides are pointers to the content. Even without those pointers, the content is still freely available other places. If you can’t grasp this point, then you should take a philosophy class.

We're talking about what gets listed in iTunes, since i've already clearly stated that I object to summarily banning content from being browseable in iTunes when there's no way to determine what standards are being used.

“Banning content from being browseable in iTunes” is a phrase that makes no sense. Content is either listed in iTunes or it is not listed; not being listed doesn’t make it “banned,” since it is readily and legally available elsewhere. The government can ban books; a bookstore can’t.

Yet somehow, MY desire to be in charge of what my kids see, or don't see is wrong.

Oh please. Implementing an “explicit” tag has absolutely no effect on what your children can or can’t see, if you don’t want it to.

Asking that Apple provide *better* tools at the client end is wrong.

When did I say that? It’s not an either-or situation.

But it's okay to have whatever content someone else decides is inappropriate unavailable.

It is available. See above.

But me saying, "Hey, stop deciding for me, let me handle this according to my own situation" is just completely beyond the pale, even though that's the answer you want too?

It’s not decided for you! Having an “explicit” tag, or having some content not listed in the iTunes Music Store, has no effect on what you decide your kids can or can’t access, if you don’t want it to.

“What about people who find things other than sex and profanity inappropriate? Well, they don't get any labels.”

Sure it does. It's absolutely useless unless you only find sex and profanity to be "bad".

It is one data point: whether the content contains sex or profanity. Deciding “bad” or “good” is up to you. In any case, it’s better to have more information than less information.

Every teenager in america loves those ratings. Saves time.

And see? You have proven my point.

Another strawman argument. Where did I claim that sex and profanity are things I have a problem with, or the only things I have a problem with? Maybe I object to use of graven images. Maybe I object to talking pigs. Maybe I object to any declaration that a BMW is a “sweet ride.” You have no idea what I find permissible, or what I find offensive. However, sex and profanity are both content that is generally indicated in our society, because many people care if their children are exposed to them. That is not an unreasonable request.

But as I have said repeatedly, no ratings system is perfect. It’s only a “poor analogy” if you assume that there exists some perfect ratings system that will satisfy everyone’s moral beliefs. I hate to burst your bubble, but there is no such system. But that doesn’t mean that we abandon ratings altogether!

Why not? It's not like they're that useful. I never use them.

Ah, I see: You don’t use the MPAA ratings, therefore they must be useless to everyone. Your logic is impeccable.

My son wants to see a movie, I talk to others who have seen it, check out clips, and if i don't like the answer i'm' getting, I'll watch it without him so I can make an informed decision.

So you’ve established that a ratings system can exist, while still allowing you to make decisions for yourself about what your son can see. Sounds like it’s there for people who want to use it, or people like you can make decisions independently. Sounds like it works well for everyone. And yet, you want to get rid of ratings, because you don’t use them. Sounds pretty selfish to me.

I was making a point which you wholeheartedly agree with: No ratings system can decide perfectly what is appropriate for every person. This soundly refutes your claim that Apple should only create an “explicit” tag if it exactly matches everyone’s personal beliefs about what is appropriate. Again, I’m sorry if I was too subtle in my point; I’ll try to be more obvious next time.

If every parent would do their job, the MPAA would have no reason for existence. It's only because parents like you demand that someone else tell them what is safe for their children that idiocy like the MPAA survives.

1) I never said that I rely on the MPAA as the sole decider about what is appropriate for my child. I was making a point about all ratings systems. See above.

2) Your argument is provably false. I know enough about the MPAA ratings system to know that if a movie is rated R, I’m not going to let my four-year-old watch it. I don’t need to watch every movie in advance of my child seeing it, because there are some (general, not necessarily 100% accurate for every child) guidelines that I can refer to.

Then when you find that the MPAA isn't foolproof, the reaction is NEVER "Wow, I should start checking this stuff out on my own". Instead its "WE NEED MORE RATINGS, YOU'RE MISLEADING US!!".

I am wholeheartedly behind the idea of parental responsibility. That doesn’t mean getting rid of ratings altogether. Is everything in your world binary?

Really? So every movie that's PG-13 or lighter is automatically appropriate for your son?

Haven’t we gone through this already?

Yep, the system isn’t perfect. Is this supposed to be news to anyone?

Yet you happily let such systems tell you what's okay for your kid to watch and listen to. Here's another word...Abdication.

No, I don’t. Pay attention.

talk to a video store worker about how much good that does, and how often they get yelled at for "letting my poor children rent filth". Seems to me that a very large number of parents are not just letting others parent their kids for them, but DEMANDING that others parent their kids for them. So much for ratings being worth a crap.

Are all your arguments based on anecdotal evidence? Here, let me try: “You say that seatbelts save lives? Tell that to my friend who was trapped by his seatbelt when his car crashed, and burned alive. So much for seatbelts saving lives.”

So now, do you think that removing the ratings system would result in MORE kids in the theater, or FEWER?

Ah yes…another black-and-white argument. Either parents make decisions completely independently of the MPAA ratings, or they depend solely on the MPAA ratings for everything. So there aren’t any parents out there who use the ratings as a guideline? There aren’t any uninvolved parents who, if the ratings system were gone, might say, “Wow, I don’t have this handy tool to help me out! I’d better start screening things more thoroughly!” Of course not…parents either “do their jobs” and ignore the MPAA ratings (like you), or they are irresponsible louts who let the MPAA raise their kids, abdicating all responsibility (like me). Nope, there’s no grey areas there. Makes things a lot easier.

You should actually try listening to yourself...you just proved my point. If you only know about what the bookstore has, then why would you even know TO special order something?

Okay, sarcasm is obviously lost on you, so I’ll answer directly: because there are other ways of finding out what books are available! The bookstore is not the gatekeeper for all information about books, and the iTunes Music Store is not the only gatekeeper for information about podcasts!

Care to compare sales of books that are prominently displayed to books you can ONLY special order?

The prominently-displayed books will have higher sales. So what? “Having lower sales” is not the same thing as “being banned” or “being censored.”

If you talk to a lot of independent filmmakers, they'll call it that.

And they’ll be wrong, just like you are.

If you make a movie that the major distributors don't like, you have almost no chance of getting it seen by a wide audience. Sometimes, you're lucky to get it into more than one city. Why do you think things like Sundance started?

…and again, you prove my point! The major studios don’t provide an outlet…so the free market steps in, and another outlet is provided. And if the iTunes Music Store doesn’t list some podcasts, another site will step in and provide that service. That’s capitalism. Unless Apple is somehow keeping any other website from distributing podcasts, your “censorship” argument doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

Siginificant. Doesn’t mean that AMC is banning or censoring any movies that it doesn’t show.

Actually, if you bother to look at the definition of censorship, that's precisely what they are doing. Thanks again for proving my point. You really make this too easy.

“Censorship: The practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.” By definition, AMC can not censor a movie, because someone else can always broadcast it. Or the creator can rent a theater and show it himself. That’s the First Amendment at work. It’s only censorship if the content is able to be suppressed, and you can’t do that in our society.

What I said was that if it's not on iTunes, then the chances of a given podcast getting a wide listnership amongst iTunes users is very difficult. BUT, if you somehow think that relegating a podcast to the URL - only ghetto is going to keep it out of the hands of kids that really want it, you're delusional.

Another black and white argument. I never claimed that making a podcast URL-only would keep it out of the hands of all children who want it; I only claimed that it would make it more difficult to access…a point that you made yourself, over and over again.

It doesn't PREVENT kids from getting to porn podcasts in any way shape or form, it just gives them a minor speedbump to get over. Speedbump != wall.

And again, you keep contradicting yourself. It’s “very difficult” for adults to access, but it’s a “minor speedbump” for kids? And by the way, I never claimed that URL-only podcasts would be a wall. All I ever wanted was a speedbump.

Rather, they fail because they attempt to extrapolate the opinion of a very small group of people over a group of people that numbers over 300 million.

No, ratings make no assumptions about opinion whatsoever. They simply list what content is available, and provide a very general guideline based on that content. They are advisory, nothing more. But I guess since you don’t use them, you think that no one else should have access to those tools either.

If you tried to say that because you found ten people who didn't like Macs meant that all Macs are crap, you'd be laughed out of the building.

And yet you claim that based on one movie theater full of kids, or one complaint from a parent to a video-store clerk, all ratings are worthless. Huh.

No, that's what the MPAA says. I say they're utterly useless crap that only exists so that lazy parents don't have to spend any effort deciding what their kids can see.

Provably false. See above.

I'm not willing to allow the MPAA to do my thinking, so I don't need them. You, and far too many others, evidently have better things to do with your time.

You make flawed assumptions about how I parent.

It will have no effect on preventing kids from getting inappropriate content,

So it will affect the number of subscriptions from iTunes users, but it will have to effect on kids. Please explain how kids using iTunes are somehow not iTunes users.

and since, as i've shown, the tags are pretty much unreliable, they're not even able to do a good job of notification.

Oh, right…they list some guy’s name as “D**k,” so they are obviously completely worthless. Binary thinking rears its ugly head again.

I said that for people who are using iTunes as a browsing mechanism, forcing all "inappropriate" content to a URL only ghetto is a de facto ban, because, since casual browsers will have no idea that a given podcast even exists, they'll not know to look for it.

And as I have said countless times, content is not “banned” just because casual browsers are less likely to find it.

Posted by: Andy | July 13, 2005 02:47 AM

Sure I can, and I am in fact, but that's not what I have a major issue with. I have a major issue with the fact that no one knows what the criteria is. I have a major issue that people like you and Kirk scream about porn and profanity, and that once your little problems are fixed, you wander off and say "See, the system works". Meanwhile, every other parent who perhaps wants explict tags on other content is taking it in the shorts, because they don't count. So the system that you're so happy with has already failed. Your happy little "Ban it from being listed" system only works if your only concern is Porn and Profanity. It does no good for anything else.

You've missed every other point I've made, so i'm not surprised you continue the habit. They are banned from being listed. And by the way, if a bookstore refuses to carry a book, they are banning it, even if another store does carry it. "Ban" is not required to be an all-encompassing word. I'd put the definition here, but it's not like you're going to read it. For someone accusing me of an all or nothing POV, you're rather willing to have one yourself when it suits your purposes. You may want to look up the concept of the phrase "Pot calling the kettle black", as it fits you rather well.

By forcing podcasts that are "pornographic" or "Explicit" to a URL only status, they're relegated to a ghetto.

By what standards Andy? Who gets screwed? It's pretty obvious that you only care about porn and profanity. As long as that's covered, the fact that others are getting screwed, you don't care. "I'm taken care of, Apple met my needs, sucks to be you" is your mantra here. Of course, if Apple WASN'T meeting your needs I'll bet you'd be screaming long and loud that Apple needs to DO SOMETHING to PROTECT THE CHILDREN!

You entirely missed my point that when the government does such things, the entire process is open to examination and comment by the citizens. That was my point about governmental limitations.

And you entirely missed my point that the government is completely different from a corporation.

Not at all. In fact, the governmental process is preferable, since the people whom are affected have far more control and input over the process. We have none whatsoever over Apple's process.

Only to you. Most other people seem to understand what I'm talking about. Apple has point blank said the are not listing stuff they find to be porn. That's censorship bubby. The existence of a back door means you can get around it. It's still censorship. But this brings up another fascinating bit of inconsistency in your debate technique. You say that because the ban is not 100% effective, because the censorship is not 100% effective, that it doesn't exist, because it's obviously a failure. Yet, as we've seen on a number of occaisions, you THEN argue that Apple's handling of porn and profanity, or the MPAA don't have to be 100% effective to be of use. So what is it Andy? If you say the MPAA doesn't have to be perfect to be a good ratings system, then you can't exactly turn around and say a ban has to be 100% and all-encompassing to be a ban.

Um...podcasts defined as pornographic are not allowed in iTunes. That's banned. They are banned from being listed.

First, I said they're banned from being listed. Secondly, how are you going to know a specific title even EXISTS if it's not browseabble? What, you enter in the magical "Find me podcasts that I might like URL"? If you know of such a magical wonderful thing, pray, list it for us that we might all use it. It's not google, unless you have the time to go through nine million hits or so. If you don't know it exists, you can't type in the URL.

I haven't said they aren't. I've said that by banning podcasts from being listed in iTunes, Apple is effectively killing the chances of anyone who uses iTunes as their major or sole source of podcasts from ever finding them. Why? because people won't know they exist. It's like your silly point about "you can special order books". Well, if you don't know about the book, and you don't know anything about the book, like the title or author, no, actually, you can't. You keep repeating "BUT YOU CAN ENTER THE URL" without realizing the very important requirement of HAVING THE URL IN THE FIRST PLACE. How are people supposed to get the URL? Google is a very crappy tool for this.

If it's not listed because Apple refuses to list it, then Apple is banning it from the iTunes listing. That's a very simple, and yet correct use of the word. Secondly, bookstore chains ban books all the time. Wal-mart bans then like mad, as they also do records they don't approve of. Blockbuster bans all NC-17 rated movies from their stores. Again, your instence that the word "ban" conform to "What andy wants it to mean" doesn't actually have that effect. Especially since in the next statement you make, you prove my point about the absolute failure of the explict tag to be of any real use whatsoever...

Yet somehow, MY desire to be in charge of what my kids see, or don't see is wrong.

Oh please. Implementing an “explicit” tag has absolutely no effect on what your children can or can’t see, if you don’t want it to.

First, Thank you for proving my point that all this crap is useless. It's so nice that you did it for me. Secondly, this isn't just about the "explicit" tag is it? No, it's not. It's also about Apple banning content from being listed by a process and standards that are absolutely hidden from view and input. It's about the fact that non-pornographic and non-profane content, "explicit" or no gets ignored, and this system that you wax so rhapsodic about, even as you admit it's useless, does the people who are worried about that kind of content no good at all.

Asking that Apple provide *better* tools at the client end is wrong.

When did I say that? It’s not an either-or situation.

You blew it off entirely, because according to you, Apple has already given you an effective set of tools. Of course, you admit that those tools are not that effective at all.

But it's okay to have whatever content someone else decides is inappropriate unavailable.

It is available. See above.

Andy, what's the URL of a podcast you've never heard of and can't find on iTunes, and don't know the URL for?

But me saying, "Hey, stop deciding for me, let me handle this according to my own situation" is just completely beyond the pale, even though that's the answer you want too?

OF course having not listed is doing that! If i don't know what the URL for something is, how can I enter it?

It is one data point: whether the content contains sex or profanity. Deciding “bad” or “good” is up to you. In any case, it’s better to have more information than less information.

Because that's all you care about. If Apple wasn't meeting your particular needs/requirements, you'd be screaming like a banshee with a wedgie.

Every teenager in america loves those ratings. Saves time.

And see? You have proven my point.

What, that they're useless and of no real value beyond being able to market Apple as being all concerned about children? No Andy, that's MY point. You're really getting confused here

But you don't get it. What about the people who don't want APPLE or YOU or ANYONE ELSE to define what "pornography" is? What about people who want the abilty to decide for themselves? That's what Apple is removing here. You seem to think that "oh URL entry won't stop anyone", but it in fact doesn, because you have to HAVE the URL to enter it, and without an easy, simple way to find the URL, that won't happen.

Why not? It's not like they're that useful. I never use them.

Ah, I see: You don’t use the MPAA ratings, therefore they must be useless to everyone. Your logic is impeccable.

I don't use them because they don't work. They cannot work. The MPAA doesn't and cannot know what is inappropriate for my child. Telling me "Parental Guidance" suggested is like telling me "Breathing is good". What kind of moron lets vague ratings be the sole arbiter of what's okay for a kid to see. Yet because of the ratings, there are movies that may or may not be good, that never get released because they can't get a desired rating. So even a system that you say is "only a guideline" is in fact, causing movies that may or may not be good to be shoved in a closet somewhere.

My son wants to see a movie, I talk to others who have seen it, check out clips, and if i don't like the answer i'm' getting, I'll watch it without him so I can make an informed decision.

No more selfish than your championing of them as some great guideline that keeps you from having to do that work. It's inefrfective, and in case you hadn't noticed, that ineffectivity hasn't led parents to do more of the work. No, it's led them to form these moronic "Save the children" groups and demand MORE ratings so that parents have to do LESS work. The video game industry ON ITS OWN created a detailed ratings system, and still there's congressional hearings on games because the ratings system isnt' enough, it needs to do more. Eventually, we'll need more time to read the ratings than to actually see the movie or play the game. This entire system is crap, and it wastes money and time that could be put to better use.

If the MPAA wants to do something worthwhile, why not have detailed plot synopsis of movies on their site? At least then they're providing USEFUL information.

Did you even READ my point? My point was that ratings systems are useless BECAUSE they are so ineffective. My point was that it is their inability to be effective that means they should be dropped. The MPAA system is just as useless as Apple's catchall "Explicit" tag, yet it's far more complex. The MPAA ratings are simply a waste of time and effort.

Prove that for every R-Rated movie ever made, or that ever will be made. But thank you for stating clearly that you decide based on ratings and not actual work.

Then when you find that the MPAA isn't foolproof, the reaction is NEVER "Wow, I should start checking this stuff out on my own". Instead its "WE NEED MORE RATINGS, YOU'RE MISLEADING US!!".

I am wholeheartedly behind the idea of parental responsibility. That doesn’t mean getting rid of ratings altogether. Is everything in your world binary?

Wait...Mr. "It can't be a ban because it's not 100% effective" is accusing ME of being binary? Again, Pot, kettle, etc. For a ratings system to work, it has to be something that you can trust. We've already established that you can't really trust a ratings system, so therefore, it doesn't work. If it doesn't work, admit it, drop it and find a better way.

At least i'm providing some form of evidence. You're relying on far less. However, you still haven't been able to refute my point that ratings systems are just not effective, that they don't work. You've even admitted that. Yet you seem to think that "better than nothing" is the result of an ineffective system.

The parents who would say "Wow, i better get on the stick" already are. They don't need to be told what's appropriate and what isn't. Of course, I'll again point out the hypocrisy in you castigating me for being binary when you're quite willing to be binary when it suits your point.

Go ask a bookseller to order you a book that you know nothing about including the content or subject, because you don't yet know what you want. I bet you get GREAT results. By the way...sarcasm works MUCH better if you're actually good at it.

The prominently-displayed books will have higher sales. So what? “Having lower sales” is not the same thing as “being banned” or “being censored.”

Weren't you JUST castigating me for being all binary 'n' shit? Cast the beam out of thine own eye before thou pointest out the mote in mine.

And they’ll be wrong, just like you are.

Getting binary again Andy, better check that. You don't like binary, remember?

What's the purpose of Sundance? To get the distributors to see that there are films not made by the majors worth distributing. If the film doesn't get picked up by the distributors, you don't get to see it. Where's the sundance for iTMS ANdy?

Uh-oh, getting binary again. As well, now you're playing the "Partial definition game". Even dumber, you're doing it with a word I defined earlier. Let's look at the WHOLE definition, shall we?

take a look at number 2. there. Read it a good long while. Note the "attempted" part.

for someone who's so binary, you sure seem to hate it. My point was, by relegating it to a URL ghetto, that is a de facto ban on the podcast.

I claim it makes it difficult to find for casual users of the iTunes store. But again, if that speedbump wasn't there for content you object to, you'd be demanding the wall. So let me ask you this. What if Apple yanks the manual URL entry because it "Allows Teh Pron"?

Rather, they fail because they attempt to extrapolate the opinion of a very small group of people over a group of people that numbers over 300 million.

Ratings ARE an opinion. THey're they opinion of the MPAA board, or the secret cabal in Apple. That's all a rating CAN be. What, you have some kind of empirical evidence that it's MORE okay to see someone getting decapitated than to see a penis? Because the former gets you a much more accessible rating than the latter. Hell, you can show decapitation in PG-13 movies. I don't want the ratings because they cause as many, if not more problems than they don't solve.

If you tried to say that because you found ten people who didn't like Macs meant that all Macs are crap, you'd be laughed out of the building.

And yet you claim that based on one movie theater full of kids, or one complaint from a parent to a video-store clerk, all ratings are worthless. Huh.

Actually, i base it on the perennial congressional hearings wasted on bitching about the inneffectiveness of ratings systems and how "more" needs to be done to "protect the children". If your precious ratings worked worth a crap, we'd not have such hearings. Obviously, they aren't working at all. A perfect example would be the current brouhaha about GTA: San Andreas. Evidently a single, well-hidden away sex scene is far worse than the violence the game is based on.

I'm not willing to allow the MPAA to do my thinking, so I don't need them. You, and far too many others, evidently have better things to do with your time.

You make flawed assumptions about how I parent.

I can only go by what you type. If you cannot achieve proper clarity, that's your fault, not mine.

It will have no effect on preventing kids from getting inappropriate content,

So it will affect the number of subscriptions from iTunes users, but it will have to effect on kids. Please explain how kids using iTunes are somehow not iTunes users.

It will have an effect on the set of people who rely on iTunes for access to Podcasts, because they aren't going to go wandering the internet for other things. That's a very large set, based on experience with users of other similar systems. I bring up kids, because they are willing to do a ton of work to get to stuff their parents tell them not to. But, if a kid isn't going to do that much work, then they'll never know about other podcasts either. Again, how do you enter a URL you don't have?

and since, as i've shown, the tags are pretty much unreliable, they're not even able to do a good job of notification.

Oh, right…they list some guy’s name as “D**k,” so they are obviously completely worthless. Binary thinking rears its ugly head again.

Well, you are the expert on binary thinking, so you'd know. But yes, that does nicely prove my point about how stupid and ineffective such systems are.

I said that for people who are using iTunes as a browsing mechanism, forcing all "inappropriate" content to a URL only ghetto is a de facto ban, because, since casual browsers will have no idea that a given podcast even exists, they'll not know to look for it.

And as I have said countless times, content is not “banned” just because casual browsers are less likely to find it.

Binary thinking rears its ugly head again.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 13, 2005 07:38 AM

test

test

Posted by: Andy | July 13, 2005 03:02 PM

Well, your spam filter is blocking my response. So much for a reasoned debate. Should I be crying “censorship,” just like you are?

Posted by: Andy | July 13, 2005 03:10 PM

Considering that you just posted twice, and that I haven't blocked you myself, I kinda doubt it. If you were to perhaps tell me what the error message is, I can see what's going on.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 13, 2005 04:14 PM

Considering that you just posted twice, and that I haven't blocked you myself, I kinda doubt it.

Honestly, you are a piece of work. I tell you that I was blocked by your spam filter, and your response is, “I kinda doubt it”? What do you think I am, an idiot or a liar? You really can’t even trust me with a simple statement like, “I was blocked by your spam filter”??

The error message was something along the lines of, “Your comment was blocked by my spam filter. Calm down. Let me know, and I’ll check it out.” There was nothing that said, “…although I may not believe you.”

Posted by: Andy | July 13, 2005 04:59 PM

Andy, if you want to be a dick about this, I can shut out your entire domain, so put your dick back in your pants and calm the fuck down. You're taking this shit WAY too personally.

Since you're able to post the last three comments you've posted, it's obviously not a block against you. It's not an IP - based block, it doesn't work that way. (if you must know, it keys in on addresses, strings, and URLs in the text. IP address blocking is a zero - sum game)

Something you're doing with the comment you're trying to post is hitting the spam filter, which is set to deny. I got really tired of 90875048 emails a day telling me that fuckingspamtard.h3y.com was in moderation, so I kicked it over to deny. This happened before you even started commenting, so it's not all about YOU. In fact, if I have stuff in a comment I make that sets off the spam filter, I get the same results. However, I can look at the logs to see what happened, whereas you can't.

Looking at the logs, (which i didn't have time to do earlier), it looks like the filter was keying in on the string "online". While MT-Blacklist is a good filter, it's easy to get the wrong string in there, (like when I'm mass - deleting a couple hundred spam comments and trackbacks) Unfortunately, there are a LOT of spams that are things like "online-poker.com", etc, yadda, so at some point in the last few days, there was an entry added for "online" by itself, and that is what caught you.

HOWEVER, since you are having such a little temper tantrum about "teh injustice" of it all...let's understand something...you getting upset and hurt is your option. I don't dislike you personally, I don't like you personally. I don't know you well enough to feel anything towards you but apathy. This entire discussion is to me, an intellectual/debating exercise, a workout if you will. If you are starting to take this as personally as your last comment indicates, you need to walk away. It's an opinion man. that's all.

For the record, the only comments i ban, block, or otherwise fuck with are spam. If the comment has anything to do with the subject at hand, in ANY way, I'll leave it there. Take a look at some of the fuckwits who got all bent out of shape because I think George Lucas sucks balls as a director. I left them all in, even the ones that were just badly done attempts at profanity.

So chill the fuck out man. I would have fixed it sooner, but I save stuff that takes time for after work. Oddly enough, I have other things to do that aren't this site. For example, tonight, I'm listening to Shawn King interview the guitarist for The Donnas on YML, and that, my angsty pal, is FAR more important than anything on this blog or your keyboard.

I yanked the entry that the logs say was giving you problems. If it happens again, drop another comment, or ping me and I'll take another look. No big deal to me, okay?

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 13, 2005 05:51 PM

Just to clarify, I’m not taking any of this personally. I was simply surprised that, when I tell you that I am being blocked by your spam filter, your first response is, “Somehow I doubt that,” instead of, “Okay, let me take a look at the logs and see what happened.” It seems like your first response is to not trust what I say, which may be a good indication of why this little argument has gone on for so long.

And somehow, you think that I’m having a “temper tantrum” about “injustice,” when nothing could be further from the case. The reason I mentioned “censorship” is because of the argument at hand: Having my post blocked is not censorship, and neither is Apple choosing which podcasts get displayed on their site. But once again (and I’m not saying this to be a dick), you seem to have your own interpretation of what I mean when I say something.

Thanks for removing the spam block. I am enjoying the intellectual workout as much as you appear to be. I’ll repost in a few.

Posted by: Andy | July 13, 2005 06:22 PM

Meanwhile, every other parent who perhaps wants explict tags on other content is taking it in the shorts, because they don't count.

Explicit tags can not match everyone’s morals perfectly. People are simply proposing that Apple tag content as explicit in the same way that content is tagged in the Music Store itself.

Oh don’t worry, I’ll include the definition here:

ban:

verb
1. officially or legally prohibit
2. officially exclude (someone) from a place

noun
1. an official or legal prohibition
2. a tacit prohibition by public opinion

And as a bonus, I looked up “prohibition”:

prohibition (noun): the action of forbidding something, esp. by law

So yes, “banning” is necessarily an all-encompassing term. During Prohibition, alcohol was banned, which means people were officially or legally prohibited from owning it. But today, alcohol is legal, so there is no way that, say, one bar could ban alcohol. One bar may choose not to serve alcohol, but people can still get alcohol other places. Therefore, it has not been banned. (Oh, and in case you’re talking about the second definition above, that specifically refers to a person, not a piece of content.) The phrase “banned from being listed” makes about as much sense as me saying that my local grocery store is banning RC Cola. If you can legally get it somewhere else, it has not been banned.

By what standards Andy? Who gets screwed?

People can create whatever podcasts they want, and Apple provides the technical infrastructure for that content to be automatically downloaded and updated, along with the ability to play that content on your computer or iPod, all for free. How exactly is that “getting screwed”?

Not at all. In fact, the governmental process is preferable, since the people whom are affected have far more control and input over the process. We have none whatsoever over Apple's process.

Apple is a private corporation. They are not required to answer to anyone except the shareholders.

It’s not a back door! It is a completely supported, official way of accessing content that is not listed in the Apple directory. Again, if Apple wanted to censor that content, then they would remove the ability to enter URLs by hand! But even then, selection is not censorship!

But this brings up another fascinating bit of inconsistency in your debate technique. You say that because the ban is not 100% effective, because the censorship is not 100% effective, that it doesn't exist, because it's obviously a failure. Yet, as we've seen on a number of occaisions, you THEN argue that Apple's handling of porn and profanity, or the MPAA don't have to be 100% effective to be of use. So what is it Andy? If you say the MPAA doesn't have to be perfect to be a good ratings system, then you can't exactly turn around and say a ban has to be 100% and all-encompassing to be a ban.

How simple do you want me to make it? I am simply pointing out the definition of the word. By the definition of the word “ban,” something has to be legally or officially prohibited in order for it to be banned. For example, during Prohibition, alcohol was legally banned. Note that I never said that it has to be 100% effective; people obviously found illegal means to get around Prohibition, but alcohol was still banned. Contrast that with today: An establishment has to have a liquor license to sell alcohol, you have to be a certain age before you can possess alcohol, most places don’t let you carry an open container of alcohol in public, and some places do not sell alcohol at all. However, alcohol itself is not banned. A single bar can refuse to sell alcohol, but they can not ban alcohol altogether.

Similarly, Apple can refuse to carry certain podcasts, but they can not ban those podcasts altogether. The only way they could “officially or legally prohibit” those podcasts is by forcing all websites to remove those podcasts. They do no such thing. Or, at the very least, they could prevent those podcasts from being used with iTunes. They do not. In fact, they provide the mechanism and technical support for those very podcasts that you claim are “banned”! During prohibition, did the government provide legal means to purchase alcohol? During prohibition, did the government say, “We are not going to sell alcohol ourselves, but we will provide trucks to help you deliver your alcohol”? No. They officially prohibited anyone from selling alcohol, anywhere. (Note that people still sold alcohol, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was still banned.)

Um...podcasts defined as pornographic are not allowed in iTunes. That's banned. They are banned from being listed.

“Banned” is not the same thing as “banned from being listed.” By your definition, a bar is banning alcohol if it is not listed on the menu.

You know what? You’re an idiot. Do a Google search for “podcast directory” and here is what comes up on the very first page:

podcast.net
podcastdirectory.com
ipodder.org
podcastalley.com
digitalpodcast.com
publicradiofan.com/podcasts.html
IdiotVox.com
castregister.com
podfeed.net
ReplayMediaGuide.com
blogexplosion.com
thepodcastnetwork.com
podscribe.com

On the first page. Yeah, that was really difficult. For someone who “can make Google dance,” you seem to have a complete inability to do a simple search. I guess that why you’re arguing so vehemently against Apple removing certain podcasts: You’re afraid that if Apple removes them, you won’t be able to ever find them.

I've said that by banning podcasts from being listed in iTunes, Apple is effectively killing the chances of anyone who uses iTunes as their major or sole source of podcasts from ever finding them.

Using your logic, by not carrying certain books, my bookstore is effectively killing the chances if people ever finding those books if they use that bookstore as their sole source of information about books. So, which is the better solution:

1) My local bookstore should be required to carry every single book that is available; or
2) People should realize that there are other sources for information about books?

It's like your silly point about "you can special order books". Well, if you don't know about the book, and you don't know anything about the book, like the title or author, no, actually, you can't. You keep repeating "BUT YOU CAN ENTER THE URL" without realizing the very important requirement of HAVING THE URL IN THE FIRST PLACE. How are people supposed to get the URL? Google is a very crappy tool for this.

Oh, if only there were some sort of directory, separate from iTunes, where I could find this information!

If it's not listed because Apple refuses to list it, then Apple is banning it from the iTunes listing. That's a very simple, and yet correct use of the word.

It is technically correct, but practically meaningless. It would be like me complaining that my local grocery store is banning RC Cola from their store. Somehow, “banning it from being listed” looks strikingly similar to “not listing it.”

Oh please. Implementing an “explicit” tag has absolutely no effect on what your children can or can’t see, if you don’t want it to.

First, Thank you for proving my point that all this crap is useless. It's so nice that you did it for me.

The key phrase is, “if you don’t want it to.” If you choose to ignore an “explicit” tag, and your children also ignore that tag, then it will not affect what they listen to. That doesn’t mean that such a tag is useless for everyone.

It's about the fact that non-pornographic and non-profane content, "explicit" or no gets ignored, and this system that you wax so rhapsodic about, even as you admit it's useless, does the people who are worried about that kind of content no good at all.

I never said that it’s useless. I said that tags won’t affect you if you ignore them. For people who pay attention to them, “explicit” tags are very useful. But apparently, since you don’t use them, no one else should be able to either.

You blew it off entirely, because according to you, Apple has already given you an effective set of tools.

Ha. Quote me. Find where I said that Apple does not need any other access controls in iTunes, because the current system works well enough.

Andy, what's the URL of a podcast you've never heard of and can't find on iTunes, and don't know the URL for?

OF course having not listed is doing that! If i don't know what the URL for something is, how can I enter it?

But you don't get it. What about the people who don't want APPLE or YOU or ANYONE ELSE to define what "pornography" is? What about people who want the abilty to decide for themselves?

Those people can look other places for those podcasts. It’s a free market. I don’t complain to my local video store that they don’t contain X-rated videos, because I can go to other stores for those.

That's what Apple is removing here. You seem to think that "oh URL entry won't stop anyone", but it in fact doesn, because you have to HAVE the URL to enter it, and without an easy, simple way to find the URL, that won't happen.

I don't use them because they don't work. They cannot work. The MPAA doesn't and cannot know what is inappropriate for my child.

Ah, binary thinking once again! Either the MPAA knows exactly what is inappropriate for my child, or their ratings are completely useless. How about this one: The MPAA provides information about what content is present in a movie, and then you decide whether or not that content is appropriate for your child?

What kind of moron lets vague ratings be the sole arbiter of what's okay for a kid to see.

If all people used ratings in that way, then you might have a point. However, they don’t.

No more selfish than your championing of them as some great guideline that keeps you from having to do that work.

Strawman.

Prove that for every R-Rated movie ever made, or that ever will be made.

I don’t have to prove it. I am making a decision based on content. The ratings system provides more information about that content.

But thank you for stating clearly that you decide based on ratings and not actual work.

Either/or thinking again. I make a decision that a four-year-old can’t watch an R-rated movie, and you conclude that I must make all decisions based solely on ratings and nothing else.

Wait...Mr. "It can't be a ban because it's not 100% effective" is accusing ME of being binary?

By the definition of a ban, it’s not a ban if it is officially sanctioned. Apple officially supports subscribing to any podcast that you want. Therefore, Apple does not ban any podcasts.

For a ratings system to work, it has to be something that you can trust. We've already established that you can't really trust a ratings system, so therefore, it doesn't work.

No, you claim that if you can’t trust a ratings system to completely decide for you what your kids can and can’t watch, then it must be worthless. I am saying that a ratings system is one data point of many, and the more data, the better.

At least i'm providing some form of evidence. You're relying on far less.

I am relying on logic and common sense.

However, you still haven't been able to refute my point that ratings systems are just not effective, that they don't work. You've even admitted that.

No, I admitted that ratings systems don’t work 100% of the time for every person. But in your black-and-white world, you infer an admission that they don’t work at all.

The parents who would say "Wow, i better get on the stick" already are. They don't need to be told what's appropriate and what isn't.

Because either parents are involved with their kids 100%, or not at all. Either/or again.

Go ask a bookseller to order you a book that you know nothing about including the content or subject, because you don't yet know what you want.

To prove your point, you have to assume that someone is looking for a book, but has absolutely no opinion about the content or subject. I, on the other hand, am assuming that the person looking for something actually has a brain, and some idea of the general subject matter that they are looking for. If they don’t have it at the local bookstore, then they can look it up and order something. And if they still don’t have anything, then you can go to another bookstore, or look it up online.

Weren't you JUST castigating me for being all binary 'n' shit? Cast the beam out of thine own eye before thou pointest out the mote in mine.

Getting binary again Andy, better check that. You don't like binary, remember?

You may want to understand the meaning of words before using them to counter every argument. Here’s a hint: Saying that something is true or false, or right or wrong, is not “thinking in binary.” Saying that something is not 100% effective, so it is therefore not effective at all, is an example of thinking in binary.

Uh-oh, getting binary again. As well, now you're playing the "Partial definition game". Even dumber, you're doing it with a word I defined earlier. Let's look at the WHOLE definition, shall we?

take a look at number 2. there. Read it a good long while. Note the "attempted" part.

If Apple wanted to “suppress something regarded as objectionable,” they wouldn’t have an official, sanctioned way of subscribing to it and using it.

for someone who's so binary, you sure seem to hate it. My point was, by relegating it to a URL ghetto, that is a de facto ban on the podcast.

Haven’t we already covered this? The podcast itseslf is not banned, just the listing in the iTunes podcast directory. They are two different things.

But again, if that speedbump wasn't there for content you object to, you'd be demanding the wall. So let me ask you this. What if Apple yanks the manual URL entry because it "Allows Teh Pron"?

Wow, you’re actually asking my opinion, instead of assigning me opinion and then railing against it? I’m honored!

If Apple yanked the ability to manually enter URLs, I would have a big problem with it, since there are many podcasts that are not listed in the Apple directory. I would also object if I could only put songs on my iPod that are available in the iTunes Music Store, or if they only let me install software that is available on the Apple web site. Luckily, Apple doesn’t restrict any of these things. So no, I am not requesting a wall.

Ratings ARE an opinion. THey're they opinion of the MPAA board, or the secret cabal in Apple. That's all a rating CAN be.

A rating is a general categorization based on specific guidelines. To the extent that you agree with those guidelines, you can use the ratings as a tool to help you make your decisions. To the extent that you disagree, you can ignore them. However, just because you disagree, that doesn’t mean that they are not useful for other people.

What, you have some kind of empirical evidence that it's MORE okay to see someone getting decapitated than to see a penis? Because the former gets you a much more accessible rating than the latter. Hell, you can show decapitation in PG-13 movies.

The ratings are recommendations, not statements of fact.

Just because they don’t work perfectly, that doesn’t imply that they obviously “aren’t working at all.”

I can only go by what you type. If you cannot achieve proper clarity, that's your fault, not mine.

You are interpreting what I say based on your mistaken assumptions. I have no control over those.

And I’m sure that there are a large set of people who only shop at their local bookstore. Doesn’t mean that the bookstore has to carry every book.

Again, how do you enter a URL you don't have?

Posted by: Andy | July 13, 2005 06:23 PM

Oh, and sorry for calling you an idiot.

Posted by: Andy | July 13, 2005 06:25 PM

You know what? I’m going to amend my previous statement. The more that I think about, I have realized that the phrase “banned from being listed” is technically and semantically meaningless. Logically, you can’t ban yourself from doing something; you simply make a choice to do it or not to do it. Therefore, since Apple decides what content goes in the iTunes podcast directory, Apple is not banning anything. They are simply deciding what is listed and what isn’t. It is no more a “ban” than your choice to have eggs for breakfast means that you “banned” yourself from having Corn Flakes. The concept of banning yourself is meaningless, and therefore irrelevant.

Posted by: Andy | July 14, 2005 03:36 AM

Well see, that makes things so easy for you doesn't it. You just define words to mean what you think they should to prove your point, and then refuse to deal with any other usage.

However, since you're the only one who's going to play along, you're going to have a tough time with that.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 14, 2005 08:53 AM

I am not redefining anything. Based on the definition of the word “ban,” the concept of banning yourself is meaningless. You can only ban someone else from doing something; if it’s yourself, it’s just a choice.

I was really hoping you’d address the other point, your question of “Where do I find this magical, wonderful listing of podcasts I might like?” Since it took me all of five seconds to find multiple podcast directories, I am on pins and needles waiting to see what your response is.

Posted by: Andy | July 14, 2005 12:07 PM

Why? You insist that "ban" has to be all or nothing, but ratings systems can't be, (read "Only Andy can have binary thinking"), even though there's nothing in the word 'ban' that indicates it has to have absolute effectiveness to describe an action.

Secondly, the other podcast listings are meaningless to casual iTunes users. People using those don't need iTunes anyway. It's only the people for whom podcasts effectively didn't exist prior to iTunes, (a rather large number), or for whom the only podcasts they're going to ever care about are in iTunes listings because that's the easy, simple way to find them.

You don't seem to get that the non-technical iTunes user isn't going to care what you can find on google with regard to other sites that list podcasts. For them, and they are a large number, if it's not on iTunes, it doesn't exist. Just like for millions of moviegoers, if it's not in the megaplex in the mall, they'll never see it. If Blockbuster doesn't carry it, they don't rent it.

You sound like a Linux user unable to understand that the existence of the power of the command line doesn't matter to the non--technical user. if they can't make with the clicky-clicky, they don't want to know, nor do they care TO know.

For them, and they are the only audience germane to this, if Apple decides to not list a podcast, they'll never know it exists, because they'll never know how to find it.

is that clear enough for you?

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 14, 2005 01:45 PM

1) You are comparing apples to oranges. One is the usage of a word, which is very specific, and either does or doesn’t apply, according to the definition; The other is the implementation of a ratings system, the effectiveness of which varies from person to person, so you really can’t pin it down as either completely effective or completely ineffective.

By the definition of the word “ban,” something has to be completely prohibited in order to be banned. (Note that the prohibition has to be complete, but it does not have to be completely effective.) If someone is banned from driving (the example used in the dictionary), they are prohibited from driving at all. If they are allowed to drive on Tuesdays, or using certain vehicles, then they are not banned from driving.

By contrast, you are claiming that since ratings systems do not apply to all situations, then they should be completely discarded. As evidence for this, you state that you don’t use ratings to decide what your kids should or shouldn’t watch, and therefore they are worthless. This is trivially disprovable, since ratings are used by more than just you.

2) Yes, I agree completely that, for casual iTunes users who don’t look anywhere besides iTunes, a podcast that is not listed in the iTunes directory effectively does not exist. And, as you point out, “for millions of moviegoers, it it’s not in the megaplex at the mall,” it doesn’t exist. By the same token, for someone who only shops at one bookstore, any books not in that store effectively do not exist. And for someone who only goes to one grocery store, any products not carried there effectively do not exist. So, what can we conclude from this? Is it:

A) Any store that refuses to carry all possible content is banning and censoring that content, because they do not cater to the needs of users who rely on that store as their sole source.

or:

B) Stores only carry a subset of all content that is available, and they are free to do so. If their customers are unsatisfied by the selection, they should find another source for that content.

According to B, we live in a free market, where a need in one area leads to someone else with a product or service to fill that need. In that world, we have specialty stores that offer products not carried by regular grocery stores, we have art houses that play films not carried by local multiplexes, we have online bookstores for books you can’t find at your local bookstore, and we have podcast directories (and, for that matter, the entire internet) to provide links to podcasts that you can’t find on the iTunes Music Store. If the consumer is not being satisfied, it is his responsibility to look for another market.

And according to A, Apple is banning and censoring any content that they don’t list in the iTunes Music Store, bookstores are censoring any books that they don’t carry, multiplexes are censoring any films that they don’t show, and grocery stores are censoring any products that they don’t sell. Therefore, stores should have to sell every product, bookstores should have to carry every book, theaters should have to broadcast every movie, and Apple should have to provide a directory of every podcast, because if the consumer is not being satisfied, it is the responsibility of his chosen market to change to satisfy him.

Now, which world view do you think is more reasonable?

Posted by: Andy | July 14, 2005 02:31 PM

I'm not saying Apple HAS to do anything.

If you recall, this post was a reaction to Kirk's insistence that APPLE do MORE to keep the poor children from coming in contact with "TEH PRON" and "explicit" content, (even though defining 'explicit' is a fool's errand unless you define it by your own standards for yourself).

I'm saying that it's not Apple's job to define explicit. It's really not their job to filter content at all, but in this moronically litigious and lazy culture they're stuck with, they are forced to, because heaven help them if they said "Um, maybe it's the parents job to do this, not ours".

I'm saying that rather than screaming that Apple has to keep your kids safe, maybe oh, *you* should keep your kids safe. You're the one that dragged, (and I unfortunately played along) this into a circular argument of "you're a binary thinker, no YOU are, no YOU are".

All that was missing was one of use saying "Yo' momma's such a dirty ho that her face is on a wanted poster at Trojan".

But Andy, it's an opinion. You can't rebut an opinion. You can't prove an opinion right or wrong. You're not changing my mind, and from what I've seen, you're not changing anyone else's mind. You decided to play hero for Kirk, and I hope you got what you wanted out of it.

But, and this is the one thing that keeps me warm...there's not a ratings system that's ever been anything even close to a success. The Hayes code failed. The fact that the MPAA code's been revised at least twice, and the amount of money spent on explaining it, and marketing it, shows that its a failure. The current drama over GTA: San Andreas shows how much of a failure the Video Game industry's rather thorough ratings system is. In spite of a detailed ratings system for television, there's still the same cry that there is every year for the entertainment industry to "Do Something" to "Protect the children", and Congress happily threatens to regulate everything with a strong G rating or worse to the ass-end of the internet.

Why does this happen? Because too many parents forget that it's a guideline, and use the rating as their sole method of judgement. They use the ratings as an excuse to abdicate their job duties as parents, and then, when something slips through, or there's a "wardrobe malfunction"...well, just look at all the legislative noise being made. The drama over "Beavis and Butthead" was a fantastic example of how bad parenting in this country has gotten. Instead of pointing out that maybe leaving a five year old alone in a house with a two year old is a stupid idea and a find example of criminal neglect, MTV became the boogieman, changed B&B's schedule, and banned the word "fire" from all future scripts. Screw blaming the bad parent, it was obviously TV. Marilyn Manson being blamed for Columbine, rather than the historical allowance of High Schools to allow the popular kids to torment the freaks and geeks at whatever level they chose, because it's obviously that perverted freaky rock star that caused this. Ozzy made a kid commit suicide, etc, yadda, on and on and on. When bad things happen to kids, society blames everyone they can to avoid even CONSIDERING that the people the kids lived with and interacted with may have had something to do with it. Ratings systems prevent *none* of this bullshit, in fact, they make it worse.

If you could show me one ratings system that doesn't cause more problems than it even comes close to solving, I'd be far more sanguine about them. But they really cannot.

The funny thing is, Apple has, albeit not specifically for this purpose given parents a great tool for deciding what's appropriate: The 30-second preview. Parents can actually preview a podcast before allowing their child to listen to it. What ratings system is POSSIBLY going to beat that? What would be a nice support for that is the ability for parents to create whitelists of podcasts for their kids, or of any content on the iTMS. That would put the control in the hands of the parents, where it belongs.

Of course, then you get the cries of "it's too hard, it's too much work, we shouldn't have to do that", and it ends up being a debacle. So, Apple creates a nice big PR "We're stopping teh pron" announcement, and then has to preview every 'cast before it's posted, which creates quite the nice little delay, sometimes up to a month.

In the end, it doesn't stop anything, it's useless as a warning, and utterly ineffective at its primary purpose. But hey, it makes you feel like their doing something, and that's all that counts in this country. Not doing, just the appearance of doing.

(oh yeah, nice little bit of crowing on your site there andy. But it's missing something...wait I know.. you need "I R0XX0R, W3LCH SUXX0RZ!!!!" in big flashing letters. That would give it that perfect little bit of sophistication its lacking.)

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 15, 2005 02:54 PM

John, I really do not know what to say. For those who don’t want to click over, my exact words were:

And finally, scroll down and read the comments, where yours truly makes (I believe) a strong case against Welch’s screed on The Bynk Zone.

That’s it. If you can find a more understated way of saying, “I think I’m right on this point,” I’d like to see it. But somehow in your mind, I’m “crowing,” and I’m just short of some childish l33t-speak rant. I have been more than civil in this entire discussion, with the exception of calling you an idiot one time. You, on the other hand, seem to ascribe these beliefs to me that I do not hold, then proceed to berate me for them. You state that a quick reference to your blog is “crowing.” And you call me a dick.

So, at the risk of appearing uncivil, let me point out that all I was trying to do was point my meager readership to this discussion, humbly state that I think I am correct…and that’s it. I never said that you “SUXXoRZ,” or anything even close. I didn’t point out that you keep telling me what I believe, just so you can insult me for those beliefs. I also didn’t point out your logical errors, such as the claim that since ratings systems don’t work perfectly, they don’t work at all. All I did was post a link to this discussion, and say that I believe I make a good case. That’s it. So go ahead and crucify me all you like; the more you complain about things I didn’t say, the worse you make yourself appear.

Posted by: Andy | July 15, 2005 06:02 PM

Dude...please. Save it for the innocent. There's no reason for that last part except for a bit of bragging.

Bragging's okay, but just admit it. The fake humility is passe in extremis, and hypocritical.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 15, 2005 07:23 PM

If you recall, this post was a reaction to Kirk's insistence that APPLE do MORE to keep the poor children from coming in contact with "TEH PRON" and "explicit" content,

Right…he’s saying that Apple should label or remove explicit content, and you’re saying that Apple shouldn’t. With you so far.

I'm saying that it's not Apple's job to define explicit. It's really not their job to filter content at all,

And again, I agree with you. It’s not their job to label content. If they don’t want to, they don’t have to.

but in this moronically litigious and lazy culture they're stuck with, they are forced to,

And here’s where you and I differ. You think that they’re filtering content because they are forced to. I believe that they filter it because they want to. Apple wants to make sure that they project a certain image, and to that extent, they are willing to remove content that they are afraid might be objectionable to a large portion of their audience. It is their right. They can do that if they want.

And that’s the major difference between your viewpoint and mine: You think that if Apple selectively picks which content will go up on their store, Apple is “censoring” and “banning” content, and relegating those other podcasts to the “URL-only ghetto.” So basically, you’re doing the same thing as the “protect the children!” people that you’re always ranting about: complaining wildly and hysterically because Apple is doing something that you disagree with. You’re just crying “censorship” instead.

because heaven help them if they said "Um, maybe it's the parents job to do this, not ours".

How can I explain this so that you will listen? Just because people want ratings on content, that doesn’t mean that they refuse to parent their kids. For some people (and this is the part that you don’t seem to grasp), ratings actually help them to make parenting decisions. Is it possible to make decisions without them? Of course. Is it possible to rely on them too much? Of course. But are they useful to some people? Yes.

You said earlier that when you decide what movies to let your kids see, you ask other people, read things, watch it if possible…in short, you try to gather information. And a rating is just another piece of information. But somehow, having a rating is just anathema to you, because some people might rely on it too much. So instead of realizing that ratings aren’t a perfect tool for everyone, you think they should get rid of ratings altogether. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I'm saying that rather than screaming that Apple has to keep your kids safe, maybe oh, *you* should keep your kids safe. You're the one that dragged, (and I unfortunately played along) this into a circular argument of "you're a binary thinker, no YOU are, no YOU are".

Because you keep making statements like, “…rather than screaming that Apple has to keep your kids safe, maybe…*you* should keep your kids safe.” It is not an either-or issue! Having societal guidelines in place to help protect kids is not an excuse to stop parenting, even if some people act like it is. Part of keeping your kids safe is lobbying for those same societal standards. Maybe you envision parents walking next to their kids for every moment of their lives, but the reality is that that is not possible. In place of constant parental supervision, we have other guidelines in place that keep, say, a 7-year-old from seeing Sin City. Now, those standards are obviously not perfect, because kids do still R-rated movies, even without parental supervision. By the same token, they don’t keep parents from guiding their kids as they see fit, as evidenced by the kids with their parents, watching Sin City. But just because standards are not perfect, it doesn’t mean we should abandon them altogether.

All that was missing was one of use saying "Yo' momma's such a dirty ho that her face is on a wanted poster at Trojan".

Oh please. I called you an idiot. Once. Other than that, I have kept it very civil. Now, maybe you were one step away from slinging those insults, but I certainly wasn’t.

But Andy, it's an opinion. You can't rebut an opinion. You can't prove an opinion right or wrong.

Ah, good point! However, you can argue about the evidence that is used to support an opinion. In this case, you argue that Apple should not filter or label content, while I argue that they should. And my argument is helped by the fact that Apple has chosen to filter that content. You also argue that we should get rid of ratings, because they do not work perfectly. Again, this is trivially disprovable. From what I can tell, I have done a reasonable job of refuting evidence that you have thrown out there. Now, whether that changes your opinion or not…that’s up to you, isn’t it?

You're not changing my mind, and from what I've seen, you're not changing anyone else's mind.

And you have extrapolated that from what, the zero other people involved in this conversation? As far as your own mind being changed, well, there’s not much I do there, besides provide you with evidence that contradicts your opinion. You can ignore it if you want.

You decided to play hero for Kirk, and I hope you got what you wanted out of it.

I decided to argue against what I thought was a poorly-founded argument, and I wasn’t disappointed.

But, and this is the one thing that keeps me warm...there's not a ratings system that's ever been anything even close to a success.

Okay, now we’re getting somewhere! Now, how do you define “success”? From what I can tell, you define “success” as “it keeps all kids away from inappropriate content, and no one ever has to revise it, and no one ever complains about it.” Sorry, but those criteria seem just a tad unrealistic.

The fact that the MPAA code's been revised at least twice, and the amount of money spent on explaining it, and marketing it, shows that its a failure.

Hm…by that definition, the iPod must also be a dismal failure, since it’s been revised four times, and there is much more money spent on explaining and marketing it.

In spite of a detailed ratings system for television, there's still the same cry that there is every year for the entertainment industry to "Do Something" to "Protect the children", and Congress happily threatens to regulate everything with a strong G rating or worse to the ass-end of the internet.

And there’s the say cry of “censorship” and “banning” from people like you, along with irrational fears that Congress will regulate everything with a strong G rating or worse to the ass-end of the internet. Sounds like two sides of the same coin to me.

I agree! So how does getting rid of ratings solve this problem? If parents want to be involved, will they be better off with more information about what their kids are watching, or less information? And if parents are uninvolved, will getting rid of ratings suddenly make them more involved?

In fact, if that were your argument (that getting rid of ratings would force parents to become more involved), that would actually be a reasonable argument in favor of doing away with ratings altogether. However, you already said, “The parents who aren't doing their jobs at all aren't suddenly going to wake up and do their jobs better,” so I guess that argument is out the window. Oh well.

The drama over "Beavis and Butthead" was a fantastic example of how bad parenting in this country has gotten. Instead of pointing out that maybe leaving a five year old alone in a house with a two year old is a stupid idea and a find example of criminal neglect, MTV became the boogieman, changed B&B's schedule, and banned the word "fire" from all future scripts. Screw blaming the bad parent, it was obviously TV.

Ah, another excellent point! I agree completely! And I’m sure that’s why South Park also got pulled off the air, since it is much more graphic than Beavis and Butthead ever was…oh, wait a second…it actually hasn’t gotten pulled off the air? You mean, it actually has an M rating, which is apparently enough to satisfy the raving mobs who would otherwise be lobbying to have it taken off the air? Hm…I guess the ratings system does work!

Ratings systems prevent *none* of this bullshit, in fact, they make it worse.

Really? They make it worse? So you’re telling me that if there were no ratings on any TV shows, there would be fewer parents complaining about them? At least with ratings in place, the TV stations can say, “We’re doing our part, now you do your part.”

In doesn’t have to “beat” it. That kind of a system could work in addition to a rating system.

What would be a nice support for that is the ability for parents to create whitelists of podcasts for their kids, or of any content on the iTMS. That would put the control in the hands of the parents, where it belongs.

Another great idea. I agree wholeheartedly. What I don’t agree with is the belief that if you have a system like this in place, you shouldn’t have any other safeguards. That’s like saying, “Well, airbags are much more effective than seatbelts, so therefore we shouldn’t have seatbelts.” Again, you can have both solutions in place.

Of course, then you get the cries of "it's too hard, it's too much work, we shouldn't have to do that", and it ends up being a debacle.

You mean, kind of like you’re doing, when you complain about manually entering URLs to subscribe to a podcast?

Posted by: Andy | July 15, 2005 07:30 PM

Bragging's okay, but just admit it. The fake humility is passe in extremis, and hypocritical.

Oh, I get it: First you get on me for bragging, claiming that I’m just short of flashing “l33t-speak” text. When I point out that I was reasonably restrained, you get on me for “fake humility.” It just makes you look petty, hypocritical, and needlessly antagonistic.

Posted by: Andy | July 15, 2005 08:10 PM

Um okay, a person i don't know or care about is saying bad things about me.

You go on, have fun with that. Let me know if I'm supposed to get upset or anything, but I got some other stuff to do for a bit, okay?

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 15, 2005 08:16 PM

Yeah, go ahead and do whatever you need to do. You’re obviously done contributing anything meaningful to this discussion.

Posted by: Andy | July 15, 2005 11:37 PM

Thank you Hilary Rodham Clinton for demonstrating what happens when any ratings system isn't perfect, and how they cause more problems than they solve. Care to take a whack at how much tax money this little debacle's going to cost by the time it's done?

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 18, 2005 02:21 PM

I still don’t know how you conclude that ratings systems “cause more problems than they solve.” The Clinton bill is aimed at enforcing current purchasing restrictions, and questioning how content is rated; if there were no ratings whatsoever, I’m sure we’d have about 100 times as many bills in the works, and an even more hysterical outcry.

Posted by: Andy | July 18, 2005 04:40 PM

Did you read that article, or did you just see another chance to defend rating systems?

You can't get to that content normally. You have to hack the friggin' game to get to it. Secondly, have you ever PLAYED GTA:San Andreas? Vice City? GTA:III? The rating it had for how it plays sans hacking the crap out of it is dead on.

But is Hilary, or Congress happy with trying to get the game sellers, (who are most of the sales) educated a little better so when they see a parent getting a game like that for a ten year old, they can maybe figure out a way to tell them that may not be a great idea?

No.

She wants more legislation, more ratings, more enforcement. What do you do more than you have now? Code analysis? Look at this crap:

In the National Institute's recent study, 50% of boys between the ages of 7 and 14 successfully purchased M-rated video games. Furthermore, only 76% of retailers in the study said they understand the ratings they are supposed to enforce. And only half of the stores train employees in the use of the ratings. The National Institute has determined that 87% of boys play M-rated games and 78% list an M-rated game among their favorites. As a Senator, I hear from parents all the time about the frustration they feel as they try to pass their own values onto their children in a world where this type of material is readily accessible.

WHERE THE HELL ARE THE PARENTS? Did a 7 year old just find fifty bucks on the street, borrow the car, and get the video game? No.

Jesus...the ESRB has a system with 7 different ratings, including two that apply prior to the age of six, all explained clearly. It has thirty-two clearly defined content descriptors. They have a separate label for content that's modifiable online. They have pictures of the differences between the rating on the front and the back. The only thing they don't do call you at home and remind you of the rating of the game.

So you have a ratings system with around 34,359,738,368 theoretical combinations, and 1,048,576 realistic ones, and that's not enough!?! Holy shit, what's left, telepathy? Hilary standing next to the PS/2? Television and movie ratings combined can't touch this shit for thoroughness.

How much money has to be wasted on this bullshit before we realize that ratings systems do not work no matter how complex you make them and either go back to a thorough synopsis on the back of the box, or just say fuckit, and ban all entertainment in the US more mature than Barney. Because according to Hilary, there's no blame on the parents who let their kids play this shit. No, it's everybody's fault BUT them. She blames the retailers. She blames the manufacturers, she blames everyone else but the parent who can't be bothered to take the disk out of the kid's hands and let them know that just because it's popular, doesn't mean they get to play it.

Tell me Andy, how many more goddamned combinations of ratings and comments do we need? Because this seems like your wet-friggin'-dream of a system. Nothing left to chance. Go the the ESRB page on it, and you tell me where they're leaving something out. Because short of a frame-by-frame guide in every game and a system that needs a 100lb manual to explain, I can't think of any way to add more crap without it becoming completely incomprehensible. But since you are so into this crap as some kind of panacea of notification, you tell me what the hell they're missing.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 18, 2005 06:54 PM

Did you read that article, or did you just see another chance to defend rating systems?

Yes, I read the article.

Agreed on all counts.

No.

They are not touching on this issue at all. From what I can tell, Clinton and her cohorts are not concerned about children who are buying these games for their kids (which in my mind is a good thing…the last thing I want is the government telling me what I can or can’t let my kids watch or play).

She wants more legislation, more ratings, more enforcement.

Did you read the article? No new ratings were proposed. All that was proposed is more legislation to better enforce the current standards that are already in place. In my opinion, that is the right way to go. Enforce the current laws that are in place.

What do you do more than you have now? Code analysis?

The thing about the code analysis is a separate issue.

WHERE THE HELL ARE THE PARENTS? Did a 7 year old just find fifty bucks on the street, borrow the car, and get the video game? No.

I have no idea what the circumstances were. However, in any case, a retailer should not sell an M-rated game to a seven-year-old. Do you disagree with this?

As for the other part about who plays what games and which ones are their favorites…thankfully, the government isn’t doing anything about that. That is clearly the parents’ area.

Jesus...the ESRB has a system with 7 different ratings, including two that apply prior to the age of six, all explained clearly. It has thirty-two clearly defined content descriptors. They have a separate label for content that's modifiable online. They have pictures of the differences between the rating on the front and the back. The only thing they don't do call you at home and remind you of the rating of the game.

No, the other things that they don’t do are: explain the ratings to the retailers, and make sure the retailers enforce the ratings. Whether the parents pay attention once the game gets home…that is an entirely different topic, and one that the government shouldn’t be involved in.

Please tell me exactly where any new ratings were proposed.

How much money has to be wasted on this bullshit before we realize that ratings systems do not work no matter how complex you make them

To the extent that they are enforced, they work, at least at the retail level. This legislation is supposed to provide stricter penalties for retailers who are not enforcing the ratings.

Because according to Hilary, there's no blame on the parents who let their kids play this shit. No, it's everybody's fault BUT them. She blames the retailers. She blames the manufacturers, she blames everyone else but the parent who can't be bothered to take the disk out of the kid's hands and let them know that just because it's popular, doesn't mean they get to play it.

I’m glad she’s not blaming the parents, because once she starts talking about them, she’s probably introducing legislation, and I don’t want her legislating parental skills.

But again, I think you are making assumptions based on what she’s not saying. She is saying that the retailers are at fault, because they are at fault if they are letting kids buy these games. But that does not imply that they are the only ones at fault. Whether or not the parents are shirking their duties, the retailers shouldn’t sell these games to customers who aren’t in the correct age range. Similarly, whether or not the retailers are selling these games to kids, parents should be involved with their kids. But in the case of parents with their kids, she can’t legislate what parents let their kids watch, so she’s not talking about it. She’s only talking about the part she can do something about: enforcing the current ratings system.

Tell me Andy, how many more goddamned combinations of ratings and comments do we need?

Tell me, John, where is she introducing additional ratings?

Because this seems like your wet-friggin'-dream of a system. Nothing left to chance. Go the the ESRB page on it, and you tell me where they're leaving something out. Because short of a frame-by-frame guide in every game and a system that needs a 100lb manual to explain, I can't think of any way to add more crap without it becoming completely incomprehensible. But since you are so into this crap as some kind of panacea of notification, you tell me what the hell they're missing.

They’re not enforcing it.

Posted by: Andy | July 18, 2005 08:26 PM

They can't enforce rating a game that has content only available by hacking. Hell, it may have been left in there from earlier dev versions. that happens a lot. Now they're going to have to apply ratings to how a game could be hacked, not how it ships, because that's what you have to do to get the sex crap in GTA.

So who enforces it? Some kid at a store doing this as a part time job? Do they start requiring training on fake ID detection for anyone selling video games? Who funds the manpower to check on this? BATF spends a LOT of money every year to check on bars, and there are a LOT more game stores than there are bars out there. How many millions of dollars a year at the federal, state, and local levels of government is this going to cost to make sure that game sellers are properly checking IDs?

Tell me Andy, how much of a tax increase will you vote for to fund this new "increased enforcement"? Or do you just want a bunch of laws and regs passed, and some small stores boned to "make an example of them" and then the whole thing ignored until some genius points out the hundreds of porn mods to the Sims?

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 18, 2005 11:58 PM

They can't enforce rating a game that has content only available by hacking.

Obviously. And no one, not even Hillary Clinton, is suggesting they do that. Again, you are combining two separate issues: one, the source of the possibly adult content in the new GTA; and two, better enforcement of current ratings. Nowhere has it been said (or even implied) that they’re going to create new ratings to deal with this GTA issue.

Now they're going to have to apply ratings to how a game could be hacked, not how it ships, because that's what you have to do to get the sex crap in GTA.

I think the issue of the content in GTA is completely separate from the issue of enforcing ratings.

So who enforces it? Some kid at a store doing this as a part time job?

Probably the same way they enforce the sale of cigarettes. If it is better enforced, then the ratings will be more effective at the retail level. Note that they are still somewhat effective, and they are still also useful for parents to know what their kids are playing.

and then the whole thing ignored until some genius points out the hundreds of porn mods to the Sims?

Is anyone talking about mods? Didn’t think so.

Posted by: Andy | July 19, 2005 11:26 AM

Without seeing the proposed legislation, we don't know what's going on in her pointy head. So to say what she really wants until that bill is on the public record is speculation in either direction. However, she is clearly pushing for increased enforcement, and using a problem that only exists if you hack the game as her example.

Again, how do you enforce a rating for content that isn't available unless you modify the code of the game? If you try to that, then you have an enforcement agency testing game hacks as a full-time job, or writing their own to see how bad you can make a game. Because if you're going to rate potential hacks, this is what you'll have to do. And since Hilary wants the feds involved, that's the level it will happen at.

I think the issue of the content in GTA is completely separate from the issue of enforcing ratings.

Bullshit, it's her justification for her as of yet unseen legislation in her "more enforcement to protect the children" PR scam. It is this bit of hacker, that has existed for YEARS with other games, that gave her the way to do this.

So who enforces it? Some kid at a store doing this as a part time job?

Really? You should check up and see how much BATF spends on that particular function. That's your tax dollars at work, by the way on multiple levels. Again Andy, how much of a tax increase will you personally vote for to fund this idiocy? It's a simple question, hell, you don't have to give me a number even...how about choosing from: none, the bare minimum, whatever it takes. Come on, this should be easy for you. How much are you willing to spend on this? How important is it to you when it starts costing you money outside of the purchase price?

and then the whole thing ignored until some genius points out the hundreds of porn mods to the Sims?

Is anyone talking about mods? Didn’t think so.

Actually Andy, yes she is...you must not have read where she specifically talks about the GTA mod. They're wanting to enforce ratings on something that is not accessible without hacking the game. That is called a hack, or a mod. That is what this is all about. Someone hacked the game to get to some sex, and now we have U.S. Senators wanting more enforcement legislation that will end up costing us millions in taxes that are needed elsewhere.

Again Andy, how in favor of increased taxes to pay for this shit are you?

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 19, 2005 11:53 AM

However, she is clearly pushing for increased enforcement, and using a problem that only exists if you hack the game as her example.

She is discussing two separate issues. In her letter, they are even separate paragraphs, with the second one starting with, “I also ask….” Two separate issues: one, is the ESRB rating appropriate, given the content available in the hacked version; two, we should be enforcing the current ratings more thoroughly. Nowhere is it ever stated that we should enforce ratings based on hacked content. Again, read the article if you don’t believe me.

Again, how do you enforce a rating for content that isn't available unless you modify the code of the game?

You don’t. That entire issue happens when the game is rated, not at the time it is enforced.

Bullshit, it's her justification for her as of yet unseen legislation in her "more enforcement to protect the children" PR scam.

Is she using it is a soapbox to push the “more enforcement” issue? Clearly. Are they related? Not directly, no.

It is this bit of hacker, that has existed for YEARS with other games, that gave her the way to do this.

You really don’t see the difference between this hack and other mods? It has been suggested that this code was already available in the game, and a single bit was flipped to activate it. Whether you agree or disagree with the reaction, you have to at least concede that flipping a bit and modding the code are different.

Come on, this should be easy for you. How much are you willing to spend on this?

I would expect that some of my tax dollars would go to support this, yes. As for how those dollars get distributed, I’ll leave that up to the government.

Actually Andy, yes she is...you must not have read where she specifically talks about the GTA mod. They're wanting to enforce ratings on something that is not accessible without hacking the game.

Two. Separate. Issues. 1) They want to determine the correct ratings based on the content. 2) They want to enforce the correct ratings. Nowhere is it stated that they want to enforce the hypothetical ratings that might occur from this hack, independent of the rating process.

That is called a hack, or a mod.

There is a difference between a hack and a mod. A mod specifically adds something to the game, where a hack does not necessarily. It appears that this hack merely unlocks something that was already in the code, and did not specifically add something to the code as a mod would. But again, the jury is still out on that part of the issue.

and now we have U.S. Senators wanting more enforcement legislation that will end up costing us millions in taxes that are needed elsewhere.

This whole discussion started off about whether or not ratings do any good. I believe I have made my case, and made it well. Frankly, whether or not ratings are valuable is a different issue than how to pay for enforcement. The fact that you have moved on to details like “how can we pay for this” seems to imply that you have conceded the earlier point.

Posted by: Andy | July 19, 2005 01:32 PM

Try again. It proves my point that ratings are not currently good enough as this issue shows, since now games should be rated on how they *could* be hacked or modified, nor shall they ever BE good enough as her call for legislation enforcing stricter monitoring of the ratings shows. Tell me Andy, are you going to enjoy the increased lines when you buy a game as people check IDs? you can't enforce this online at all, so this entire concept is a complete failure there now, and forever in the future, unless you propose banning the sale of video games on the Internet so as to force in-person age verification.

But this is now not just costing the manufacturers money, it's costing the taxpayers money, and not just the mental midgets who want the ESRB to define "safe" for them. It's costing parents who DO take their jobs seriously money as well.

But you never answered the question. Since you are the great shining defender of every ratings system, no matter how ineffective, (since we have yet to find one you don't like), how much MORE money will you pay for all the new personnel and associated overhead to essentially create a department of entertainment ratings enforcement, or add that duty to an existing agency such as BATF. That's going to require *new* money Andy. So, how much are you in favor of new taxes, or, what do you propose we chop to fund this new enforcement arm of the government. WHat penalties do you think should be instituted for a store that gets busted, or for a non-parental adult that buys a copy of GTA for a ten year old? Closing the business? Fines? Jail Time for repeat offenders? Just saying "I expect tax dollars to be used" is dodging the issue. Where should that money come from and what kind of penalties are you in favor of? Come on Andy, show us that you've thought this through beyond the standard yelling of "SOMETHING MUST BE DONE".

Oh, and your hair-splitting of hacks and mods is amusing but inane. If we are talking about the result, a hack and a mod are the same thing. You could make some case as to a methodology difference, in that a hack tends to not be sanctioned by the company making the game, and a mod is, but the end result is the same...the code does something that it wasn't going to do in its original format. This can be done within a framework that allows for such extension or not. But a hack modifies the original program. A mod modifies the original program. The only real difference is semantic.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 19, 2005 02:01 PM

It proves my point that ratings are not currently good enough as this issue shows, since now games should be rated on how they *could* be hacked or modified,

Stop right there: no. The jury is still out on the source of the questionable content, whether it was placed there by the hack or was in the original code, and how that will affect ratings. At this point, they are looking into the issue. There is nothing in that article (or any of the other articles I have read) that suggests that games should be rated on how they “could be” hacked or modified.

Tell me Andy, are you going to enjoy the increased lines when you buy a game as people check IDs?

I shop at places today that check IDs, and it has never been a problem. And yes, I enjoy knowing that they are enforcing the ratings.

you can't enforce this online at all,

Right, because there’s absolutely no way to verify age over the internet! I mean, seven-year-olds get credit cards all the time.

If you had been able to prove that ratings systems don’t work, then the question of funding would be moot, since it makes no sense to fund something that doesn’t work. Since you’re now arguing about funding, I’ll assume you’ve conceded the earlier point.

As for the details of such a system, there are other systems in place that can be used as a model. Let’s just say we’ll use the exact same system used to monitor the sale of adult magazines to minors. I find that a much more reasonable system than your argument of, “I don’t use ratings, and the system isn’t perfect, so therefore ratings don’t work.”

Oh, and your hair-splitting of hacks and mods is amusing but inane. If we are talking about the result, a hack and a mod are the same thing.

But we’re clearly not talking about the result; we’re talking about the source of the content in question. Clearly, if the content was put in by the hack, then that is a different issue than a simple bit flip to activate content that was already there.

But a hack modifies the original program. A mod modifies the original program. The only real difference is semantic.

I don’t think that anyone has suggested rating a game according to what mods could be applied. You need to learn to read, instead of just filtering everything through your paranoid delusions.

Posted by: Andy | July 19, 2005 04:39 PM

Quit dodging the question Andy. How much in new taxes are you willing to vote for or support for federal, state, and local enforcement of ratings? It's just a number or a general amount, how hard can it be? Put your money where your mouth is. I know my answer, it's easy, zero. But I'm not so naive to think that there will be a wave of parental self-responsibility across the nation. So what is this shit really worth to you Andy? Give us a number. Or, barring that, name the programs you'd cut funding to, or delete completely to fund this. If ratings are so important to you, then this should be really quite simple.

What penalties? Fines? suspension of the right to sell games? Oh, that's another issue...how do you know who's selling games? Why, we'll have to have not just enforcement, but licensing too! Yay! Another layer of bureaucracy to fund. So you have to figure in the licensing schemes, because if you don't know who's selling games, you can't really spot check with any kind of effectiveness. Who issues the license, who monitors? State? Local? both? Federal?

So now we have two new entities...Licensing and Enforcement. So you need to fund them. Again Andy, give us a number. How much money are you willing to take out of your pocket every year to fund the ratings systems you want? You're so in favor of them, this should be an easy question, yet you continually dodge it.

Hmm...here's another thing...what about reselling? I mean, if you're going to regulate game sales on three levels of government when you plot it out, how do you deal with the sales of used games? Do you require someone to file with the local game sales board when the resell? How do you enforce this?

Oh yeah, on the seven year old with credit card thing...are you saying that in your mind, simple possession of a credit card is the same level of age verification as a government issued ID?

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 19, 2005 05:26 PM

It's just a number or a general amount, how hard can it be?

How hard can it be? You want me to name a specific number for what will come out of my pocket, which, when extrapolated out among all taxpayers, will be the right amount to fund monitoring and enforcement of current ratings systems. See, I elect politicians who pay people to come up with these kinds of numbers, based on data that I do not have. Yet you think that if I am unwilling to name a specific number, it somehow proves your case. It does not.

As for the details: Are bookstores required to be licensed to sell adult magazines? Do purchasers have to license magazines before reselling them? Maybe you should look at that as an example.

And of course, your focus on implementation details is simply to mask the fact that you have been wrong on your other claims that ratings do absolutely no good, are not useful to parents, that podcasts are difficult if not impossible to find for people not using the iTunes Music Store, that getting rid of ratings would result in fewer complaints from parents and politicians, that choosing not to provide links is “banning” or “censoring” content, and on and on and on. You keep losing point after point, so you have to move on to the next point as a distraction.

Well, I’m done. I don’t care to argue specific implementation details with you. I think that ratings system are good and provide some benefit, and the facts support my argument; you think that they do absolutely no good, and that argument is trivially disprovable. I think that ratings systems allow a wider variety of content to be produced and sold; you think that if there were no ratings, there would be less outcry from politicians and parents’ groups. I have proven my case, and disproven yours. If you want to argue about implementation costs, argue it with someone else.

If you still think you can support your previous claims, then go ahead and make your case. But somehow I imagine that if you had some actual evidence, you would have produced it already. But I’m sure you’ll ramble on about implementation. I’ll just accept the implicit concession.

Posted by: Andy | July 19, 2005 07:15 PM

Oh dude, you're so ignorant about the adult thing. For one, the government regularly stings people reselling adult material. Most resale sites don't deal with porn because it's such a pain in the ass from the various law enforcement agencies Two, they check the HELL out of adult establishments. My roommate used to work for one, god help you if you got busted not checking every ID. Every level of government is ALL OVER porn.

But that's not the point.

I don't need a specific number. I just want a general one. a percentage that you would be willing to take out of your paycheck to pay for this legal enforcement of ratings that the Hon. Senator Clinton seems to want.

And my focus on implementation details is a big part of WHY i think ratings are useless. If they weren't, we wouldn't have the annual "TOO MUCH VIOLENCE AND SEX IN THE MEDIA" hearings Congress fires up when they want attention. Jesus, what kind of moron wants more government involvement without pondering the ramifications of that involvement. It's called "Thinking" Andy, but it's obvious where you are in this.

None of this means shit to you beyond the facade. You are unwilling to pay for it, or consider the ramifications of what you promulgate. You just want "more" to be done, but you're too shallow to think about just what "more" means. Hell, someone could probably talk you into supporting a reinstatement of the Hayes code if the wrapped it up in "PROTECT THE CHILDREN".

And now that I'm not letting you hide behind meaningless slogans and empty PR, the truth comes out. You don't really want anything real to be done, you just want more smoke and mirrors and the warm hand of the government on your bum giving you a gentle pat and telling you "It's okay, you don't have to think for yourself. We'll do it for you"

Sorry, I can't turn off the brain. Every action has ramifications, esp. when the government is involved, and only a fool blindly trusts a politician. By all means, stick your fingers in your ears and chant LALALALALALA so you can't hear anything that contradicts with your worldview. I'm sure that you'll be happy with nothing but Barney, all day, every day.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 19, 2005 09:24 PM

Every level of government is ALL OVER porn.

And yet somehow we wind up with enough money left over to pay the rent. There’s your model for monitoring adult videogames.

Sure. I would be willing to give 10% of the first $7,300 of my income, then 15% up to $29,700, then 25% up to $71,950, then 29% up to $150,150, 33% up to $326,450, and 35% of anything above that.

See, here’s how things work in the real world: You talk about whether something is worth doing or not, then you talk about how to pay for it. You’ve obviously conceded the first part.

And my focus on implementation details is a big part of WHY i think ratings are useless.

So, you concede that if enforcement were sufficiently funded, then ratings would be effective?

Nice circular argument you have going there: Ratings are useless because we don’t spend enough money enforcing them…but we shouldn’t spend money enforcing them, because they’re useless. Too bad you can’t actually prove that they’re useless.

If they weren't, we wouldn't have the annual "TOO MUCH VIOLENCE AND SEX IN THE MEDIA" hearings Congress fires up when they want attention.

Your logic is lacking. There is a difference between “not 100% effective” and “useless.”

Jesus, what kind of moron wants more government involvement without pondering the ramifications of that involvement. It's called "Thinking" Andy, but it's obvious where you are in this.

I have pondered the ramifications: It will cost some amount of tax money. But apparently to you, any discussions about government policies first require a detailed submission about which specific programs should be cut, along with a personal declaration of salary donations.

None of this means shit to you beyond the facade. You are unwilling to pay for it, or consider the ramifications of what you promulgate.

Completely untrue. I do pay a certain percentage of my income in taxes. That tax money goes to support the government. Is this really that hard for you to comprehend?

You just want "more" to be done, but you're too shallow to think about just what "more" means.

Yes, it’s much more noble to want nothing done, while failing to think about the ramifications of that decision.

Sorry, I can't turn off the brain.

Really? Your previous statements seems to say otherwise, like the claim that ratings do absolutely nothing to keep kids from getting adult content, or that there would be less of an outcry if there were no ratings whatsoever.

Every action has ramifications, esp. when the government is involved, and only a fool blindly trusts a politician.

Ah, but the wise man says, “I saw kids in an R-rated movie, therefore ratings don’t work. Let’s get rid of them altogether, and people will stop complaining!”

I'm sure that you'll be happy with nothing but Barney, all day, every day.

And once again, you confuse ratings with censorship.

Posted by: Andy | July 20, 2005 12:26 AM

Actually, no, we don't have enough money to pay the rent at the moment. You may wish to look up the fascinating concept of the deficit. See, that's what you get when the government spends more than it has. We seem to have a rather large one right now, so obviously our spending outpaces our income.

No, i don't concede that ratings would be effective with sufficient enforcement, unless you're willing to admit that you are willing to allow monitoring of your kids 24x7 by enforcement agencies to ensure that they at no time are exposed to "bad" stuff. You know, just shitcan the constitution, because after all, we're protecting children. And again, you have yet to show a ratings system that works at any level of usefulness. But then, we all know why...

Thank you for showing that at the end of the day, you're not willing to spend any new money on this shit. You're like the rest of the "Protect the children" whiners. You want increased enforcement of this bullshit, you want more people being paid to monitor what your children do so you don't have to think so hard, you want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars, but in no way are you willing to be inconvenienced by having to pay new money for it, because obviously the government has a magical barrel of money they pay for everything with.

When it comes time to put your money where your mouth is, you refuse. What a wonderful example of responsible citizenship you are. "We must do whatever it takes to protect the children! What's that? Increased taxes? Oh fuck no, I'm sure as shit not PAYING for it! Let someone else PAY for it".

If you aren't willing to help foot the bill for all the new money this will cost, then your impassioned defense of ratings and enforcement thereof is so much bullshit.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 20, 2005 06:39 AM

You may wish to look up the fascinating concept of the deficit.

There are obviously cutbacks in spending that need to be made, but that is another topic entirely.

And only in your world is “effective” defined as “ensuring that kids are never exposed to ‘bad’ stuff.” So following your logic, seat belts must not be effective, since hundreds of people die every year while wearing their seatbelts.

The reality is, even at today’s level of enforcement, with no government involvement, ratings are still effective at reducing children’s access to adult materials. That is a proven fact, and your position that ratings do no good whatsoever is completely untenable.

And again, you have yet to show a ratings system that works at any level of usefulness.

“In the National Institute's recent study, 50% of boys between the ages of 7 and 14 successfully purchased M-rated video games.” Therefore, 50% of boys between the ages of 7 and 14 were kept from purchasing videogames by the current ratings system. Therefore, at the retail level, ratings work at some level of usefulness.

Furthermore, unless you can state categorically that no parent uses ratings to help him make decisions about what his kids can play, then you have to concede that ratings have some level of usefulness for parents as well.

But then, we all know why...

Because you are ignorant of the facts?

Thank you for showing that at the end of the day, you're not willing to spend any new money on this shit.

We don’t need new money. The old money works just fine.

You want increased enforcement of this bullshit,

Increased enforcement at the retail level would decrease the number of kids who have access to adult content. Do you agree or disagree?

you want more people being paid to monitor what your children do so you don't have to think so hard

Geez, are you still on that rant? No, I want more people to be responsible for what they sell my children. I’ll handle the monitoring of what they do, thank you very much. Nowhere in this entire discussion will you find a single instance of me suggesting that the government monitor what my kids actually play outside of the retail level.

If you aren't willing to help foot the bill for all the new money this will cost, then your impassioned defense of ratings and enforcement thereof is so much bullshit.

You have no idea how taxes work, do you? I am paying for it, just like I’m paying for every other government program.

But of course, this whole discussion would be irrelevant if you could prove, at all, that ratings are completely useless. You have been completely unable to do so. You somehow believe that if we got rid of ratings altogether, we would have fewer complaints from parents and politicians, and the same amount of children would have access to adult content. Care to support any of those gems, or are you going to keep ignoring them like you have so far?

Here, I’ll make it easy for you: Today’s ratings systems at today’s level of enforcement work at some level of usefulness. Agree or disagree? A simple one-word answer will be fine.

Posted by: Andy | July 20, 2005 10:35 AM

Disagree completely.

But then since you're not willing to properly fund this new level of government monitoring of your private life, nor are you willing to detail what programs you'd vote to take money from TO fund it, you're just another 'fair-weather' whiner.

When you're willing to really pay for it, then you can demand the government spend more money to do your thinking for you. But until then, you're a hypocrite, and your opinion has no weight behind it, because you've shown that you're not willing to pay the price that your desires demand.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 20, 2005 10:43 AM

Here, I’ll make it easy for you: Today’s ratings systems at today’s level of enforcement work at some level of usefulness. Agree or disagree? A simple one-word answer will be fine.

Disagree completely.

Thanks for stating your position so clearly. Since 50% of children between the ages of 7 and 14 were unable to purchase an M-rated game, then ratings obviously work at some level of usefulness. Therefore, you are wrong. Next topic.

There are many useless programs that the government is currently spending money on. Agree or disagree?

When you're willing to really pay for it, then you can demand the government spend more money to do your thinking for you.

How many times are you going to pull that strawman out?

But until then, you're a hypocrite, and your opinion has no weight behind it, because you've shown that you're not willing to pay the price that your desires demand.

You propose getting rid of ratings systems altogether. What benefits will be gained from this? Will more, fewer, or the same number of children have access to adult content? Will there be more, less, or the same number of complaints from parents and politicians?

Posted by: Andy | July 20, 2005 11:27 AM

What part of Your unwillingness to back your desire for increases in the size of Federal State and Local governments to support your need for increased enforcement of ineffective ratings systems with anything more than words on someone else's web page completely removes all integrity from your stance and shows you to be a spineless hypocrite" don't you understand?

If you're not willing to back your wishes with actual work and a little sacrifice, why the hell do I care what you think? When you decide that your desires are worth paying for in real dollars, and that you'd be the first person to support tax increases, or the reduction of funding to other programs AND NAME THEM, then I'll listen to you. But as for now, you're like every other person who wants something done, but not at any inconvenience to them...useless.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 20, 2005 11:39 AM

The part where you prove that ratings systems are ineffective.

When you decide that your desires are worth paying for in real dollars

I do pay in real dollars. I pay my taxes. Next topic.

But as for now, you're like every other person who wants something done, but not at any inconvenience to them...useless.

And you have been unable to prove your original claim that ratings systems are ineffective. That would be the first part to come to a concensus on. If you are unable to prove that, or unwilling to concede it, then we’re done here.

Posted by: Andy | July 20, 2005 11:59 AM

Ratings systems don't work unless they can work at 100% efficiency or far closer to it. If they were working, Hilary wouldn't be proposing legislation for more enforcement.

But, since you refuse to back adequate funding via new taxes or listing the current government programs you'll gut to pay for this new increase in governmental size, (which will require new dollars), you're just another NIMBY nimrod, and as such, have nothing of value to say here. When you decide that you're willing to put yourself out, i'll care that you have an opinion of any kind. Until then, go play elsewhere, I don't have time for cowards and hypocrites.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 20, 2005 12:26 PM

Ratings systems don't work unless they can work at 100% efficiency or far closer to it.

Yes, they do work. They just don’t work at 100% effectiveness. Therefore, your claim that they don’t work at all is simply incorrect.

If they were working, Hilary wouldn't be proposing legislation for more enforcement.

They don’t work at a level that Hillary is satisfied with, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t work at all.

When you decide that you're willing to put yourself out, i'll care that you have an opinion of any kind.

And if you were willing to develop and support a reasonable argument, you might actually have some credibility. But you have proven unable to do either.

Posted by: Andy | July 20, 2005 12:41 PM

Oh please Andy. There's no universe in which you'll support leaving the protection of children up the the parents. You want MORE ratings, not less. I'll bet you'd support a law requiring news programs and newspapers to have ratings before stories if it meant you would have to do less work.

But honestly, you're just a NIMBY hypocrite. You blather on about how important protecting your child is, but evidently that protection is not worth the inconvenience of higher taxes or taking money from other existing programs. So you don't actually care about doing the WORK to protect your kid, you just want to SAY you care.

That's so utterly unfathomable a stance to me that I can't imagine having it. If I bitch about needing better teachers, and paying them more so they want to stay, you bet your ass I vote in favor of more money for schools even if it requires a tax increase. If I want more cops, I'm voting for the measures to pay for them. Same thing for more firemen, street repair, medical coverage, etc. That's the difference between you and I. If I want the government to spend money to do something that I want, then I'm willing to help pay for it in higher taxes if need be. In fact, i prefer that, because it's more honest than some bogus fund shifting. I don't think that programs that other people need should get the shaft so that I can be happy.

Obviously, you don't have that same level of commitment to the causes you care about, and since this one is to "protect your children", obviously your concern for children, yours and others, ends at your pocketbook.

I'm a lot of things, but I'm not a coward, and i'm not a hypocrite, and while that doesn't mean anything in your world, it does in mine. At least my child will grow up seeing that his dad is willing to be inconvenienced for his beliefs. Too bad you're not willing to do the same.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 20, 2005 01:25 PM

There's no universe in which you'll support leaving the protection of children up the the parents. You want MORE ratings, not less.

I want ratings to help parents decide what to let their children access, and I want restrictons on what retailers can sell to children. But parental involvement is necessarily not 100% effective, and neither are retail restrictions. However, having something in place is better than having nothing.

I'll bet you'd support a law…

If you’re just going to assign me a position, then argue against it, then I don’t need to be here for this part.

You blather on about how important protecting your child is, but evidently that protection is not worth the inconvenience of higher taxes or taking money from other existing programs.

I already stated that money can be taken from other programs. Do you agree or disagree that there are useless programs that the government is spending money on?

So you don't actually care about doing the WORK to protect your kid, you just want to SAY you care.

I do do the work to protect my child. However, I can not monitor every single action my child takes every day. For that reason, we have rules and regulations in place to determine what can be sold to minors, where they can go, and what they can do. Maybe you plan on holding your child’s hand until he’s eighteen, but it is unreasonable to expect that everyone else should as well.

That's so utterly unfathomable a stance to me that I can't imagine having it.

Fortunately, it’s a stance that I don’t have. You have simply assigned it to me, so you can rail against it.

If I want the government to spend money to do something that I want, then I'm willing to help pay for it in higher taxes if need be.

And I am as well, as I have previously stated. I am willing to pay whatever taxes the government deems necessary.

I don't think that programs that other people need should get the shaft so that I can be happy.

Great, you believe in big government. I don’t. But that’s an argument for another day. And if you had been able to support your previous arguments, government funding would be a moot point.

I'm a lot of things, but I'm not a coward, and i'm not a hypocrite,

Yes, you are a hypocrite. You seek out information to help you raise your child, but think that other people shouldn’t have access to ratings information to help them raise their own. You expect to hold your child’s hand until they are eighteen, but don’t respect other people’s decisions about how to raise their own kids.

At least my child will grow up seeing that his dad is willing to be inconvenienced for his beliefs.

I’m sure he’ll have plenty of time to see that, when you’re holding his hand at the register, saying, “Please don’t sell this to my son. He’s not eighteen yet.”

Posted by: Andy | July 20, 2005 02:07 PM

No andy, you stated that you already pay income taxes then quoted existing tax levels as what you're willing to pay, so obviously, you won't lay out additional money for the programs YOU WANT.

I've also found that "useless government programs" are almost always the popular way of saying "Programs that I don't use or benefit from". It's like the infamous "Why does a toilet on the C-5B cost $35,000 when I can get one at Home Depot for a hundred bucks. Well, when your hundred dollar version can handle the stresses that the C-5B version can, you let me know.

What I really love is your insistence that if the entire world isn't parenting your child for you, then the only alternative is that you must hold your child's hand all the time. I'm guessing the concepts of "trust", "honor", and "responsibility for one's actions" are concepts you want your kid protected from as well.

Thirdly, how does my seeking out information on my own and therefore, not needing to rely on someone else's opinion of what is appropriate for my child make me a hypocrite? I'm not hiding that information. I'm not denying it to anyone. What I'm NOT doing is letting a letter on a box tell me what is appropriate and what is not. What I'm doing is taking a rather small extra amount of effort to find out for myself, by my standards, what is appropriate. My way doesn't cost millions of dollars every year. Of course, it's really unpopular, because then you have to think for yourself, and do your own work, but my kid's worth that effort. Evidently, you don't see your children as being worth extra effort on YOUR part, you want everyone else to do that for you so you can spend your time on other more important things.

What I'm against is the government spending money to enforce ratings systems that even by your own admission, AT BEST only work half the time. The only place a .500 average is good is in baseball. This isn't baseball. What I'm against is my tax dollars being spent on this bullshit so that parents like you can skip out of the work that millions of responsible parents do WITHOUT being told by someone else how to do it. What I'm against is lazy parents like you causing the parents who are doing the work on their own, without need of external judges to take it in the ass yet again, because not only are you too lazy to do your own work, but you're too cheap to spend money on the programs you want enacted so you don't have to do your own work.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 20, 2005 02:21 PM

I've also found that "useless government programs" are almost always the popular way of saying "Programs that I don't use or benefit from".

And in this case, I’m saying “useless government programs.”

I'm guessing the concepts of "trust", "honor", and "responsibility for one's actions" are concepts you want your kid protected from as well.

Of course I communicate those concepts to my child. But see, I also understand that, as a society, we establish general guidelines for what kids can and can’t have access to, in case my child (or any other child, for that matter) isn’t perfect. But apparently your child is perfect, which is great for you, but doesn’t help the rest of us who live in the real world.

Yes, you are. A rating is another piece of information. You’re saying that since you don’t use the rating, we should get rid of them altogether. That is denying information to other people.

What I'm NOT doing is letting a letter on a box tell me what is appropriate and what is not.

And neither are millions of other parents. However, they do use that letter as one more piece of information to direct their efforts.

Of course, it's really unpopular, because then you have to think for yourself, and do your own work, but my kid's worth that effort.

So you spend countless hours playing through a game to determine all of the questionable content, then make your decision based on that. Some of us, however, like a system that is more efficient, like a ratings system that provides advisories about what content is in a game. Then we make our own decisions based on that information, along with any other information we have gathered. So our way is simpler, and requires less work in some cases, but it doesn’t mean that we “care” any less.

Evidently, you don't see your children as being worth extra effort on YOUR part, you want everyone else to do that for you so you can spend your time on other more important things.

If the process of discovering information can be done by a centralized system, then yes, I take advantage of that when I can. Similarly, I don’t raise my own chickens, slaughter them, process the meat, cook it, and feed it to my children every night. Sometimes, I let someone else do that work, so that I can spend my time on more important things, like actually talking to my children. I guess that must mean that I “care” less about my kids.

What I'm against is the government spending money to enforce ratings systems that even by your own admission, AT BEST only work half the time.

Hey, you finally conceded that ratings systems are at least somewhat effective! Good for you!

And secondly, these ratings systems currently work around 50% of the time, without government enforcement. With additional enforcement, that number would rise even higher. Now, whether the amount of money spent would justify the rise in effectiveness, that’s another debate entirely. But since it’s taken this long just to get your concession on the previous point, I don’t feel like expending more effort on yet another topic.

so that parents like you can skip out of the work

And you’re back on this again. Is your skull really that thick? Listen carefully: Ratings provide information to help parents make decisions.

But since you don’t use them, you don’t want anyone else to have access to that information. You want every parent to find out on their own that, for example, a game contains graphic decapitations. Duplicating all of that research isn’t called “caring,” it’s called “inefficient.”

But why are you wasting your time here? Don’t you have to churn butter or something, just to show how much you care for your child? But then again, lazy parents like me will just go to the store and buy butter off the shelf. Wow, I must not care at all for my child, if I’m not willing to put in that extra effort!

Posted by: Andy | July 20, 2005 04:11 PM

I'm not surprised you're saying that Andy. You've well established that you'll crap all over everyone else's rights and freedoms if it means the government and private industry will do your thinking and parenting for you. Your deliberate and rather fanatical shortsightedness is another quality you've defended rather vociferously. "MEMEMEMEME" seems to be the mantra you chant. I bet you're a peach in the mall when you don't get your way.

The perfection or lack thereof that my child possesses is a strawman. What i've done is taught him that even if a law is stupid, it's the law, and you deal with it in the correct fashion while working to get it changed legally. I don't like ratings, but to the extent i'm forced to deal with them, I do. Since they aren't law, (yet), the only ratings that directly affect me are the MPAA ones. The other systems are easily ignored in favor of active thought, at least until you and Hilary get your way, which, considering the collective stupidity that defines this country the last 30 years or so, will not surprise me in the least.

And yes, i do take the time to preview games before i buy them. I do take the time to see movies before my child does. Because I deem him worthy of that time, even if it means seeing drek, and previewing godawful games. I made that commitment when I decided to become a father, and it's one that's worth some inconvenience.

The meat thing is a nice strawman too, but i've learned that raising strawmen is how you defend your decision to hand over the responsibility for raising your children to everyone else. I imagine they help you sleep better at night.

And if you define "half" as effective, then here's one...take half the tires off your car, and half the cylinders out of your engine, tell me how that "half = working correctly" thing goes. You also (again) conveniently left out the fact that I was quoting YOUR admission that AT BEST they only work half the time. That's YOUR admission. I have yet to see them work worth a crap at all. If they did, then "Jaws" and "Alien" wouldn't have had different ratings when they were released.

And I think it's pretty funny, and rather stupid, (a fine hobby of yours) that you ask me why *i'm* here...(looks around)...yep, this would appear to be my site. I'd say I have a reason to be here. You however, seem desparate to convert me to your "Church of Shitty Parenting Skills" and are getting more and more pathetically strident in your attempts to somehow "prove" me wrong.

It ain't gonna happen, for a number of reasons, but mostly because I don't listen to people who lack the strength of their convictions. If you aren't willing to be first in line to pay the new money that your programs will cost, then you're a selfish, cowardly prat, and the only comfort I take is that yahoos like you are usually not willing to spend the effort to wait in line and vote, because that's inconvenient too.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 20, 2005 06:16 PM

if it means the government and private industry will do your thinking and parenting for you.

You don’t even read what I’m saying, do you? Ratings are a tool to help parenting, not a replacement for parenting. Just because some people use ratings that way, that doesn’t mean that I do. I have repeated over and over again that I do not use ratings as a blanket rationale for what I let my child watch, yet you refuse to listen.

Your deliberate and rather fanatical shortsightedness is another quality you've defended rather vociferously.

Shortsightedness…like thinking that if we get rid of ratings altogether, there won’t be any more kids in R-rated movies than there are today? Or that there will be fewer complaints from parents’ groups and politicians? Your views seem rather shortsighted in that regard.

The perfection or lack thereof that my child possesses is a strawman.

No, it’s relevant to the discussion at hand. If your child is perfect, then he will never try to buy something that is not appropriate for his age. But if he is not perfect, and does attempt such a purchase, then there are restrictions on what he can and can’t buy.

“Daddy, can we go out and fly a kite today?”

“Sorry son, I’m busy trying to complete Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, to see if there is any bad material in here. It’s only taken me about 300 hours, but you’re worth it!”

Ratings provide a convenient source of information about a game’s content. Sure, you can play through the whole thing yourself, but why bother if there is another source that can provide that information?

The meat thing is a nice strawman too,

No, it’s called an analogy. Either tell me why it doesn’t apply, or refute it.

how you defend your decision to hand over the responsibility for raising your children to everyone else.

Your reading comprehension is severely lacking.

And if you define "half" as effective, then here's one...take half the tires off your car, and half the cylinders out of your engine, tell me how that "half = working correctly" thing goes.

That is a completely flawed analogy, and you know it. In many cases (cars, computers, etc.), if one thing fails, the whole thing fails. In others (regulations, laws, etc.), something can fail many, many times, and still be considered effective. If we follow your “half” theory, then we’d better get rid of laws against murder, since they don’t convict all murderers.

You also (again) conveniently left out the fact that I was quoting YOUR admission that AT BEST they only work half the time. That's YOUR admission.

First of all, I never said “at best.” I said that according to one study, they work 50% of the time. Again, that is provably better than working 0% of the time.

I have yet to see them work worth a crap at all.

Because, of course, the only valid evidence is evidence that you observe firsthand.

And I think it's pretty funny, and rather stupid, (a fine hobby of yours) that you ask me why *i'm* here...(looks around)...yep, this would appear to be my site. I'd say I have a reason to be here.

And again, you completely miss the point. If “extra effort” is equivalent to “caring,” as you seem to believe, then you shouldn’t have time to waste with posting messages. You should be hand-knitting your child’s clothes, skinning the livestock for shoes, carving pencils for him…after all, it’s an extra effort, but your child is worth it.

You however, seem desparate to convert me to your "Church of Shitty Parenting Skills"

I use available resources to help me make parental decisions. You, on the other hand, seem happy to duplicate the effort that others have already put in, even if it is unnecessary.

If you aren't willing to be first in line to pay the new money that your programs will cost,

I will be first in line. Pay attention.

and the only comfort I take is that yahoos like you are usually not willing to spend the effort to wait in line and vote, because that's inconvenient too.

Just goes to show how little you really know about me. Really, drop the “you’re a lazy parent” act. It’s wrong, it doesn’t apply whatsoever, and it’s getting old. I’ve already explained the flaws in your reasoning, but you keep ignoring my explanations over and over again. I want you to provide one piece of evidence—ONE—that I am willing to let someone else decide what my child watches or plays. Come on. Put up or shut up. (Hint: “You pay attention to ratings” doesn’t cut it.)

Posted by: Andy | July 20, 2005 07:10 PM

You said that you wouldn't pay more taxes, that you instead would pull money from program you thought useless, yet you have yet to name them. Put a lot of thought into that have you?

You want to create entirely new enforcement agencies devoted soley to enforcing at least three different ratings systems that are based on different methodologies, yet when I say "You shouldn't want that without being willing to pay new taxes for them", you accuse ME of being in favor of bigger government. Since you're in favor of additional governmental licensing and enforcement of entertainment, and I'm absolutely opposed to more government poking about, I'd say that YOU are in favor of bigger government, not me.

You raise strawmen, then require me to prove them wrong. That's not how it works. You have to prove to ME that your arguments are valid. I don't care if you agree with me. That would be evidenced by YOU coming to MY site in an utterly futile attempt to prove me wrong, or convince me that you're right. I'm not entirely sure why, but i'm going to postulate that your ego is so fragile and your self-esteem so low that you simply cannot handle the fact that I have, do, and will always disagree with you on this. You keep trying to convince me that I'm wrong, and it's not going to happen. you haven't a prayer of doing so until you can show me a ratings system that has a success rate that is greater than 95%, and that can show empirical proof of such things without any government interference whatsoever.

You're not going to prove me wrong, because what we have are not scientific theories on the same subject, but personal opinions on the same subject. The fact that you seem perfectly willing to suppress personal freedoms and choices in your quest for a perfectly structured and absolutely enforced ratings system is a little frightening, but then, there are plenty of examples of people who, out of fear, turn to totalitarianism because they're tired of solving their own problems. Don't like violence? Don't waste time with silly things like not buying violent games or seeing violent movies. Just get a bunch of laws passed to suppress it, that way, you don't have to think. It's been tried in this country a few times. Various Sedition acts passed under Adams and Wilson, various loyalty acts, McCarthy, the Comstock laws. All examples of the government, with fairly popular support, trying to suppress things that were not "safe". They all get repealed in the end, but only after wasting millions of dollars, and usually ruining quite a few lives along the way. I'd rather not repeat that same damned mistake over and over again. Obviously, you disagree. We are never ever going to be anything but at odds on this. You can either accept it or not, but your acceptance of that, or lack thereof is not going to change how I feel and how I'll vote on this issue. Ever. And, I will fight government intrusion into my life barring IMMEDIATE danger, (yes, I think the Patriot Act is a bunch of crap too), even if it's cloaked in happy phrases like "We're protecting children", and I'll be quite vociferous about it too. Deal, 'cause you're never changing my mind on this. In fact, you've shown me how right i really am, because your vision of the government monitoring everything my child does on the scale you want scares me dry.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 20, 2005 08:04 PM

You said that you wouldn't pay more taxes,

Where? Quote me.

You raise strawmen, then require me to prove them wrong. That's not how it works. You have to prove to ME that your arguments are valid.

I already proved that your claim, “Ratings systems are completely useless” is false, but you refuse to concede that point. I have proven it, whether you ignore it or not.

That would be evidenced by YOU coming to MY site in an utterly futile attempt to prove me wrong,

You claimed that ratings to nothing to prevent children from getting inappropriate material. Proving you wrong was trivial.

or convince me that you're right.

Obviously my logic is no match for your blind ignorance.

>I'm not entirely sure why, but i'm going to postulate that your ego is so fragile and your self-esteem so low

If you could actually make a logical case, you wouldn’t have to resort to ad hominem attacks and attempts at pop psychology.

that you simply cannot handle the fact that I have, do, and will always disagree with you on this. You keep trying to convince me that I'm wrong, and it's not going to happen. you haven't a prayer of doing so until you can show me a ratings system that has a success rate that is greater than 95%,

You claimed that ratings systems are absolutely ineffective. I don’t have to show you a ratings system with a 95% success rate to disprove you; I just have to show you one with a .0001% success rate.

You're not going to prove me wrong, because what we have are not scientific theories on the same subject, but personal opinions on the same subject.

“Ratings systems are not worthwhile” is a personal opinion. “Ratings systems are completely ineffective” is an objective statement of fact, and one that can be easily disproven.

The fact that you seem perfectly willing to suppress personal freedoms and choices

Name one personal freedom that is suppressed by the existence of ratings.

It's been tried in this country a few times. Various Sedition acts passed under Adams and Wilson, various loyalty acts, McCarthy, the Comstock laws. All examples of the government, with fairly popular support, trying to suppress things that were not "safe". They all get repealed in the end, but only after wasting millions of dollars, and usually ruining quite a few lives along the way.

We’re not talking about suppressing things; we’re talking about restricting the sale of certain adult materials to minors. Tell me, if these things “all get repealed in the end,” then when were the laws repealed about selling alcohol to minors? What about selling cigarettes to minors? Or pornography? Or letting children into X-rated movies? Or letting kids under the age of 15 drive a car? When were all those repealed?

I'd rather not repeat that same damned mistake over and over again.

Yes, I’m sure getting rid of ratings would solve all our problems.

And, I will fight government intrusion into my life barring IMMEDIATE danger,

You have yet to show how restricting underage kids from buying M-rated videogames is “government intrusion.”

because your vision of the government monitoring everything my child does on the scale you want scares me dry.

Your ignorance really amazes me. Cite one example where I suggest “the government monitoring everything my child does.” One. But of course, you can’t, because I never suggested that.

But that won’t stop you. You’ll just make some other outlandish, unsupported claim about what I said, and ignore me when I ask you to cite me. Remember this one: “I want you to provide one piece of evidence—ONE—that I am willing to let someone else decide what my child watches or plays. Come on. Put up or shut up. (Hint: “You pay attention to ratings” doesn’t cut it.)” Nope, you couldn’t cite an example there either. I’m glad you can make up enough of my “statements” to support your points.

Posted by: Andy | July 21, 2005 12:06 AM

Here, let me break this down for you as simply as possible. Here are some simple premises that I believe are true:

1. Some people use ratings to help them determine what content is in a particular game.

2. Using a rating to help determine content does not mean that you are letting someone else make parenting decisions for you.

3. Using a rating to help determine content does not imply that that is the only source of information you are using.

4. There are many ways to discover information about a game’s content: playing the game, asking others for information, reading the ratings, and so on.

5. Choosing a longer, more difficult method to gain the same information does not mean that you care more about your child.

6. The existence of ratings does not suppress any personal freedoms or choices.

Can you accept these premises as true?

Posted by: Andy | July 21, 2005 04:24 AM

Andy...what part of "It's an opinion" don't you understand?

You list out these premises, and act like they mean anything.

Again andy, if you love ratings, and you love the idea of a bigger government enforcing them and jacking taxes or in lieu of that, jacking the deficit, that's your damage. It's stupid and shortsighted and lazy, but there's no law against that.

But don't think you're ever going to somehow "prove" to me that they work. They don't. They cause more problems than they solve, (GTA drama), they're unenforceable, (unless you make ratings have actual legal powers, and shitcan the 4th amendment to allow random searches of your home), they are incapable of giving you any useful information beyond what someone *you don't know* thinks. that's the important part. Ratings are vague advice from a stranger.

They provide no real useful information beyond "Someone you've never met using criteria that may or may not match yours has said this (whatever) may be inappropriate for (random kid) in this age group. Maybe"

Would you accept that kind of craptacular advice when buying a house or a car? No, of course not. But you accept it when it comes to deciding what your kids see?

That's some fucked - up logic man.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 21, 2005 08:31 AM

You list out these premises, and act like they mean anything.

Why are you afraid to state which premises you think are true, and which you think are false?

But don't think you're ever going to somehow "prove" to me that they work.

You are unwilling to state your position on certain basic premises. If you can’t declare your position on simple premises, then of course you will refuse to budge on more complex topics. No one can prove anything to you if you refuse to listen.

They cause more problems than they solve, (GTA drama),

So without ratings, would the current GTA drama have occurred, or not? Can you commit to a position on that statement, or will you leave another argument unsupported.

they're unenforceable, (unless you make ratings have actual legal powers, and shitcan the 4th amendment to allow random searches of your home),

We’re talking about enforcement of sales, not enforcement of ownership. I’m sure you already knew that, but conveniently ignored it so you could use your “shitcan the 4th amendment” phrase.

they are incapable of giving you any useful information beyond what someone *you don't know* thinks.

So is a pamphlet at the zoo. Yet somehow, this person (who I don’t even know!) is able to provide me with a wealth of useful information, like where the lions are, where the bathrooms are, and when the penguins are being fed. And that’s someone I don’t even know!

Ratings are vague advice from a stranger.

Actually, ratings are information from a stranger. If you want to take that information as advice, that is your right, but not everyone treats the information that way.

They provide no real useful information beyond "Someone you've never met using criteria that may or may not match yours has said this (whatever) may be inappropriate for (random kid) in this age group. Maybe"

I trust that a stranger knows what “murder” is. I trust that a stranger knows what “nudity” is. I trust that a stranger knows what “swearing” is. I determine for myself whether that content is appropriate for my child.

Would you accept that kind of craptacular advice when buying a house or a car? No, of course not.

Yes, yes I do! Someone I don’t even know told me how many miles per gallon that new car gets! And that same person (a total stranger, mind you!) told me what color it is! And even though I never met this person, he told me how long it takes that car to get from 0 to 60 miles per hour! In fact (and I know this may be hard for you to believe), someone I don’t even know looked at several different cars, compared their features and performance, and advised me which one would be the better value! (I didn’t necessarily buy the car he recommended, of course; see, I get information from him, and then I use that to help me make my own decision. But the decision is still mine.)

But I’m sure that when you go out to buy a new car, you test drive every one for hundreds of miles, manually clock the time from 0 to 60, painstakingly track the gas mileage, diligently perform various crash tests (because after all, why would you take advice on crash ratings from a complete stranger??), and thoroughly check all aspects of the engine performance. Sure, that’s not the most popular choice, because it takes a little more work. But hey, isn’t your child worth the extra effort?

That's some fucked - up logic man.

You’re telling me!

Posted by: Andy | July 21, 2005 12:22 PM

Now you're comparing empirically provable items like MPG, color, and 0-60 to personal opinions like ratings and what's the best car? That's your definition of a valid comparison?

Go away and come back with something better, this kind of shit bores me.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 21, 2005 12:29 PM

“This game depicts murders”: empirically provable

“This game is inappropriate for children under 17”: personal opinion

Ratings provide both types of information. Thus, someone I don’t know is able to give me useful, empirically provable information, which I can then use to make a decision. Therefore, ratings can be used as a source of information, without deferring the decision-making process to someone else.

But apparently, you ignore all of the factual, objective information, and somehow believe that the subjective recommendation is the only information provided. Sorry to break it to you, but not everyone lacks basic reading comprehension.

Posted by: Andy | July 21, 2005 01:48 PM

nice dodge, but that doesn't make comparing factual data to opinion any more valid.

This isn't about game content, or movie content. In a discussion of the efficacy of a rating system in and of itself, the content it attempts to rate is actually quite meaningless in a specific instance. It's about the ratings systems used to assign a value to that content.

The content is empirically provable, the rating is an opinion, and no more or less valid than any other. However, since the ratings are the opinion of a total stranger, they trend towards "less valid".

Again, up your game or bother someone else until you can. Your latest arguments bore me. Find another vector.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 21, 2005 01:58 PM

This isn't about game content, or movie content.

Where have you been? This is exactly what this discussion is about!

It's about the ratings systems used to assign a value to that content.

And ratings systems provide both information about the content, and an assigned value. However, since you doubt the validity of the assigned value, you ignore the empirically provable information about the content. This has been my point for quite a while now: Ratings systems provide information that parents can use to help make decisions. However, you continually misinterpret it as, “I make my parenting decisions based solely on the assigned value,” no matter how many times I explain it to you.

However, since the ratings are the opinion of a total stranger, they trend towards "less valid".

So you’ve moved from “utterly useless” to “less valid.” It’s nice to see you recognize that ratings can at least be somewhat valid.

Your latest arguments bore me. Find another vector.

My latest arguments are the same ones I’ve been making all along; you’re just finally starting to understand them, and realizing that your claims that ratings are “useless” is provably false. Hence, the faux boredom.

Posted by: Andy | July 21, 2005 03:41 PM

No, your arguments haven't changed. I still disagree with them. I still have yet to see anything from you, "TEH RATINGS CHAMPEEN" where YOU can come up with something more than "They work some of the time...like occaisionally...maybe".

Sorry. People want to make these things have legal powers and greatly expand the size of the government at every possible level over this, they better damned well have something that is empirically shown to work more than "sometime".

You have yet to show that in any way, shape or form.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 25, 2005 10:28 PM

You claim that ratings don’t work; to disprove that, I only have to show that they have worked at least once.

See, here’s the thing you don’t understand: To disprove your claims that ratings are “utterly useless” and provide “no real useful information,” I don’t have to show that they work more than “some of the time.” In fact, that’s precisely all that I have to show. You want me to prove that they work most of the time, or 90% of the time, or nearly 100% of the time…but I have never claimed any of those things. All I have argued is that your claim that ratings “do no good whatsoever” is provably false. Now, unless you can claim with a straight face that no child, anywhere, has ever been stopped from buying a videogame based on ratings, then your argument is baseless.

Now, maybe you want to argue that ratings only work some of the time, and that they don’t work well enough to support additional government funding…but considering it has taken this long for you to concede that they work at all (which, honestly, is something that is obvious), I doubt you would concede anything even remotely more complex.

And besides the point about ratings working to some extent on the retail level, I also wanted to make the point that ratings can provide useful information to parents. Again, it’s like pulling teeth to convince you that parents can glean some useful information about game content from ratings, even though many ratings explicitly list out what content is present in the game.

But any time I mention using ratings for information, you fall back on the tired, “oh, so you want the ratings board to parent your child so you don’t have to” argument, which is completely invalid, as I have stated time and again, and you have ignored as many times. Can you at least be intellectually honest enough to concede that ratings provide some information about content that some parents could use to make decisions? Because, you see, I do use ratings information to provide information about content, so really, there’s your evidence right there. But I’m sure you’ll ignore my claims to that effect once again, and once again you’ll claim that I’m delegating all parenting decisions to a ratings board, and whatever other inane beliefs you claim that I hold.

Posted by: Andy | July 27, 2005 02:34 AM

No Andy again, YOU claim that as long as they work some of the time, then they work. Now you're down from .500 average to as long as they've worked once, ever, anywhere, that any and all ratings systems are justified. Again, that's YOUR position, not mine. What's next on your scale of backsliding efficiency? If a ratings system COULD ever work ONCE at ANY time, then we need them?

Sorry, I have, like Hebrew National, a higher standard for "works". If my car only works occasionally, it's broke. Not 'sorta working'. It's broken. If the best you can do to justify ratings is the possibility that they work at some level greater than zero, then they're broke. Period.

Furthermore, you can't even show what this great and useful information ratings provide is, because unless you know what standards each and every ratings board uses to assign ratings, and you know precisely why they gave a specific rating to a specific movie, or TV show, or game, then you don't have even the most basic information. The only time you know why a movie got a rating is if the movie makers are grousing about it.

So now, your definition of "useful information" is "That guy over there said that it's real violent". Not how it's violent, no context for the violence, not even any listing of the specific violent acts, just "That guy over there says it's real violent". Useless in any real way.

And of course, the fact that I can show decapitation up close and personal, and I can show someone being disemboweled in an explicit manner, and still get an "R" (based on every zombie movie ever made), but if you show a penis, it's NC-17, well not only are the ratings systems useless, but hypocritical as well.

Useless and hypocritical...that's some system you're defending.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 27, 2005 06:31 AM

No Andy again, YOU claim that as long as they work some of the time, then they work.

No, I claim that as long as they work some of the time, then they work some of the time. Now, if you had claimed that ratings systems “don’t work,” and left the definition of “work” somewhat vague, then maybe you would have an argument. But you didn’t say that. You said that ratings are “utterly useless,” “do no good whatsoever” and provide “no real useful information.” Those statements are all absolute enough that they are easily disprovable. If your arguments were a little less hyperbolic, then you would have an easier time defending them.

Now you're down from .500 average to as long as they've worked once, ever, anywhere, that any and all ratings systems are justified. Again, that's YOUR position, not mine.

Really? I said that? Okay, quote me. Oh, that’s right, I forgot…when I say “quote me,” you interpret that as “please don’t ever worry about backing this claim up with proof.”

What's next on your scale of backsliding efficiency?

You have repeatedly made arguments based on the premise that ratings are “useless” and “do no good whatsoever.” I am simply refuting your premise.

Sorry, I have, like Hebrew National, a higher standard for "works". If my car only works occasionally, it's broke.

But if you said that your car “never works,” you would be making a statement that is provably, demonstrably false. Yet you seem to equate “works occasionally” with “absolutely never works.”

If the best you can do to justify ratings is the possibility that they work at some level greater than zero, then they're broke. Period.

Any idiot (except you, apparently) can see that the work on some level. The reason I’ve brought the argument down to “some level greater than zero” is because I’m hoping that maybe you’ll accept an incredibly simple and trivially provable premise that refutes your earlier claims. However, you seem incapable of even accepting that. Really, do I need to start with “the sky is blue” and see if you can concede that fact? If you can’t concede the simple and obvious premises, then there’s no use arguing the more complex issues with you. I’ll get halfway through the argument, then realize that you don’t believe that 1+1=2.

Furthermore, you can't even show what this great and useful information ratings provide is, because unless you know what standards each and every ratings board uses to assign ratings, and you know precisely why they gave a specific rating to a specific movie, or TV show, or game, then you don't have even the most basic information.

Right, because it’s not like any of these ratings boards have websites that explain what criteria they use to assign ratings. Oh wait a second…yes they do! And it’s not like they provide descriptors about what content is in the games. Oh, yeah, they provide that too! But they use terms like “graphic violence” or “foul language” or “nudity.” I mean, who can figure out what any of that means? It’s all so obscure!

So yes, ratings do provide basic information about content. Many times, that basic information is enough to make a decision. Sometimes it isn’t, and at those times, I can choose what other information I want to use to make my decision. But honestly, sometimes the ratings are enough.

So now, your definition of "useful information" is "That guy over there said that it's real violent". Not how it's violent, no context for the violence, not even any listing of the specific violent acts, just "That guy over there says it's real violent". Useless in any real way.

Right, because unless I know the exact type of graphic violence depicted, how am I supposed to know if it’s appropriate for my four-year-old? I mean, I’ll let him watch an arm or a foot being amputated, but not a beheading. He can watch stabbings, but not eviscerations (unless the intestines are obscured, in which case it’s okay). Eye gouged out? Fine. Tongue ripped out? No way. Yep, those vague descriptors sure are useless! No information there, unless I get an exact list of every violent act, in context.

Here’s a helpful tip for you: If you don’t want your child to see any disembowelment, or any penises, then if you keep them away from “R” movies. Amazing! Some useful information out of a ratings system? Who would have thought?

And by the way, there are “R” movies that show penises. Can you at least accept that premise? Or should I go back to “the sky is blue”?

Useless and hypocritical...that's some system you're defending.

Except I have demonstrated how they are not useless, and I have disproved your “penis” argument about why they are hypocritical. See how I refute the premises, and your argument falls apart?

Posted by: Andy | July 27, 2005 11:11 AM

really? The ratings systems all tell you precisely what causes a given rating?

You better go tell the MPAA about this then:

From their website:

G Rating:

This is a film which contains nothing in theme, language, nudity and sex, violence, etc. which would, in the view of the Rating Board, be offensive to parents whose younger children view the film. The G rating is not a "certificate of approval," nor does it signify a children's film.

Some snippets of language may go beyond polite conversation but they are common everyday expressions. No stronger words are present in G-rated films. The violence is at a minimum. Nudity and sex scenes are not present; nor is there any drug use content.

"Violence is at a minimum" Ooh, how specific. I now know exactly what acts are allowed under a G rating. Oh wait I don't. All I know is that there's no nudity or sex scenes. and no "stronger words". WTF are stronger words? We don't know, they don't tell you.

PG Rating:

The theme of a PG-rated film may itself call for parental guidance. There may be some profanity in these films. There may be some violence or brief nudity. But these elements are not deemed so intense as to require that parents be strongly cautioned beyond the suggestion of parental guidance. There is no drug use content in a PG-rated film.

The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children.

Obviously such a line is difficult to draw. In our pluralistic society it is not easy to make judgments without incurring some disagreement. So long as parents know they must exercise parental responsibility, the rating serves as a meaningful guide and as a warning.

Let's summarize that shall we? "There could be some stuff, (which we aren't going to tell you the specifics on) that you may not want your kids to watch. You should go watch it yourself and make that decision based on the content of the movie" Hmm...sounds like what I've been saying all along. I love the specifics...there MAY be violence. How much, how long, how graphic, fuck all if we know. There MAY be brief nudity. How long, what kind? Fuck all if we know. Yeah, oh this is CHOCK full of useful, complete, and detailed explanation.

PG-13

If nudity is sexually oriented, the film will generally not be found in the PG-13 category. If violence is too rough or persistent, the film goes into the R (restricted) rating. A film's single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, shall initially require the Rating Board to issue that film at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive must lead the Rating Board to issue a film an R rating, as must even one of these words used in a sexual context. These films can be rated less severely, however, if by a special vote, the Rating Board feels that a lesser rating would more responsibly reflect the opinion of American parents.

PG-13 places larger responsibilities on parents for their children's moviegoing. The voluntary rating system is not a surrogate parent, nor should it be. It cannot, and should not, insert itself in family decisions that only parents can, and should, make. Its purpose is to give prescreening advance informational warnings, so that parents can form their own judgments. PG-13 is designed to make these parental decisions easier for films between PG and R.

Finally, something that actually says something. Say "fuck" once, it's PG-13. Say it twice it's R. I'm guessing that saying "Nigger" 530 times is all good though, since only sexually-derived words count. At least, it's the only definite information.

The rest is all the vague shit that I despise..."A PG-13 film is one which, in the view of the Rating Board, leaps beyond the boundaries of the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, or other contents, but does not quite fit within the restricted R category." is useless since they never clearly define what a the hell gets a PG rating.

R-Rating

An R-rated film may include hard language, or tough violence, or nudity within sensual scenes, or drug abuse or other elements, or a combination of some of the above, so that parents are counseled, in advance, to take this advisory rating very seriously. Parents must find out more about an R-rated movie before they allow their teenagers to view it

What the hell is "tough" violence, and how is it different from the other kinds? Is there some bizarro "gentle" violence out there? Now they're not even making sense. The same for "hard" language. What the hell is that? We don't know, they won't tell us.

NC-17
The reasons for the application of an NC-17 rating can be violence or sex or aberrational behavior or drug abuse or any other elements which, when present, most parents would consider too strong and therefore off-limits for viewing by their children.

Again, there's no fucking specifics or examples, so this is a vague definition with no context. WTF is "aberrational behavior"? Are we talking Sybil, Mary Todd Lincoln, or Charles Manson? What's drug abuse? Heroin? Pills? Viagra?

There's no WAY to know what the hell specifically gets these ratings, and that makes them meaningless, because they all say the SAME THING: Parents have to watch and decide for themselves.

They even admit that they cannot ever clearly define any of the ratings requirements, and that it will always be a guessing game.

Would you wanted to be convicted of a crime where the cop said, "We're not SURE you committed a crime, but we're locking you up just in case it was"? That's what the ratings are..."We're not SURE it's bad, but just in case, we'll give it an arbitrary rating."

Bullshit on a stick.

Besides, you overlook the one form of communications that has no ratings system whatsoever, and allows kids full, free access to all the sexually explicit and violent material they want, and all the kid needs is the cash:

Books.

There's no ratings system for books. None at the library, and I can find you more porn at the library in twenty minutes with no warnings whatsoever than you'd believe. I'm dating a librarian, I know of what I speak.

So tell me andy...why should books get a free pass on this. Your children are in danger from the Libraries and bookstores of the world JUST AS MUCH as from movies and video games, yet I see no hue and cry from you for ratings there.

Maybe it's because your kids don't read, or because you don't.

But if you're going to want ratings systems, I fail to see how you can not demand one for written material as well.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 27, 2005 11:47 AM

really? The ratings systems all tell you precisely what causes a given rating?

No, the ratings systems tell you generally what causes a given rating. If the general information is not enough, then you can look for more specific information.

G Rating:

"Violence is at a minimum" Ooh, how specific. I now know exactly what acts are allowed under a G rating.

Right, because parents usually make decisions about what is appropriate based on specific acts. “You can watch any movie that has kicking or slapping, but no eye pokes or toe stomps!” However, you can rest assured that there will be no stabbings, no decapitations, no eviscerations, no amputations, no throat-slitting. If you are still not sure if the content is appropriate, you can use other avenues to get more information.

WTF are stronger words? We don't know, they don't tell you.

Oh, I should have been more specific…see, these explanations also assume that you have a brain, and understand what things like “stronger words” are. If your level of comprehension is that low, I can see why you think that ratings provide “no useful information.”

PG Rating:

The PG rating, suggesting parental guidance, is thus an alert for examination of a film by parents before deciding on its viewing by their children.

Let's summarize that shall we? "There could be some stuff, (which we aren't going to tell you the specifics on) that you may not want your kids to watch.

And again, your comprehension is suspect, since you have obviously missed the descriptors that are listed below ratings, which details more specifically which content caused the rating in question.

You should go watch it yourself and make that decision based on the content of the movie" Hmm...sounds like what I've been saying all along.

That’s not what they are saying at all. They are saying that if the information about content is not sufficient, then you should watch it yourself and make the decision based on the content.

I love the specifics...there MAY be violence. How much, how long, how graphic, fuck all if we know. There MAY be brief nudity. How long, what kind? Fuck all if we know. Yeah, oh this is CHOCK full of useful, complete, and detailed explanation.

And see, that’s where the descriptors come into play. If you don’t want your kids to see graphic violence, lots of nudity, and rampant profanity and drug use, you can be sure that a PG movie will be fine. However, if (for example) you don’t have a problem with nudity, but abhor any violence, then you may want to get more specific information before making your decision.

PG-13

Again, these ratings assume that you A) have a brain and B) use it. Your argument this whole time has been that ratings system provide no useful information, and that they claim to instruct parents on what their kids can and can’t watch. Now you quote, from the ratings board itself, the examples of useful information they provide, and their earnest and repeated warnings that decisions should be made by the parents. And now you complain that the ratings aren’t specific enough, that they don’t provide enough detailed information, and that they leave some things up to your own interpretation! So which is it? Are ratings systems bad because they tell you what decisions to make and provide no information, or are they bad because they provide some information and let you make your own decision?

That’s where the descriptors provide more information, as well as using your brain.

R-Rating

What the hell is "tough" violence, and how is it different from the other kinds? Is there some bizarro "gentle" violence out there? Now they're not even making sense.

Here, let me hold your hand for you: A Bugs Bunny cartoon where a cartoon rabbit hits a cartoon duck over the head is not going to get an “R” rating. Does that help? Or now are you going to complain that you don’t know what the rabbit hit the duck with, so obviously that information is useless to you?

The same for "hard" language. What the hell is that? We don't know, they won't tell us.

If you don’t know what “hard language” is, then this is where you do your own research. For the other 99% of the population, they can figure it out on their own.

There's no WAY to know what the hell specifically gets these ratings, and that makes them meaningless,

It’s only meaningless if you need to know specific information before making your decision. In many instances, general information is sufficient.

because they all say the SAME THING: Parents have to watch and decide for themselves.

No, they all say, “If these ratings do not provide enough information, then parents should watch and decide for themselves.” But only you interpret “general information” as “no information.” When the news station talks about “heavy traffic” on your commute to work, do you sit there screaming at the TV, “How much traffic is ‘heavy traffic’??? Fifty cars? A million cars? I can’t make a decision based on such vague information!!!”

Would you want a sign in front of a minefield that says, “Warning, minefield ahead!”, or would you complain that such a sign is useless, because it doesn’t detail the exact position, depth, ordinance and blast radius of each mine?

Books.

Tell you what: Why don’t you support the arguments you’ve already made, before you decide to start new ones? I can’t get you concede laughably obvious facts such as “ratings work some of the time” or “ratings provide information for parents”; what makes you think I would want to start a new discussion about books? It’ll probably take a month to get you to concede that a book has pages with words printed on them.

Posted by: Andy | July 27, 2005 01:03 PM

No Andy, you can't look on the MPAA site for more specific information, it's not there. The MPAA doesn't have a clear definition of what earns you a rating over what I quoted already.

As well, your G definition is amusing when I look at things like any number of animated G movies that are quite relentless in their violence. But now I suppose that animated violence doesn't count? However, how do we know that? The MPAA's not telling is it. No, no they are not.

Your insistence that I didn't read the ratings definition is amusing since I pulled them off of the MPAA page. Not sure how to get more "official" than the MPAA, but I'm sure you'll come up with something as you scrabble about.

You keep blathering on about "Graphic Violence" and "rampant profanity" like there's some definition that's agreed on. There's not. That's the problem with the ratings systems. They aren't specific, and a movie gets a rating based on who happens to be on the board at the time, hence "Jaws" gets a PG rating in 1975, and "Alien" gets a R rating in 1979, even though Jaws has more scenes of violence, dismemberment and mutilation. (once you get past the chest burst scene in Alien, everything else happens offscreen, or you only have tenth-second glimpses. Jaws has an entire scene based around the remains of a woman after the shark eats her, dismembered heads, kids getting eaten, etc.)

There's no consistency whatsoever in how ratings are applied, so you can't trust the ratings to tell you anything of use.

And now, you're telling me that the way to use the ratings is to figure out on your own what an inconsistently applied non-standard is, ("If you don’t know what “hard language” is, then this is where you do your own research. For the other 99% of the population, they can figure it out on their own." YOUR words). Isn't that what ratings are for? so that you have a consistently applied reliable standard that you DON'T have to figure out "on your own"? Remember, I'm in favor of doing that work and abolishing ratings, you're in favor of ratings everywhere to avoid that work. You seem to forget your own position at times.

Oh and your quote here: "Would you want a sign in front of a minefield that says, “Warning, minefield ahead!”" is not what a movie rating tells you. A movie rating tells you "There MAY be a minefield ahead, there may NOT be a minefield ahead, it depends on how you define minefield and which way you're facing. All this rating means is that somewhere on a land mass that may or may not be near or in front of you, there are mines that may or may not be armed"

If the ratings said, "This movie got a rating of "foo" because of n uses of the following obscenities, a shooting scene that clearly shows the blood and damage, six decapitations and a blowjob" THAT at least would provide useful background information on WHY the rating was applied. But that's not what you get. You get vagaries about undefined terms out of context. So not only don't they work with any reliability greater than a top-flight batting average, they don't even have consistent meaning or application...what good is a ratings system that is vague, uninformative, and inconsistently applied via inconsistent requirements?

None.

Oh...books have pages with words. Now, why aren't you crying out for a book ratings board if you think ratings are so damned handy at protecting your children?

just answer the question Andy, and don't take days like you did when you didn't answer the "how do you pay for legal enforcement of ratings".

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 27, 2005 01:33 PM

No Andy, you can't look on the MPAA site for more specific information, it's not there. The MPAA doesn't have a clear definition of what earns you a rating over what I quoted already.

How simple can I make this? The MPAA site provides general information about what earns a particular rating. The listing on a specific movie provides more information about what earned that movie that specific rating. If you need information about what “hard language” is, you have to either rely on your general understanding, or look for someplace that will list, specifically, every single word that might constitute “hard language.” But in any case, your claims that the MPAA ratings provide “no useful information” are patently false.

Here are a few ways you can tell that animated violence doesn’t count:

1) Look on the listing for a G movie where is specifically says, “Animated violence.”
2) Realize that animated violence has been shown to kids for years.

Your insistence that I didn't read the ratings definition is amusing since I pulled them off of the MPAA page.

I understand that you pulled them off of the MPAA page, but your interpretations demonstrated that you either didn’t read parts, or didn’t understand them. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Speaking specifically about the “PG” rating, however, you said that “There could be some stuff, (which we aren't going to tell you the specifics on) that you may not want your kids to watch.” When I talked about your comprehension in that case, I was referring to reading the ratings information on the movie itself. When they list general information about ratings, they will say that a PG movie can have one or more of a list of content; when you read the rating on the movie itself, it will tell you which elements of that list were used to determine the rating.

You keep blathering on about "Graphic Violence" and "rampant profanity" like there's some definition that's agreed on. There's not.

And there doesn‘t have to be! People understand what these terms generally mean, and can determine if that generally applies to their child. If they need more specific information, they can look for it in other ways. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend? If an R-rated movie lists “graphic violence” in the content, and I have a six-year-old that wants to watch it, I don’t need to know precisely how many decapitations or amputations or stabbings occur. The general information is sufficient.

That's the problem with the ratings systems. They aren't specific, and a movie gets a rating based on who happens to be on the board at the time, hence "Jaws" gets a PG rating in 1975, and "Alien" gets a R rating in 1979, even though Jaws has more scenes of violence, dismemberment and mutilation. (once you get past the chest burst scene in Alien,

Can you even hear yourself? In one sentence, you are unsure why Alien got an “R” while Jaws got a “PG,” and then in the very next sentence, you specifically note the chest-burster scene in Alien! Didn’t you think for a second that maybe that scene is why it got an “R” rating? But you appear so confused! “I don}t get it…once you get past that one graphic and horrific scene, the rest of the content is pretty tame! Who can figure out these ratings boards??”

If you don’t understand what “hard language” is, then yes, you’re going to need to do some research on your own to determine what that means. But most people already do understand what it means.

Isn't that what ratings are for? so that you have a consistently applied reliable standard that you DON'T have to figure out "on your own"? Remember, I'm in favor of doing that work and abolishing ratings, you're in favor of ratings everywhere to avoid that work. You seem to forget your own position at times.

No, you have (again) incorrectly stated my position. I am not saying that ratings are a catch-all that will absolve you of ever having to do your own work. I am saying that in many cases, ratings provide enough information that you don’t have to do as much work (if any) to determine if the content is suitable for your child. But you seem to think that if you might have to do some work on your own, that’s functionally equivalent to always having to do the work on your own.

You have a way of taking the simplest analogy and butchering it beyond recognition.

No, you get a rating that says, “Graphic violence, obscene language, and explicit sexual content.” But apparently, if you’re deciding whether or not your six-year-old can see the movie, that information is far too vague to be of any use to you. However, for most people, even that vague information is sufficient in that situation. I don’t think you’ll find many parents out there saying, “Well, Johnny can watch it if there are only five decapitations, but not six!”

You get vagaries about undefined terms out of context.

…which people can generally understand. Again, if you can’t make sense of the information, then by all means, do your own work to determine what content is present. But just because you get stymied by complex terms like “hard language,” don’t assume that everyone else is so confused.

what good is a ratings system that is vague, uninformative, and inconsistently applied via inconsistent requirements?

I can see why our current ratings system would be of little use to you, since you apparently need an exact count of decapitations before deciding if a movie is fit for your preschooler.

Oh...books have pages with words.

Wow, you can concede that point, but you can’t concede that people get information from ratings?

Now, why aren't you crying out for a book ratings board if you think ratings are so damned handy at protecting your children?

Because that’s not the argument at hand. It’s difficult enough to get you to grasp simple concepts like, “Parents generally understand what ‘hard language’ means”; I don’t feel like starting from square one with you on a new topic.

Posted by: Andy | July 27, 2005 03:24 PM

No Andy, looking up the movie on the MPAA site doesn't tell you why it got the ratings it got. All you get is a link to IMDB.com's info page on it. The IMDB page on "Jaws" for example doesn't tell you why it got a PG rating.

You keep saying the ratings provide useful information, but are unable to find this useful information, and now say that all they are supposed to do is tell you to "Figure the specifics out for yourself". Well, if we do that, why do we need the ratings? Answer, we don't. So, in trying to be so very clever in your arguments, you just proved that the ratings are unecessary, since if you "Figure it out for yourself", you don't need the ratings.

And the question here is on the effecacy and usefulness of ratings systems. You have yet to come up with a rating system you don't like, are in favor of the federal, state, and local governments permanently expanding to enforce ratings, yet you cannot explain why books, which are MUCH more explicit than most movies or games, ("Longarm" or any of Anne Rice's smut series anyone? How about "American Psycho"? "Helter Skelter"?) aren't under the purvey of one of your marvelous ratings systems which are so desparately needed to protect children from the evils of explicit content.

It's simple andy...if we don't need ratings systems for books, if we've managed to survive for, literally, millenia without needing a cabal rating books for us...then why do we need ratings for movies and games? You can't say "They're not needed for books" and then try and say why they're so necessary for every other form of content under the sun. If we NEED them for movies, then why don't we NEED them for books?

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 27, 2005 04:13 PM

And if you look up an older movie, such as “Singin’ in the Rain,” you won’t find any MPAA rating whatsoever! Is that because it’s so extreme, so graphic, that the MPAA wouldn’t even rate it? No, it’s actually because the MPAA did not issue ratings at that point.

Similarly, back when Jaws came out, the MPAA did not provide additional information about what content caused them to issue a particular rating. However, the ratings system has evolved since then, and if you look up a more recent movie, you will see that the IMDb page also includes what criteria were used to assign that rating.

You keep saying the ratings provide useful information, but are unable to find this useful information,

No, you are unable to find useful information for one movie, so you concluded that no one else can find useful information at all. That is simply not the case. Look up any current movie rated by the MPAA, and you will see what criteria they used to determine their rating.

and now say that all they are supposed to do is tell you to "Figure the specifics out for yourself".

You really have a problem with reading comprehension, don’t you? No, I never said that “all they are supposed to do is tell you to ‘Figure the specifics out for yourself.’” I said that if the information provided by the MPAA is not specific enough for you, then you should find better information. However, this does not imply that you have to find your own information in every case.

Well, if we do that, why do we need the ratings?

Because the ratings provide valuable information that help parents determine what is appropriate for their kids. However, in some cases, a parent will want to get more information before making a decision. And in some cases, they won’t. Having ratings saves them the trouble of finding out specific information, when the general information will meet their needs.

So, in trying to be so very clever in your arguments, you just proved that the ratings are unecessary, since if you "Figure it out for yourself", you don't need the ratings.

No, you have proven once again that you are unable to comprehend simple statements of fact. There is a difference between “sometimes you will have to figure it out for yourself” and “you will always have to figure it out for yourself.”

And the question here is on the effecacy and usefulness of ratings systems.

Exactly. Which is why I want to discuss actual ratings systems, and not the hypothetical effect of possible ratings systems, and how they may or may not influence society. You can’t even grasp the simple concept that some people find ratings useful; how will you wrap your brain around the idea of a ratings system that doesn’t even exist yet?

aren't under the purvey of one of your marvelous ratings systems

See, here’s a perfect example of the usefulness of general information: You clearly meant to use the word “purview” here, but I was still able to get the general idea of what you were saying, even though the specific word was incorrect.

then why do we need ratings for movies and games?

I have never claimed that we need ratings. Without ratings, the world would keep spinning, the sun would still rise in the east, and the grass would still grow. However, I have claimed that they provide useful information to parents…a claim which you refute with such insightful arguments as “WTF are stronger words?” and “What’s drug abuse?” Most people get the general idea of what content is associated with which ratings; just because you can’t figure out such complicated concepts as “nudity,” that doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t.

You can't say "They're not needed for books"

I didn’t say that. But of course, that never stops you from assigning an opinion to me.

And you never answered my previous questions. If you know that a movie is rated “R” for drug use, strong language, sexual situations, and graphic violence, and you want to decide if it is appropriate for your six-year-old, do you really need specific information about the number of decapitations in the movie before you can make your decision?

Posted by: Andy | July 27, 2005 05:52 PM

Oh so now a rating system is useful if it only covers SOME of the movies? WTF Andy, at what point does this turd finally collapse under its own weight and get flushed?

As well, if we don't need ratings for books, why do we need them for movies and games? Oh wait, now you say we don't need ratings. Well, if we don't NEED them then they are unecessary. See, "necessary" would denote "need". Thank you for admitting that no one needs ratings. Another point of mine that you just agreed with. Whee! This is so easy.

As well, a documentary on inner city life would certainly meet all your descriptions, yet due to the context would be FAR more appropriate for my son even at a young age, than a movie about SuperFly the Wonder Pimp that was not presenting those same subjects at the same level of explicitness in a non-educational context.

See? exact same situations, but due to context one is appropriate and the other isn't. I don't see a qualification for context in the MPAA ratings. Oh wait, they don't HAVE context.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 27, 2005 07:53 PM

Oh so now a rating system is useful if it only covers SOME of the movies?

Yes, it is useful for the movies that it covers. Obviously, a ratings system is useless for movies that it doesn’t cover. Do I really need to explain that point to you? This isn’t rocket science.

WTF Andy, at what point does this turd finally collapse under its own weight and get flushed?

I concede that the existence of a ratings system does not magically and retroactively assign ratings to every movie that has ever been created. How does that impinge in the effectiveness of ratings for the movies that are covered? It doesn’t.

As well, if we don't need ratings for books, why do we need them for movies and games? Oh wait, now you say we don't need ratings. Well, if we don't NEED them then they are unecessary. See, "necessary" would denote "need".

There is a difference between “unnecessary” and “useless.” I am addressing your earlier claim that ratings are “useless.”

Thank you for admitting that no one needs ratings. Another point of mine that you just agreed with.

Strictly speaking, no one needs books or movies either; are you going to recommend getting rid of those as well?

As well, a documentary on inner city life would certainly meet all your descriptions, yet due to the context would be FAR more appropriate for my son even at a young age, than a movie about SuperFly the Wonder Pimp that was not presenting those same subjects at the same level of explicitness in a non-educational context.

That’s why you determine whether or not the content is appropriate. The ratings provide information about the content. You have yet to refute this.

I don't see a qualification for context in the MPAA ratings. Oh wait, they don't HAVE context.

That’s because ratings provide information about content. How many times do I have tell you that? Are you really this incapable of understanding simple statements?

Posted by: Andy | July 27, 2005 08:31 PM

So if we don't need ratings, and they're unnecessary, why are you in favor of spending millions of tax dollars and creating bigger government to enforce them.

Books, like other forms of media are a valid way of recording and disseminating information for purposes of entertainment, science, record-keeping, etc.

And what good are ratings without context, when, depending on context, the SAME SCENE can be educational or salacious? Content without context is meaningless. It's like shooting someone to death. Depending on context, it's murder, self-defense, or a terrible accident. If context has no meaning, then why use it at all?

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 27, 2005 08:43 PM

Oh, and your admission that books don't require a ratings system and people figure out books just fine without ones kinda, no, absolutely shats upon your insistence that the Movie and other ratings systems are of such great value.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 27, 2005 08:48 PM

So if we don't need ratings, and they're unnecessary, why are you in favor of spending millions of tax dollars and creating bigger government to enforce them.

Your inability to understand context is astounding. I said that we don’t need ratings, in that they are not essential for life. The world would still continue on without them. For that matter, there are millions of things in this world that we don’t need, except for food and water. That doesn’t mean that we should get rid of everything except food and water.

As for why ratings are useful…never mind. I’ve already repeated it enough times. If you haven’t gotten it by now, I doubt you ever will. You have the logical abilities of a three-year-old.

Books, like other forms of media are a valid way of recording and disseminating information for purposes of entertainment, science, record-keeping, etc.

Right, but we don’t actually need them. Didn’t life exist for millions of years without any sort of media?

And what good are ratings without context, when, depending on context, the SAME SCENE can be educational or salacious?

Because kids often don’t understand the context. They just see the content, and that’s all they understand.

Content without context is meaningless. It's like shooting someone to death. Depending on context, it's murder, self-defense, or a terrible accident. If context has no meaning, then why use it at all?

If a child sees someone get shot to death, it will have an effect on them, whether it’s murder, self-defense, or an accident.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: QUOTE ME. Where did I say that books don’t require a rating system? Where did I say that books do require a ratings system? I have voiced no opinion on the matter, yet as I just said in the previous message, “But of course, that never stops you from assigning an opinion to me.”

At this point, I realize that you are either completely ignorant, have the inability to comprehend simple statements, or are intentionally fabricating lies. In any case, your arguments are weak, and you seem to lack the cognitive powers to follow a discussion for any period of time. And for quite a while now, you have claimed that I have made statements that I did not make, and each time I ask you exactly where I made that statement, you completely ignore it.

So here it is: Either quote where I said that books don’t require a ratings system, or concede that I never said it. Put up or shut up.

Posted by: Andy | July 27, 2005 11:53 PM

Oh wait, I'm sorry..you come to MY site and dictate terms to ME?

No, that's not how it works. You really do not get one essential point. My opinion on ratings is just that...an OPINION.

I do NOT have to prove it to you. At all. You telling me to "Put up or shut up" is laughable. I really will do as I damned well please on my site, and if you don't like it, well, fuck off. You're here because I ALLOW you to be here, and you're a rude little snot of a guest too. The little temper tantrum you threw when my comment spam filters were glitching a little shows me that you're a whiny little bitch trying to "prove the big bad man wrong" You don't like my attitude, too fuckin' bad. You want to play on my web site, you can just fuckin' take it with a smile sonny. Don't come to my house and tell me what to do. Is that clear? good.

You've not "proved me wrong" to date, and you never will with your arguments. You cannot even hold a consistent position on ratings, as your ever-changing definition of "effectiveness" shows. I think you're down to "If they ever worked once, then they're worth any amount of money we spend on them", although you may be about to backslide to "If they even have the possibility of working at all, ever, then they're worth all the money we spend on them." You can't even defend your support of radically increasing the size of all levels of government and taxation to support this debacle that's giving you such a woodrow.

My position is simple: They're unnecessary, (which you agree with, by the way) and stupid, (which you don't). They're vague, and give the impression of useful information, while not actually giving you any. They are applied without context, and for the most part, without a definite set of rules. (there are exceptions, the MPAA's ridiculous "sexual profanity strike test", and the utter hypocrisy in the reactions to sex vs violence). They're also applied differently depending on who's on the ratings board at the time, and if the movie was made before some magic date, the MPAA doesn't even bother to tell you WHY it got the rating it did, not that their vague generalities have any actual meaning.

The fact that extreme violence only gets you an "R" while mere glimpses of a penis get you "NC-17" or worse is more proof of how dangerously inconsistent the ratings are. They are, to wit, untrustworthy. They don't work. Working "occasionally" is not the sign of a worthwhile system. I've seen year after year after year of hearings and protests and all the rest that show the only result of ratings is that people want MORE ratings enforced HARDER so they can think LESS. We didn't get "PG-13" because the existing system was working so well.

As well, for someone who is getting all bitchy and whiny about me missing the point, well, cast out the beam in thine own eye before thou pointest out the mote in mine. You will defend any ratings system in the world to the death, yet you will not protest that books should have one.

And books, the simple fact that books don't have a ratings system proves my point as to the stupidity and uselessness of ratings systems elsewhere. As does the MPAA's OWN page that tells you to watch the damned movie and decide for yourself if it's appropriate for your kids.

Again, until you can show me a ratings system that is functional more than some of the time, (which right now, you cannot), and that provides specific information along with context as part of that rating, (which you cannot) you're not going to "prove" that I'm wrong in my opinion.

At this point, I think you probably realize that, but are now just on some inane quest to have the last word. I will tell you this..on my site, I always have the last word. So you're losing that one too.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 28, 2005 06:19 AM

Oh wait, I'm sorry..you come to MY site and dictate terms to ME?

I’m telling you what you need to do to have any credibility. You have repeatedly claimed that I believe things, without providing any support or direct quotes to back it up. Most recently, you said that I admitted that books don’t need a rating system, which is demonstrably false. Sure, you can go ahead and claim anything you want, without backing it up. However, by doing so, you just make yourself look foolish, since anyone reading this discussion can clearly see that I never made such a claim.

You really do not get one essential point. My opinion on ratings is just that...an OPINION.

And believe it or not, opinions can be false. For example, your opinion is that ratings are completely useless. I have shown you that people use ratings every day. Therefore, your opinion is provably false.

I do NOT have to prove it to you. At all. You telling me to "Put up or shut up" is laughable. I really will do as I damned well please on my site, and if you don't like it, well, fuck off.

Yes, if you want, you can completely throw out any intellectual honesty, make whatever false claims you like, and ignore points that disprove your own. It’s your site.

and you're a rude little snot of a guest too.

I have been polite and deferential for quite a while. However, the more my arguments are mischaracterized, and the more ad hominem attacks you throw out at me, the more my patience grows thin.

The little temper tantrum you threw when my comment spam filters were glitching a little shows me that you're a whiny little bitch trying to "prove the big bad man wrong"

I said that I was blocked by your spam filter, and you said, “I kinda doubt it,” which shows that you either thought I was a liar or an idiot. It is interesting to me that your first response wasn’t, “Oh okay, I’ll take a look.”

You want to play on my web site, you can just fuckin' take it with a smile sonny.

Actually, no I don’t have to “take it with a smile.” If you expect me to come on here, watch you ignore facts and manufacture opinions for me, and just say, “Oh, you must be right. Thank you for being such a generous host!”, you are sadly mistaken. Either have a discussion, or don’t. But next time, if you’re going to fall back on “it’s my site” anytime anyone asks you to support your opinion, just state that at the outset and save everyone a lot of time.

You've not "proved me wrong" to date, and you never will with your arguments.

You said that ratings are “useless,” and “do absolutely nothing to keep kids from getting adult content.” Both statements are provably, demonstrably false.

You cannot even hold a consistent position on ratings, as your ever-changing definition of "effectiveness" shows. I think you're down to "If they ever worked once, then they're worth any amount of money we spend on them",

And once again, you are taking two separate points and putting them together incorrectly. My position is that if ratings ever worked once, then your claim that they “do absolutely nothing to keep kids from getting adult content” is proved false. The issue of whether or not they are worth spending money on is completely separate, and frankly something I should have never gotten into with you, because you have yet to concede that ratings have ever worked at all. Since you seem unable to grasp that simple concept, I realize now that it is useless to discuss more complex issues with you.

My position is simple: They're unnecessary, (which you agree with, by the way)

I said that they are “unnecessary” in the context of being necessary for human life, not “unnecessary” as in “useless.” They are very useful to many, many people. You, however, don’t use them, since you would prefer to watch every movie before your child sees it, since your child is worth the “extra effort.”

and stupid

Wow, how can I counter that argument??

They're vague, and give the impression of useful information, while not actually giving you any.

And again, this is provably false. If a rating indicates “hard language,” then it gives you the information that there is swearing in the movie. You may complain that the information is not specific enough, but it is still information nonetheless. Maybe it’s useless to you, since you don’t know what “hard language” means, but most adults can usually figure it out on their own.

They are applied without context, and for the most part, without a definite set of rules.

Again, you have yet to show this. Your only support was the Jaws vs. Alien example, where you said that “once you get past the chest burst scene in Alien, everything else happens offscreen, or you only have tenth-second glimpses,” without understanding that the chest burst scene is why it got an R rating!

and the utter hypocrisy in the reactions to sex vs violence).

And there’s an interesting argument. I might get into it with you, if I didn’t expect to constantly be misquoted, ignored, or told, “It’s my site so take it with a smile.”

They're also applied differently depending on who's on the ratings board at the time,

Yep, they’re general guidelines, made by humans.

and if the movie was made before some magic date, the MPAA doesn't even bother to tell you WHY it got the rating it did,

Yes, the MPAA has provided more-specific information as the years have gone on.

not that their vague generalities have any actual meaning.

Sorry if you get confused by complicated terms like “nudity.”

The fact that extreme violence only gets you an "R" while mere glimpses of a penis get you "NC-17" or worse

False! There are “R” movies that show penises! I mentioned it before, but you ignored it then too. Are you going to claim that I’m wrong, or just ignore me again? Here, I’ll even provide examples for you: Monty Python’s The Life of Brian. Wild Things. Go watch them, note the “R” rating, and note how both show “mere glimpses of a penis.” I’ll wait here for your apology.

They are, to wit, untrustworthy. They don't work. Working "occasionally" is not the sign of a worthwhile system.

And you can’t comprehend the difference between the claim that “they don’t work” and the claim that “they are not worthwhile.” I am arguing the first point, since that is trivially easy to prove.

I've seen year after year after year of hearings and protests and all the rest that show the only result of ratings is that people want MORE ratings enforced HARDER so they can think LESS.

And if ratings were abolished, do you think we would have fewer hearings and protests?

We didn't get "PG-13" because the existing system was working so well.

Using that argument, the creation of airbags must be proof that seatbelts don’t work. Should we get rid of all seatbelts?

Another argument where you can ignore my points, refuse to concede the most laughably obvious facts, and tell me to “take it with a smile” when you feel like you’re losing the argument? Pardon me for not leaping at the chance to start an entirely new argument with you.

And books, the simple fact that books don't have a ratings system proves my point as to the stupidity and uselessness of ratings systems elsewhere.

There are numerous cars driving around without airbags. Does that prove that airbags are stupid and useless as well?

As does the MPAA's OWN page that tells you to watch the damned movie and decide for yourself if it's appropriate for your kids.

Right. The responsibility is ultimately yours to decide what is appropriate. However, in many cases, the information provided by the MPAA is enough to base a decision on. But if it’s not, the MPAA is quick to note that you should watch the movie yourself. I fail to see the inconsistency here.

To disprove your claims that ratings are “useless” and “do absolutely nothing to keep kids from getting adult content,” I don’t have to show that they are “functional more than some of the time.” I just have to show that they are functional once. Again, if you don’t get this concept, you might want to take a course in logic.

At this point, I think you probably realize that, but are now just on some inane quest to have the last word. I will tell you this..on my site, I always have the last word. So you're losing that one too.

Yep. It’s your site, and you are free to restrict me from posting if you’d like. I’m sure you’ll probably reiterate your arguments, make more false statements about what my opinions are, and again ignore all my claims to back them up with quotes from me. Then after that, you’ll cut me off from responding. That’s the kind of petulant “I’m taking my ball and going home” attitude that I would expect from you. And for the record, unless I specifically say, “That’s it, I’m done with this argument,” then if I stop responding, people should realize that it’s because you restricted me from posting. I guess if you can’t win an argument with facts, you can win it by stopping any responses.

So I’ll go back to my earlier point: Either quote where I said that books don’t require a ratings system, or concede that I never said it. Show a little intellectual honesty. Of course, you don’t have to. It’s your site, after all. But if you want to show some credibility, you will.

Posted by: Andy | July 28, 2005 12:24 PM

Since when do you dictate terms of credibility to me? Aka, just who the fuck do you think you are? Do you have some sort of official documentation pertaining to your official status in this regard, or are you just desperately trying to maintain some nonexistent moral superiority over me? Either way, guess what, you're a nincompoop if you think you have any determination over my credibility or lack thereof.

I suggest you start pondering the idea that no, the universe does not in fact wait with breathless anticipation on your every word. Check the superiority complex at the door, this site is not a democracy, it's a dictatorship, and you aren't in the captain's chair.

My house, not yours.

And you didn't say calmly, "I was blocked by your spam filter". What you said was, and I quote:

Well, your spam filter is blocking my response. So much for a reasoned debate. Should I be crying “censorship,” just like you are?

You were IMMEDIATELY accusing me of nefarious actions without even bothering to find out what was going on. With an attitude like that, I bet your a fucking IT person's wet dream..not.

So then my FULL response, AFTER you had successfully posted twice:

Considering that you just posted twice, and that I haven't blocked you myself, I kinda doubt it. If you were to perhaps tell me what the error message is, I can see what's going on.

Let's look at that logically? You had just posted twice including your accusation that I was deliberately blocking you. Obviously, i wasn't blocking you deliberately. So I asked you to tell me what the error message was.

Your response:

Again, you successfully post to tell me you can't post. Your conclusion that my spam filter is blocking YOU was obviously not correct, but when you get a good head of "Whiny Bitch" steam going, simple logic won't work. I had a few people email me and ask why I *didn't* block your lame ass, and I told them, "Meh, he's full of shit, but that's not a crime, and it's something to do." But let's review your actions here. You attacked me, accused me of deliberately blocking you and lying about it. Blocking you at this point was really tempting, because you were being a total whiny bitch asshole at this point. However, you did manage, in your whining, to give me an error message, which was the useful bit of information I needed.

But I'm also pissed. I think you're a total fucking idiot who is so desparate to somehow force me to agree with you that you'll literally say anything at this point, but that's not going to get me to block you. My response in full:

Andy, if you want to be a dick about this, I can shut out your entire domain, so put your dick back in your pants and calm the fuck down. You're taking this shit WAY too personally.

I yanked the entry that the logs say was giving you problems. If it happens again, drop another comment, or ping me and I'll take another look. No big deal to me, okay?

You were a complete and total wild raving cocknocker about that, and the best you could do was one of the shittiest "I misjudged your actions here, i'm sorry" apologies i've ever seen, wait no, in fact you DIDN'T apologize. Your response:

Thanks for removing the spam block. I am enjoying the intellectual workout as much as you appear to be. I’ll repost in a few.

You BARELY thanked me and you couldn't be bothered to apologize when your accusations that I was deliberately blocking you were completely wrong, (which you should have realized when you were able to post said accusations successfully, but not the original post).

Your actions showed me you are incapable of admitting that you acted incorrectly even when it's obvious you did, and the idea of apologizing for such actions is something you're completely incapable of doing. You showed me you will say and do anything you feel necessary to try and prove me wrong or get me to admit that I'm wrong and you're right. Obviously, the concept of "agreeing to disagree" is far too mature for you.

I've never claimed this site was a model of egalitarianism. It's mine, I'll run it as I see fit. If you don't like that, I don't see how that matters. Your opinions on how I run what is really just a place for me to noodle about stuff is not needed, nor will it be considered. You want your opinion to count, go vote. Elsewhere. If you can handle that concept, great. Hang out. Otherwise, there's the door, you know how to use one.

And when you BLATANTLY try mislead people about the whole "YOU BLOCK ME" thing, any accusations from you that I don't have any intellectual honesty are as pathetic as your demand that the MPAA and the ESRB do your work for you.

You are so singleminded in your pursuit of an impossible goal, that you have shown yourself to be a far worse example of everything you accuse me of.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 28, 2005 01:40 PM

And yes, when I block spammers, damned straight I'm censoring their words from my site. I am in fact banning them from my site.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 28, 2005 01:41 PM

Since when do you dictate terms of credibility to me?

You claimed that I said something that I clearly did not say. Would you define that as credible, or not credible?

Aka, just who the fuck do you think you are? Do you have some sort of official documentation pertaining to your official status in this regard, or are you just desperately trying to maintain some nonexistent moral superiority over me?

I see that your arguments have degenerated to schoolyard insults. It’s nice to see that your arguments are so well-founded.

Either way, guess what, you're a nincompoop if you think you have any determination over my credibility or lack thereof.

Oh right…it’s your site, so obviously words have different definitions here. Since you seem to define “credible” as “completely lacking in support, evidence or believability,” then yes, I would agree that you are completely credible.

Check the superiority complex at the door, this site is not a democracy, it's a dictatorship, and you aren't in the captain's chair.

I hate to break it to you, but the world of public opinion is a democracy. Yes, you are hosting the site that this discussion is located on; that doesn’t mean that you dictate the definition of words, or define what is or isn’t true. You want to live in your own little world, where your opinions are law and no one else matters? Then block all comments on your site, and you can sit and lord over your kingdom of one, satisfied that no one will come along and refute your own opinions. Then you can see how many people want to come and play in your little world.

My house, not yours.

In other words, “I’m taking my ball and going home.”

And you didn't say calmly, "I was blocked by your spam filter". What you said was, and I quote:

Well, your spam filter is blocking my response. So much for a reasoned debate. Should I be crying “censorship,” just like you are?

You were IMMEDIATELY accusing me of nefarious actions without even bothering to find out what was going on.

And as per usual, you missed the point entirely. I was specifically not accusing you of nefarious actions. If you remember, the argument at that point was what podcasts Apple did or didn’t allow to be displayed on their store. I said that if Apple chooses not to list certain podcasts, then it is within their right to do so, and it is not censorship by any stretch of the imagination. Thus, I was making the analogy that if you believe that is censorship, then your spam filter must be censorship as well. I was figuring that you would realize that a spam filter is not censorship, and understand my point. But of course, you missed the point entirely, and went off on a rant.

And, for the record, you did reply with “I kinda doubt it.”

Again, you successfully post to tell me you can't post. Your conclusion that my spam filter is blocking YOU was obviously not correct,

I never said the spam filter was blocking me specifically; I said it was blocking my response, which obviously was correct.

I had a few people email me and ask why I *didn't* block your lame ass, and I told them, "Meh, he's full of shit, but that's not a crime, and it's something to do."

And I have to give you credit for that.

But let's review your actions here. You attacked me, accused me of deliberately blocking you and lying about it.

No, I didn’t at all. Obviously, if you had deliberately blocked me, then I wouldn’t have been able to post about it. I always figured it had something to do with the spam filter; the “censorship” comment was related to our earlier argument, where you interpret any missing content as “censorship,” which is obviously untrue. But when you get a good head of “whiny bitch” steam going, you completely miss the point I was trying to make.

Blocking you at this point was really tempting, because you were being a total whiny bitch asshole at this point.

While we’re on the subject of politeness, I note that you have alternately called me a dick, a bitch, an asshole, a nincompoop…and I have called you, what: an idiot. Once. And I apologized for it afterwards.

Thanks, but I can scroll up and read it if I feel like reliving your rant that entirely missed the point.

You were a complete and total wild raving cocknocker about that,

Let me guess: You’re a lawyer, right? I could tell because of your highly logical and analytical debate skills.

and the best you could do was one of the shittiest "I misjudged your actions here, i'm sorry" apologies i've ever seen, wait no, in fact you DIDN'T apologize.

Because I never actually thought you had blocked me maliciously, and I never accused you of blocking me maliciously.

Now, for someone who is a “total wild raving cocknocker,” doesn’t that seem like a reasonable, calm, detailed explanation of my position? I didn’t call you a “dick.” I didn’t call you a “whiny bitch.” I didn’t call you any names whatsoever. I didn’t say I was “pissed.” I simply said that I was “surprised” by your response. Yeah, I am a real loony!

And I never accused you of deliberately blocking me. I never thought you were deliberately blocking me. Why would I? I could post my problem, and I didn’t even have to switch to a different machine to do it. It is obvious that you weren’t deliberately blocking me. So why should I have to apologize for something I didn’t believe and didn’t accuse you of?

No, they show that you are unable to read what I wrote, and instead rail on about what you think I wrote. But then again, you have proven that countless other times since then.

Obviously, the concept of "agreeing to disagree" is far too mature for you.

Obviously, the concept of “facts” is something that you don’t understand. You claimed that ratings do absolutely nothing to keep kids from getting adult content. That is a statement that can be factually disproven. But you keep falling back on “But it’s an opinion,” as if that makes the facts irrelevant. I can have the opinion that the Sun rotates around the Earth, but that doesn’t make it irrefutable.

I've never claimed this site was a model of egalitarianism. It's mine, I'll run it as I see fit.

Great. So since it’s your site, you don’t need to support your claims with evidence, you can feel free to ignore facts when it suits you, and you can assign to your opponent any opinion you feel like, without justification. Oh, and if they complain, you tell them that it’s your site and you make the rules here. Like I said, if you want to run everything by your own rules, see how many people want to play along.

And when you BLATANTLY try mislead people about the whole "YOU BLOCK ME" thing,

Where did I say that you blocked me? Oh, sorry…I’m asking for proof again. I forgot that that’s against the rules.

are as pathetic as your demand that the MPAA and the ESRB do your work for you.

I never said that the MPAA and ESRB should do my work for me…oh, right, I’m asking you to remember what I said about fifty times before. I forgot that that’s against the rules.

You are so singleminded in your pursuit of an impossible goal,

Yes, it is impossible to get you to understand simple logic. At last, something we can agree on!

And yes, when I block spammers, damned straight I'm censoring their words from my site. I am in fact banning them from my site.

Yes, you are censoring their words from your site. But you’re not censoring them. If you were, then I’m sure someone would be suing you about breach of the First Amendment. But of course, you’re not censoring their speech; they are still free to speak their own mind on their own site whenever they would like. Just like Apple is not censoring anyone that they choose not to list on the iTunes Music Store.

Which, again, has been my point all along.

Posted by: Andy | July 28, 2005 02:32 PM

Actually, it's "House rules, if you don't like them, there's the door."

That's the way it is in any privately owned situation. You seem to have a problem with that basic concept. Oh, and on your accusations of degenerating into insults? Again, cast out the beam in thine own eye before thou pointest out the mote in mine. You have no moral high ground there.

Dude, read your words. You accused me of blocking you, aka nefarious actions. You cannot even read your own words and comprehend that. I freely admit that I censor content that I find to be spam. I censor it by banning it. It's a pretty simple concept.

As well, you like to say that i said "I kinda doubt it" which was PART of what I said. But you love to ignore context. I was saying "I kinda doubt it" in the context that I wasn't blocking you. But, if taking random quotes out of context prove something in your mind, you'll do it. I actually think you ARE a lawyer, your tendency toward sophistry and need to be right regardless of cost smack of being a lawyer. But then, you've shown that in your world a car that works 1% of the time has no effective difference from a car that works 100% of the time. As long as it works at all, it's an effective mechanism. Hmm...maybe you're a used car salesman.

And yeah, i called you names. Wah. Deal. You've called me six kinds of a moron, you just couch it in bigger words. I'm more blunt in that regard.

Read your words again, you did indeed accuse me of deliberately blocking you. If you now wish those words to mean something else, sucks to be you, you don't get to redact them.

But now you seem to only be able to say "Obviously you cannot read or comprehend english" since you simply cannot prove to me that ratings systems work.

Oh, and by the way? The first amendment only protects Political speech. Not all speech. If I go into Harlem and call everyone there a lazy nigger, and get my ass beat, that's not violating my first amendment rights in the least. The first amendment is not, nor has it ever been an absolute right.

Just like banning and censorship don't have to absolute on a global scale to be banning and censorship.

Which has been MY point all along.

But you cannot even begin to admit that you totally overreacted to the spam filter. Your own words have no meaning for you because they are now inconvenient. Good job man, way to hold the moral high ground. You spout off this moralistic crap that you don't even believe in, because if you did, you would have said, "I'm sorry, i was hot under the collar, and I overreacted to the spam filter." But doing that would require you to suck it up and admit you overreacted. Can't have that.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 28, 2005 04:47 PM

Actually, it's "House rules, if you don't like them, there's the door."

So house rules include: Don’t ask the host to support his arguments. If the host claims you said something, he doesn’t have to actually quote you. If you raise a valid point, the host will most likely ignore it. Don’t ask the host to remember what you said earlier. Don’t ask the host to read in context. Any rules that I missed?

Oh, and on your accusations of degenerating into insults? Again, cast out the beam in thine own eye before thou pointest out the mote in mine. You have no moral high ground there.

Really? I never called you a “dick,” and “asshole,” or even a “nincompoop.” I did call you an idiot once, and apologized afterwards (and of course, that was after you called me a dick). So yes, I am fairly certain I have the moral high ground here. Tell you what: Why don’t you list all the names I have called you, and then I’ll list all the names you called me? I am certain that you will run out first.

Dude, read your words. You accused me of blocking you, aka nefarious actions.

I said, and I quote, “Your spam filter is blocking my response.” I never said that you had blocked my postings specifically, for nefarious or any other reasons. As for “reading my words,” if you’re so sure that I accused you, why don’t you quote me? Just find where I said it, copy the text, and paste it here. Shouldn’t be too much trouble.

You cannot even read your own words and comprehend that.

Then quote me! Oh, I forgot, house rules: If the host claims you said something, he doesn’t have to actually quote you.

As well, you like to say that i said "I kinda doubt it" which was PART of what I said. But you love to ignore context. I was saying "I kinda doubt it" in the context that I wasn't blocking you.

And I never said you were blocking me intentionally. I said that your spam filter was blocking my post. And your response was, “I kinda doubt it.” If you were answering the statement, “You are blocking me intentionally,” then that it something that I never said. I can’t read content if I don’t know what you’re thinking at the time.

But then, you've shown that in your world a car that works 1% of the time has no effective difference from a car that works 100% of the time.

Oh, this analogy again? It has gotten so tired by now. I never claimed that a ratings system that works 1% of the time is the same as a ratings system that works 100% of the time. But of course, then I’ll ask you to show me where I said that, which breaks your house rules, and the entire discussion grinds to a screeching halt.

And of course, you’ll completely ignore this in your response, but you believe that a ratings system that works 50% of the time is exactly the same as a ratings system that works 0% of the time. That is the claim that I have been arguing against all this time.

As long as it works at all, it's an effective mechanism.

Never said it, but that has never stopped you before.

And yeah, i called you names. Wah. Deal. You've called me six kinds of a moron, you just couch it in bigger words. I'm more blunt in that regard.

It’s the difference between acting like an adult and acting like a child. Adults say things like, “I find your arguments lacking even the most basic comprehension of the issues.” Kids say things like, “You’re a whiny bitch.”

Read your words again, you did indeed accuse me of deliberately blocking you.

I don’t have to read them again: I wrote them. “Well, your spam filter is blocking my response. So much for a reasoned debate. Should I be crying “censorship,” just like you are?” Note my specific words: your spam filter is blocking my response. I did not say, “You are deliberately blocking me from posting.” Face it: You misunderstood what I was saying, and now you’re trying to tell me what I meant by what I wrote. Sorry, but even on your site, you don’t get to tell me what I meant.

If you now wish those words to mean something else, sucks to be you, you don't get to redact them.

I don’t have to, because I didn’t say what you think I did.

But now you seem to only be able to say "Obviously you cannot read or comprehend english" since you simply cannot prove to me that ratings systems work.

Because I keep repeating it over and over, and you completely fail to understand it. You have claimed that they don’t work at all. If they don’t work at all, then no child has ever been kept from buying a game because of ratings. Is that what you believe?

Oh, and by the way? The first amendment only protects Political speech. Not all speech.

Yes, it does protect all speech. Read it if you don’t believe me.

If I go into Harlem and call everyone there a lazy nigger, and get my ass beat, that's not violating my first amendment rights in the least.

Of course it’s not. “Freedom of speech” does not mean “freedom from consequences.”

The first amendment is not, nor has it ever been an absolute right.

There are cases where “freedom of speech” does not absolve you from consequences, but yes, it is an absolute right.

Just like banning and censorship don't have to absolute on a global scale to be banning and censorship.

Which has been MY point all along.

Go back to the top and read my responses to this point. I don’t feel like typing them all over again.

But you cannot even begin to admit that you totally overreacted to the spam filter.

I did not. I was making a point, which you completely missed, and then you overreacted.

Your own words have no meaning for you because they are now inconvenient. Good job man, way to hold the moral high ground. You spout off this moralistic crap that you don't even believe in, because if you did, you would have said, "I'm sorry, i was hot under the collar, and I overreacted to the spam filter." But doing that would require you to suck it up and admit you overreacted. Can't have that.

And we’re back to your reading comprehension. If I believed that you were deliberately blocking me from posting at all, I would have said, “Now you are deliberately blocking me from posting at all!” I did not say that. But you assumed that’s what I meant, and went off on a huge rant. I should be asking you to apologize to me…oh, but that’s probably against the house rules too.

Posted by: Andy | July 28, 2005 05:36 PM

My rules are up to me, not you. you don't have to like them, in fact, your opinion on them matters not at all. If I'm on your site, I play by your rules regardless of my opinion of them. It's a respect thing.

You've said the same things before, and I still think they're all crap. Your arguments are crap, your defense of ratings is silly, your support of governmental enforcement of ratings is frightening, your inability to realistically deal with how much money it would cause is short-sighted, and your every wavering definition of functionality is laughable.

Oh, and the Supreme Court, you know the Federal Body that exists as the final arbiters of what the Constitution says?

They say, and have said in many cases over the years, that freedom of speech is not absolute. You are not allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. That is not protected speech, and you can be arrested for the sole reason of what you said. You are not allowed to threaten the life of the President of the USA. That is not protected speech, and you can be arrested for the sole reason that you made a threat against the President of the USA.

Note, there's no room for arguing this point, as it is, barring a RADICAL change in course that overturns hundreds of years of consistent decisions by the Supreme Court, a fact. The Supreme Court has said, and supported throughout the years that the First Amendment is not absolute. You can, and will be arrested and imprisoned for making certain types of speech. The two I listed are the most obvious ones, hell the "yelling Fire in a crowded theater" exception is Constitutional Analysis 101. You should have learned that in a first year American Government course in college. I learned it in the tenth grade in High School.

Of course, the revelation of your ignorance of Constitutional issues just completely guts any vague weight your arguments about censorship had. You don't even know the basics of the First Amendment and how it's implemented in this country, and you are trying to argue it with me? Are you serious?

Go read up on the pertinent SCOTUS decisions before you try and tell me what they mean.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 28, 2005 05:52 PM

It's a respect thing.

A “respect” thing. Apparently, your idea of “respect” is a one-way street: You expect me to respect you and your arguments (which I have; I usually quote you directly when referring to something you said), but you don’t respect me enough to actually quote me when you claim I said something that I didn’t. And when I ask you to quote me, your idea of “respect” is to tell me to “fuck off.” See, here in the real world, you get respect by earning respect, not by demanding it.

You've said the same things before, and I still think they're all crap.

You stated an easily-disprovable position that ratings do not work at all and that they are completely useless, both of which are trivially disprovable by showing that they have worked one time and are useful to one person. This is basic logic, and you don’t seem to get it.

Oh, and the Supreme Court, you know the Federal Body that exists as the final arbiters of what the Constitution says?

And once again, you completely misinterpret what I said. In fact, I agree with you completely. Precisely what I said is, “There are cases where ‘freedom of speech’ does not absolve you from consequences, but yes, it is an absolute right.” Examples of “consequences” are yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, or threatening the life of the President. But once again, you misinterpret my statement, and then go off on a rant based on something I didn’t say.

You don't even know the basics of the First Amendment and how it's implemented in this country

You’re the one that said it only applies to political speech. Please cite the First Amendment, and show me where it only applies to political speech.

And once again, you use a completely new topic to avoid the previous one. Speaking of which, have you found exactly where I said that books don’t require a rating system? You claimed several times that I said it, so it should be easy enough to find. Go ahead…I’ll be here waiting.

Posted by: Andy | July 28, 2005 06:30 PM

You know what? This is actually easier than I realized: I can refute your arguments with your own arguments. Recently, you have repeatedly said about ratings:

They're vague, and give the impression of useful information, while not actually giving you any.

But way back when this whole discussion started, you said about the MPAA:

They voluntarily rate the films so that you can more easily decide [what’s appropriate for your son].

So apparently you have agreed with me all along: The MPAA does provide useful information that helps you “more easily decide” what is appropriate! I’m glad we can finally agree on that!

Posted by: Andy | July 28, 2005 06:49 PM

Bullshit, you said and I quote:

The first amendment is not, nor has it ever been an absolute right.

There are cases where “freedom of speech” does not absolve you from consequences, but yes, it is an absolute right.

How can anyone misinterpret "It is an absolute right"? That's a very clear statement. If it's an absolute right, then you cannot be punished legally solely for the content of your speech. Yet you say not ten LINES later that there are exceptions, and that you can face consequences.

Dude, if you can face legal consequences solely for the content of your speech then Freedom Of Speech is not.an.absolute.right. The supreme court, including Justice Scalia in several discussions and decisions has reaffirmed this time and time again. The first amendment is not, at any level, nor in any part, a listing of absolute rights.

If you cannot comprehend this, then we cannot even argue at any level about anything remotely related to speech issues, because at that point, there's not only no common ground, there's no hope of common ground. Like I said, go read the history of SCOTUS decisions on freedom of speech. They've never decided in favor of it being an absolute right. Period.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 28, 2005 06:53 PM

Man, your selective quoting is pathetic. The entire paragraph is:

Again, my point is that because the MPAA ratings and other systems are so vague, prone to error, inconsistent and nonspecific, \and you STILL have to watch the film to really see if it's appropriate or not regardless of rating. Since they save you no work whatsoever, (if you use them in the fashion the MPAA says you should), I say, and have said they're useless. I'm not saying that I agree that ratings are useful. I'm talking about what the MPAA says.

Is that your new tactic since you can't even read SCOTUS and constitutional case law correctly? Bad selective quoting? Sad man, really sad.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 28, 2005 07:00 PM

Bullshit, you said and I quote:

There are cases where “freedom of speech” does not absolve you from consequences, but yes, it is an absolute right.

How can anyone misinterpret "It is an absolute right"? That's a very clear statement. If it's an absolute right, then you cannot be punished legally solely for the content of your speech.

No, that is completely false. If I’m taking a class, I have a right to not take any of the tests in that class. However, if I choose to do that, I will receive a failing grade in the class. Having a right to do something does not absolve you from any consequences.

Yet you say not ten LINES later that there are exceptions, and that you can face consequences.

Ten lines later? I said it in the exact same sentence! It does not absolve you from consequences, but it is an absolute right. I clearly explained that having a right to free speech does not absolve you from consequences…but you think I contradicted myself, because later I said that you can face consequences? How is that possibly contradictory?

If you cannot comprehend this, then we cannot even argue at any level about anything remotely related to speech issues,

Now you know how I feel: You want to argue about ratings systems, but you can’t concede that ratings provide any useful information, even though people use them all the time! If you can’t comprehend that simple fact, then how can we argue about ratings systems?

Posted by: Andy | July 28, 2005 07:33 PM

Man, your selective quoting is pathetic. The entire paragraph is:

Again, my point is that because the MPAA ratings and other systems are so vague, prone to error, inconsistent and nonspecific,

But that’s not what you said above. You said that the MPAA provides information “so that you can more easily decide,” but that they’re not a guarantee that a particular movie is appropriate for your child. So yes, you do have to do some work on your own, but since the MPAA provides some information, you have to do a little less work. Obviously you agree with this point, or you wouldn’t have written, “They voluntarily rate the films so that you can more easily decide.” If the decision is easier based on their ratings, then their ratings provided some useful information.

and you STILL have to watch the film to really see if it's appropriate or not regardless of rating.

No, you don’t. If I have a four-year-old who wants to watch a movie, I won’t choose a movie that says “R: Hard language, sexual content, drug use, graphic violence.” There is no reason why I need to watch that movie to determine if it’s appropriate, especially since there are plenty of G-rated options available. Thus, the MPAA rating has saved me the time and trouble of having to watch that movie. I have proven my case. You are wrong.

Since they save you no work whatsoever, (if you use them in the fashion the MPAA says you should),

No. If that were the case, the MPAA would simply have a page saying, “We’re not providing any information. Go watch the movie yourself.” But they don’t do that. They provide general information for you about a movie’s content; if that information is not sufficient, then the MPAA recommends (as do I) that you look for other information about the movie. However, the MPAA information does provide you with some useful information, and does save you some work.

I say, and have said they're useless.

And I have shown you how someone can gain useful information from them. I don’t need to watch an entire R-rated movie to determine if it’s inappropriate for my child. Generally, the R rating is good enough.

Posted by: Andy | July 28, 2005 07:37 PM

Dude, you can utilize sophistry until the cows come home, but in a choice between SCOTUS saying the first amendment is not a collection of absolute rights, and you saying it is, you lose.

Again, you try to compare fact, "the final authority on the Constitution says First Amendment rights are not absolute" to opinion, "John thinks that ratings systems are crapola and useless".

The only thing the two have in common is that they both are on this web site. Fact and opinion are two different things. My opinion on ratings is just that, an opinion. I have no idea why proving me wrong is so important to you, yet you keep coming back and trying to do so. You want to waste your time, go ahead. I'm not an authority on ratings, i'm a guy with a web site. You want to argue with authorities on ratings, go yell at Jack Valenti.

I didn't write this article because I was trying to create a movement. I wrote it because I wanted to vent, and i like to write. I don't care if anyone agrees with me and anyone who blindly follows the opinion of anyone else is a moron, and exists only to be taken advantage of. This bizarre crusade you're on is, well, bizarre, and you seem rather masochistic about the whole thing. I can only attribute your fervent pursuit of this to some emotional immaturity that makes you unable to deal with the fact that there are people who are never going to agree with your views on certain points, and don't feel the need to meet your standard of proof on that.

But I have a feeling that you're not going to stop until you feel you've proven your point, so soldier on MacDuff, but you're going to lose on this one.

Ratings are useless, stupid, a waste of money, cause more problems than they solve, are perpetually misused and misunderstood even by those who defend them, and should be abolished so the money can be put to better use, like navel-lint farming. It's an opinion. Mine. You can badly paraphrase me, selectively misquote me, and try, (pathetically) to twist my words via those actions, but dude, you're not getting me to agree with you that ratings systems are anything but useless, stupid, etc., yadda.

You can crow all you want that you're winning some kind of debate here, but until you can show me a ratings system that meets a high standard of consistency of application, transparency of process, clarity, and explicitness, which no system currently approaches, you're singing in the shower. You got nothing without that. Really.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 28, 2005 08:19 PM

Again, you try to compare fact, "the final authority on the Constitution says First Amendment rights are not absolute" to opinion, "John thinks that ratings systems are crapola and useless".

First of all, “John thinks that ratings systems are crapola and useless” is a fact, not an opinion. You do think that ratings systems are crapola and useless. It is a fact. However, “ratings systems are useless” is an opinion…but it could also be a fact.

Facts and opinions are not mutually exclusive; something can be a fact and an opinion at the same time. In this case, your opinion that “ratings systems are useless” is a proposition that can be proven true or false, for some reasonable definition of “useless.” “Useless” means “not useful,” and “useful” means “able to be used for a practical purpose.” Thus, your opinion is “ratings systems are not able to be used for a practical purpose.” So if someone can use ratings for a practical purpose (in this case, to find out information about a movie), then your opinion “ratings systems are useless” is provably false. I have provided numerous examples of how ratings systems can be used. Thus, your opinion “ratings systems are useless” is false.

Unless of course, you treat “useless” as meaning “not very useful,” or “not useful by everyone all of the time,” or “not useful to me personally.” In that case, you’re using “useless” in a way that is different from how it is generally used. But hey, it’s your site; you can use words however you want to, even if they mean different things than how you’re using them.

Fact and opinion are two different things.

Not necessarily. An opinion can also be a fact. Do I need to provide an example, or can you grasp this concept?

I have no idea why proving me wrong is so important to you, yet you keep coming back and trying to do so.

Because I read your article, and it was full of propositions that seemed so obviously untrue, I wanted to refute them. Honestly, if you had made less hyperbolic statements, this wouldn’t have gone on nearly as long. A proposition like “ratings systems are not very useful,” or “ratings systems don’t work enough of the time to be worthwhile” would be much more difficult to prove. But you threw out things like “ratings systems are useless” or “ratings systems do no good whatsoever,” and used anecdotal evidence which doesn’t prove anything. I thought it would be relatively simple to point out your logical errors. Obviously, I overestimated your ability to accept simple, logical arguments.

I didn't write this article because I was trying to create a movement. I wrote it because I wanted to vent, and i like to write.

Great. I responded because I like to make logical arguments and draw conclusions from facts. I didn’t account for you repeatedly ignoring my points and claiming I said things I didn’t.

I can only attribute your fervent pursuit of this…

Please, stop with the pop psychology. You think you have some deep insight into my psyche? You can’t even quote me correctly!

you're not getting me to agree with you that ratings systems are anything but useless, stupid, etc., yadda.

Obviously, because you refuse to listen to facts, refuse to acknowledge logical truths, refuse to use accepted definitions of words, continue to claim I said things I didn’t, and repeatedly ignore facts that I have stated time and time again. Yet you seem to wear your closed mind like a badge of honor. You can’t accept a simple, trivially provable proposition like, “People get information from ratings.” The only proposition that you’ve accepted as fact is “books have pages with words on them,” a fact which any two-year-old knows. You won’t even answer a simple question like, “Where did I say that books don’t require a ratings system?” And when I ask you to answer such a simple question, you instead declare to me the “rules” of your site, which apparently include “don’t ask the host to back up his arguments, or he’ll tell you to fuck off.”

So congratulations. I give up. I’ve finally met my match: My ability to logically argue a position has been stymied by your ignorance and stupidity. At this point, I can’t think of any argument that you can make that I haven’t already addressed. I keep making the same points over and over again, yet you refuse to listen. Your skull is so thick that not even facts can penetrate it. You must be very proud.

Posted by: Andy | July 28, 2005 10:43 PM

Lordy...if you cared about logic, you wouldn't have been using some of your arguments or playing bullshit games with selectively quoting me. You're arguing Star Wars with a Star Trek fan, you're going to lose. It's preordained.

You bitch about my inability to acknowledge truths, yet then deny the crystal clear and well - documented fact that Freedom of Speech is not absolute, even as you refute your own argument.

The hypocrisy you use as a primary tactic is laughable, and pathetic in how poorly you implement it. You claim this bizarre moral high ground on something that has no meaning, and now you're all hurt that your superiority complex got bitchslapped.

You can't even hold moral high ground on the name calling thing, and that's an argument 101 lesson. You're just not able to see the larger picture, and when you find out your on weak ground, or non-existant ground, you try to alter my words or change yours. Too bad you don't have editing rights, it would have made your life easier.

Your laughable ignorance on first amendment case history just shows how weak your grasp of the big picture really is. You don't even understand the most basic facet of how the Constitution and scotus work, and you try to tell me *I'm* ignorant.

whatta schlamozzle...go spill soup on someone else for a while, it'll reinforce your delusions of adequacy.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 28, 2005 10:56 PM

I explained my statements about freedom of speech. Have you ever explained where I said that books don’t require a rating system? Nope.

Yes, I can hold the moral high ground about name calling, since I never called you any of the expletives that you called me, except for the one time that I quoted your words back at you.

As for your claims of “selectively quoting,” I tried to quote the relevant parts, and provided context when appropriate. In fact, you accused me of selectively quoting just above, then quoted back the entire paragraph yourself…and the meaning was exactly the same as what I quoted. But of course, I pointed that out to you, and you completely ignored it. What a shock.

The reason it is impossible to get anywhere in this discussion is because you refuse to acknowledge easily provable, simple facts. Will you acknowledge that some people use ratings to help make decisions about what to let their kids watch? Nope, you just ignore it. You claim that I said that books don’t require a ratings system; can you quote me on that, or will you concede that I never said it? It’s an easy choice: Just pick one or the other. But no, you have no credibility and no intellectual honesty. You will not even acknowledge that point one way or another. You just ignore it.

That’s why this argument is pointless: You refuse to respond to simple questions. That doesn’t prove anything about your case. It just proves that you are an imbecile, or a coward.

Posted by: Andy | July 29, 2005 02:08 AM

Oh sorry…I forgot that you always want me to quote you in context. So here it is:

So, where exactly did I admit that books don‘t require a ratings system? Tell you what, let’s do this: If you can cite exactly where I said that, then go ahead and do it. If you choose to ignore this comment, or swear at me, or continue your inane psychoanalysis, or lecture me about how this is “your site” and “you make the rules here,” I’ll just accept that as your implicit concession that I never said it, and you’re just too much of a coward to admit that you made a mistake. Deal? Deal.

Posted by: Andy | July 29, 2005 02:18 AM

that's it? Your entire argument is now down to you demanding I quote where you said books don't need a ratings system? That's it? Some silly sophistry about how calling me an imbecile and a moron gives you moral high ground in name calling because I called you a whiny bitch and you didn't use profanity, so you have the high ground?

You really must argue with some silly people if they accept that shit as valid. Pathetic. Sad and pathetic. Unable to comprehend that you've spent weeks trying to redefine words to suit your needs, misquoting me, selectively misquoting me, yet when I present you with my standards, the exact things that would be required for me to consider a ratings system useful, you ignore that. That should have told you why I think and believe that ratings systems are and will always be useless beyond marketing tools for morons.

But you can't let it go, can you? You're like a crackhead, you keep coming back to the pipe, gotta get that next hit, gotta get john to admit andy's right, so now you're on this new quest, (You read too much Cervantes), about what you didn't or did say on book ratings, and bizarre claims of moral high ground because calling someone a moron and an imbecile is somehow "righter" than calling them a whiny bitch. Sad really.

Of course, that's all a coverup to hide your GLARING error in showing your ignorance of SCOTUS decisions on the First Amendment, so you don't have to admit that Freedom of Speech is not absolute. It's an interesting tactic...if you're sixteen and arguing D&D..."Oh shit, I made a mistake, look! A shiny new change of topic"

Secondly, I never said that you explicitly said "books need a ratings system". This all boils down to an indirect quote, where I was pointing out that while you're all in favor of ratings systems for everything else, you don't seem to be protesting for ratings for books, that you seem to be giving them a complete bye on the need for a ratings system. Two kinds of quotes andy, Direct and indirect, or explicit and implied if you like.

What I was asking you was why you aren't demanding a ratings systems for books if ratings systems are so damned handy. You kind of ignored that, and decided to jump on an indirect quote. Nice try, but unless you're Karl Rove writing for the masses out in Knob Knoster, not gonna work.

because, by not telling me that books DO need a ratings system, then you are admitting that they don't. That we don't have to have a ratings system for them, and that the current system of scoping them out for ourselves before we let our kids have them works really well and HAS worked for thousands of years. And if books, which are far longer and more complex than any movie, and easily equal, if not surpass things like GTA:SA in complexity, scope, raw violence and sex don't need a ratings system, then your defense of and insistence that we DO need ratings systems for everything else is hollow and a little half-assed.

So why don't we need a ratings system for books andy? Your ability to answer that question is a reflection on your defense of ratings systems so far

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 29, 2005 07:07 AM

that's it? Your entire argument is now down to you demanding I quote where you said books don't need a ratings system?

I’m just trying to get you to concede one simple point, or admit that you were wrong. That’s what it’s come down to. We sit and argue points back and forth, and you either ignore basic facts that everyone else understands are true, or you forget something that I said a day earlier, or you are defining some word in a completely different way than the rest of the world uses it. So I have to take it down to the most basic level with you, and treat you like a little child, getting you to understand one simple point before moving on with the rest of the argument. Otherwise we’ll spend days going around and around, and I’ll find out that you define “useless” in some completely different way than everybody else, and it’ll be back to square one.

That's it? Some silly sophistry about how calling me an imbecile and a moron gives you moral high ground in name calling because I called you a whiny bitch and you didn't use profanity, so you have the high ground?

And see, you can’t even get that claim right! I never called you a moron, and I just called you an imbecile yesterday. You, on the other hand, have been calling me names for quite a while now, and much worse than “imbecile.” So yes, I can claim the moral high ground, because I have only recent started sinking to your level.

so now you're on this new quest, (You read too much Cervantes), about what you didn't or did say on book ratings,

Because you continue to say things that are simply untrue, and it’s like pulling teeth to get you to admit that. Really, it’s like talking to a child: “Now John, you know that that’s a lie, don’t you? John? Look at me John! What you said was a lie, right? John? Are you listening to me? You were lying, right? John?”

Of course, that's all a coverup to hide your GLARING error in showing your ignorance of SCOTUS decisions on the First Amendment,

And you’re doing the exact same thing that you accuse me of! You realize that your claims that ratings are useless are unfounded and unsupportable, so you latch onto whatever other argument you can find and keep harping on that one.

And there is a difference between “You seem to be giving them a complete bye on the need for a ratings system,” and talking about “your admission that books don’t require a ratings system.” The first clearly shows that it is your impression, not something that I actually said; the second treats it as fact.

So, in short: No, I never admitted any such thing. You don’t know what my position is on ratings for books. I could be out every day in front of the White House holding a sign for all you know. Or I could be decidedly against ratings systems for books. I haven’t told you what my position is on the matter, because it is tangential to the argument at hand. You show me that you can agree with simple, easily provable facts in the original argument, then we’ll see if I want to move on to a new argument.

What I was asking you was why you aren't demanding a ratings systems for books if ratings systems are so damned handy. You kind of ignored that, and decided to jump on an indirect quote.

No, I addressed it at the time:

And my position is still the same. I want you to concede on some points that are patently obvious, and that everyone realizes are true: that some parents get useful information from ratings, and that ratings keep some children from buying adult content. Can you concede those two facts? They are not in dispute. This is not a radical position that you will be adopting. This is just you, conceding points that everyone else realizes are true. Are you going to concede those points, or are you going to dodge, change the subject, or tell me to “fuck off” again?

because, by not telling me that books DO need a ratings system, then you are admitting that they don't.

No, that is completely untrue. I am taking the fifth. I refuse to answer the question, because it is tangential to the main argument. You can not infer anything from my refusal. I am not admitting anything, except that I am tired of you bringing up new arguments when you can’t argue the old ones successfully.

So why don't we need a ratings system for books andy? Your ability to answer that question is a reflection on your defense of ratings systems so far

And I’ve addressed this point as well:

Your inability to focus on ratings systems for movies and videogames is a reflection of your lack of a valid argument on those issues. I ask you to concede that videogame ratings work part of the time, and you start talking about if a car only worked part of the time, as if that proves anything. You say that they aren’t consistent, and use the different ratings of Jaws and Alien as evidence. But when I point out the graphic violence in Alien (which you yourself explicitly separated from the rest of the movie!), and how that accounts for the difference in ratings, you once again ignore that point. I continue to refute your points, but instead of conceding or addressing those points, you ignore them and pretend I never said them. That’s not a sign that you’re winning anything; it’s a sign that you are unable to carry on an adult discussion.

Posted by: Andy | July 29, 2005 12:29 PM

Dude...moron and imbecile are synonyms. Can you say "synonym"? i knew you could. Either way, if you're calling names, the fact they aren't profanity gives you no high ground whatsoever. When you started doesn't matter. As soon as you start, you're at the same level as anyone else. Nice try, but no cookie for you.

I will not concede that ratings systems work, because none of your "evidence" comes close to showing that. You can show that people LIKE them and USE them, but you cannot "prove" to me that means they work. People LIKED and USED hydrogen to power dirigibles. Ask the Hindenberg crew how well that worked out for them. If the ratings systems worked CORRECTLY, (and that is critical), then there would be no need for government oversite. In fact, history shows that ratings systems CAUSE as many problems as they purport to solve. Humpty-million people can indeed be wrong.

Everyone in how many countries in North America and Europe used to think that the earth was 9000 years old. They were, and we're talking millions, wrong. They LIKED that theory, and they USED that theory, but it was wrong, it didn't work.

I will not concede that ratings are useful, nor will i concede they work, because by my standards of useful and work, (evidently higher than yours), they do not. Working occasionally for some people is not correct function of a well-designed system, it's luck and/or coincidence. I don't use systems that don't work correctly in a consistent and reliable basis. Evidently, you have a different view of consistent and reliable than I do, and it's obviously quite lower and looser. Until you show me a ratings system that is transparent, consistent, self - correcting, and can be reliably applied to all users in a consistent fashion, you cannot refute anything, nor can you prove anything. You can't show a single ratings system that meets those criteria. None of them are transparent, none of them are consistent, the only time they change a rating is when forced to by external protest, (hardly self - correcting), and there's no ratings system with any consistency whatsoever.

You completely missed my point on Jaws and Alien. They are BOTH explicitly violent movies. A strong case can be made to show that Jaws has quite a bit MORE explicit violence than Alien, but at the very least, they are equally violent. Yet Jaws has a FAR milder rating than Alien. If the system were consistent, and used reliable consistent standards, this would not have happened. If the system were self - correcting, then regular reviews of ratings would happen, particularly for older movies, and either Jaws would get a stronger rating, or Alien a lighter one. That has not happened either. The system is not transparent, because only the MPAA knows ALL the criteria for any given ratings. There is no *full complete* list of ratings criteria used by the MPAA anywhere. Doesn't exist.

So you have an inconsistent, opaque, in-correctable ratings system that by its own admission, cannot do more than, on the best day of its life, give you a VAGUE idea as to what a movie has in the way of content.

I live and work with systems that have to work consistently, reliably, and are designed with clear criteria. THere is no justifiable reason for ratings boards being the uber-secret cabals they are, yet you defend an unreliable, inconsistent, secretive system, and want the government to grant that system LEGAL STATUS?

NFW.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 29, 2005 01:00 PM

Dude...moron and imbecile are synonyms.

And? I called you an imbecile; I never called you a moron. I also didn’t call you a nitwit, halfwit, dope, dunce, cretin, dullard, simpleton, or clod, even though those are all synonyms.

Either way, if you're calling names, the fact they aren't profanity gives you no high ground whatsoever.

It does to me, and to a lot of other people. But then again, you have no problem with calling someone you’ve never met “a complete and total wild raving cocknocker,” so I can see why you wouldn’t understand that point.

When you started doesn't matter.

Actually, yes it does, because it shows that I was trying to have a civilized discussion, while you were resorting to cursing at me.

That’s because you are apparently defining “work” as “work to some arbitrary level of success that I have determined in my head.” But generally, people use “work” to mean “work at all.” If someone eats meat once a year, then the claim, “That person doesn’t eat meat” is false, since they do eat meat, albeit occasionally. If someone works one hour a week, then the statement, “He doesn’t work” is also provably false. And if a ratings system works some of the time, then the statement “Ratings systems don’t work” is provable false.

People LIKED and USED hydrogen to power dirigibles. Ask the Hindenberg crew how well that worked out for them.

But hydrogen-powered dirigibles do work, don’t they? They have some serious safety flaws, but they still work. The statement “hydrogen-powered dirigibles don’t work” is provably, demonstrably false.

If the ratings systems worked CORRECTLY, (and that is critical), then there would be no need for government oversite.

But whether ratings systems work perfectly is a different issue from whether or not they work at all. I never claimed that ratings systems work perfectly, or that they work all the time. I just said that your claim that ratings systems don’t work is false.

In fact, history shows that ratings systems CAUSE as many problems as they purport to solve.

And we’ve been here before. Let me quote my previous responses to this issue:

Really? They make it worse? So you’re telling me that if there were no ratings on any TV shows, there would be fewer parents complaining about them?

You somehow believe that if we got rid of ratings altogether, we would have fewer complaints from parents and politicians, and the same amount of children would have access to adult content. Care to support any of those gems, or are you going to keep ignoring them like you have so far?

And if ratings were abolished, do you think we would have fewer hearings and protests?

Would you care to answer this question now, or will you just keep ignoring it?

Your analogy is completely flawed. No one “used” that theory; they believed it. It’s a belief, not a system of information. And yes, it was wrong. It was completely wrong. It was never right at any point in time. So I guess you could say that theory “didn’t work.” On the other hand, ratings systems do work some of the time, which is patently obvious to everyone except you, who refuse to concede that no child has ever been restricted from buying a video game or from seeing a movie based on ratings. But since ratings do work some of the time, the statement “ratings systems don’t work” is false.

I will not concede that ratings are useful, nor will i concede they work, because by my standards of useful and work, (evidently higher than yours), they do not.

Ah, so now you concede that you are judging “useful” and “work” by your own standards! So when you say “ratings don’t work,” you actually mean, “ratings don’t work to my level of standards.” I mean, it’s not like you’re saying that ratings don’t work at all…but wait, you did say that!

If your precious ratings worked worth a crap, we'd not have such hearings. Obviously, they aren't working at all.

Saying that ratings “aren’t working at all” is completely different from saying that they don’t work by your standards. So again, we’re back to square one: You said that ratings don’t work at all, and that statement is provably false.

Working occasionally for some people is not correct function of a well-designed system, it's luck and/or coincidence.

And ratings clearly work more than just “occasionally for some people.” I was focusing on “at least occasionally” as the standard, since that is the minimum level of proof required to refute your claim that ratings don’t work at all. I never claimed that ratings have only worked once; I just want you to concede that they have worked at least once.

Until you show me a ratings system that is transparent, consistent, self - correcting, and can be reliably applied to all users in a consistent fashion, you cannot refute anything, nor can you prove anything.

Sure I can: I can prove that the statement “ratings systems don’t work at all” is false.

And I disagree. The chest-burster scene is more explicitly violent than anything in Jaws, which explains the higher rating it received. And in fact, when you compared you to, you even had to explicitly leave out the chest-burster scene in your comparisons, which obviously shows that it is more explicit.

Yet Jaws has a FAR milder rating than Alien. If the system were consistent, and used reliable consistent standards, this would not have happened. If the system were self - correcting, then regular reviews of ratings would happen, particularly for older movies, and either Jaws would get a stronger rating, or Alien a lighter one. That has not happened either. The system is not transparent, because only the MPAA knows ALL the criteria for any given ratings. There is no *full complete* list of ratings criteria used by the MPAA anywhere. Doesn't exist.

Yep, the MPAA is not a perfect ratings system. I understand that, and I agree completely. So, which is a better solution: Try to improve the current system to provide more-detailed information which meets your higher standards? Or get rid of the system altogether, which is what you have said previously?

And in many cases, a vague idea about a movie’s content is all that is necessary.

I feel like we’re really getting somewhere here! Of course, I’m sure you’ll probably ignore most of my points, and misunderstand the others, but at the moment, I’m still hopeful that you’ll understand that the statement “ratings systems don’t work at all” is entirely different from the statement “ratings systems don’t work to my precise standard.”

To use the same analogy again, if you said to me, “You don’t eat meat,” my response of, “Yes, I had meat last week” is sufficient to disprove your statement. It does not good to come back and say, “Well, obviously my standards of eating meat are much higher than yours! To me, you have to eat it every day for every meal.”

Posted by: Andy | July 29, 2005 01:57 PM

I've called people I've never met ass-licking dogfuckers too. I was in the USAF for 7 years working midshift on a B-1B flightline in North Dakota outside. I've FORGOTTEN more about the use of profanity than you'll ever know. I like it. It rolls off the tongue, and has great versatility. Did you know there is an entire grammatical structure that ONLY exists for the word "Fuck"? Abso-fucking-lutely. An expert grasp of profanity and the nigh - infinite ways it can be used is essential.

Your insistence that you're somehow better than me because you haven't used profanity is an example of one of the lamest tactics known..."At least i didn't say THAT". It's like the prats who call people sixteen kinds of a scumbag, but then defend themselves by saying, "I didn't use PROFANITY" as if that really matters. You start calling names, then imbecile/cockknocker, it's all the same, just a matter of approach at that point. Like the guy who asked the girl if she'd fuck him for a million dollars, and she says "Sure!". Then he asks her if she'll fuck him for ten dollars, and she replies, "What kind of girl do you think I am?" His reply: "We've established what kind of girl you are, now we're negotiating price". Just because you put out for a million doesn't make you any less of a whore than the girl who puts out for ten.

Just because you called me an imbecile instead of a cocknocker doesn't make that any better than me calling you a cocknocker. You're just as bad, but, your hypocrisy once again has you putting on airs. Don't breathe too deep, you're still in the sewer.

And sorry, but ratings systems either work correctly, or they're broken and don't work at all. Yeah, I'm binary in that. i worked on airplanes. Would you want to fly on an airplane that "worked some of the time, but we don't really know until it tries to fly, have a nice flight"? No, I think not.

I have high standards. Working is working, all the time, in a predictable fashion, via clear, unobscure criteria in a way that fails gracefully and can function in that fashion under the full range of usage.

If it doesn't do that, it's broke, and should either be fixed, or scrapped. There are only two reasons for using the current system:

1) You believe it's better than nothing. Since we haven't tried nothing 1930/1934, you have no real data to support it, seeing as talking pictures came into play at that time. There's no reliable evidence that supports the ratings system as being better than nothing whatsoever.

2) You believe that while the current system is flawed, it should not be scrapped while a better one is worked out. The problem again is, we have no baseline for determining efficacy of the ratings system. In this modern world, print, is really the only major entertainment media that doesn't have a ratings system, or a censoring agency of some kind. TV, Movies, and Video Games alll have a ratings system. Radio does not, but radio standards are determined by the FCC, which in effect acts as a censoring board, limited only by strict constitutional issues. TV also falls under the control of the FCC, (at least broadcast TV), so is in effect, double - monitored.

If your position, that a ratings system is both good and needed to properly protect children, then the lack of one on print is inexplicable. Print is, even outside of pornography, explicit along every vector...sex, violence, all of it is in books, and quite explicitly so. The language in books is quite often far more sophisticated than other media, and finding the explicit content is more difficult than any media other than video games.

Yet, there is no "National Literary Ratings Board" ala the MPAA. The only real controversies tend to occur in schools and local libraries and are handled, albeit quite loudly sometimes, in an open, transparent, and easy to follow fashion.

This is in direct contrast to entities such as the MPAA and ESRB who hide the identities of ratings board members, and the specific criteria used for a specific rating in a specific instance. In the ESRB's case, full review of a game in finished format is not 100%, so often, the game is rated based on what the publisher chooses to send to the board. in any event, neither the MPAA nor the ESRB meet any standards for transparency that one would expect from agencies that wield the power they do.

In effect, books and literature are dealt with at the lowest levels: the local community. There is no cabal meeting behind closed doors that labels a book's appropriateness. If a library or school choses not to carry a book, the reasons for that are easily found out. Again, this is in direct contrast to the MPAA or ESRB, who hide the specific reasons for decisions and the identities of the decision makers from the public affected by their decisions.

The end results are that libraries, booksellers, and schools carry, as a composite group, far more explicit content than any average movie theatre or GameStop franchise, do it without any kind of ratings cabal, and there's really no fuss about it at all. In fact, attempts to remove books even from the smallest local hick - town library is met with great resistance. The same cannot be said for movies, television, and video games, where any failure, no matter how small, or accidental, is cause for major outcry, government action or at least noise, and a demand for ever stronger and more convoluted ratings systems that will.still.fail, because humans are not perfect.

There is no ratings system that has ever avoided this "spiral of stupidity", and as a taxpayer, i'm sick of it. There are so many things we need in this country. people that need feeding, sick that need healing, kids that need a better education. Yet we continually, year after year, have moronic hearings on 'how ratings have failed". I cannot remember, going back to the Carter administration, a time when this problem has not happened. Looking at various historical documents on such things, even a far stricter ratings system, ala the Hays code, still failed almost continuously on one level or another.

When someone comes up with a system that is better on every level than the one that works for books. When it meets the same standards of transparency, consistency, effectiveness, and openness, i'll consider that it may be worthwhille, but for now, no, something is NOT better than nothing, and a flawed system that only works part of the time for part of the population is NOT worth keeping.

If there's another way I can state this more clearly, i'm not sure how. You can disagree until your fingers bleed, but that's my position. You have nothing under the current system that will change that. Show me a new system, i'll give it a looksee. But the current systems, especially the specter of government legitimization of such cabals? No, they aren't acceptable. Scrap them and start clean. Collect real baseline data. Define the actual problem. See what tools the problem wants to be solved with. Don't just look for a new version of what is broken, but find the actual problem and solve it. Anything less is useless and a waste.

If that's not good enough for you, well, too fuckin' bad, 'cause that's all you're getting from me.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 29, 2005 04:33 PM

Your insistence that you're somehow better than me because you haven't used profanity is an example of one of the lamest tactics known...

I don’t believe I’m “better than” you. I was simply pointing out that I could have used profanity, but I chose not to. You don’t care? Fine. Point taken. Let’s move on.

And sorry, but ratings systems either work correctly, or they're broken and don't work at all.

And that position is so laughably indefensible that I’m surprised you would even utter it. By that logic, we shouldn’t have seat belts either, or parachutes, or any of the other millions of things in the world that we rely on every day, because they don’t all work correctly all of the time. Nothing works perfectly all the time.

Yeah, I'm binary in that. i worked on airplanes. Would you want to fly on an airplane that "worked some of the time, but we don't really know until it tries to fly, have a nice flight"? No, I think not.

And if we were talking about airplanes, then your statement, “That plane doesn’t work” would be correct. But we’re not talking about planes. We’re talking about ratings systems.

So by your logic, seatbelts don’t work at all. After all, if seatbelts worked all the time, why would we need airbags? And for that matter, airbags sometimes fail. Therefore, airbags don’t work at all. Do you need me to continue?

If it doesn't do that, it's broke, and should either be fixed, or scrapped. There are only two reasons for using the current system:

You can use common sense to think through the possibilities. I already asked you this: Do you think that there would be fewer complaints from politicians and parents’ groups if there were no ratings? If not, then that’s proof that ratings are better than nothing whatsoever.

2) You believe that while the current system is flawed, it should not be scrapped while a better one is worked out.

Exactly.

If your position, that a ratings system is both good and needed to properly protect children,

No, that is not my position. I believe that a ratings system is useful, and helps provide parents with information. I never said that it is needed to protect children.

in any event, neither the MPAA nor the ESRB meet any standards for transparency that one would expect from agencies that wield the power they do.

Yep, both of those agencies could be more transparent. I agree completely. And yet somehow, children are still kept out of adult movies and kept from buying adult games due to ratings. If ratings “don’t work at all,” then that would not be the case.

The same cannot be said for movies, television, and video games, where any failure, no matter how small, or accidental, is cause for major outcry, government action or at least noise, and a demand for ever stronger and more convoluted ratings systems

Again, your hyperbolic claims are easily disprovable. If “any failure, no matter how small, or accidental, is cause for major outcry, government action or at least noise, and a demand for ever stronger and more convoluted ratings systems,” then why haven’t we heard about countless incidents of kids getting adult videogames, every day, at the local level, all the time? I guess if your claim is true, then since we don’t hear about all of these failures, you must conclude that ratings work nearly all of the time, except for isolated instances like the San Andreas issue. After all, if they “don’t work at all,” and we get reports of “any failure, no matter how small,” then we should be hearing hundreds of news reports every day. But we aren’t. So, which of your claims is false?

that will.still.fail, because humans are not perfect.

Wait a minute…I thought that to you, things “work correctly, or not at all.” But aren’t cars made by humans? So cars don’t work correctly, all the time. Would you make the statement, “cars don’t work”? Seatbelts don’t work correctly, all the time. Would you say, “seatbelts don‘t work”?

But we had better not come up with a plan to feed people! I mean, what if it doesn’t feed every single person who is hungry? Why, then that plan won’t work perfectly, so by your logic, it won’t work at all. I guess we’d better not even try it. And what about our education system? Why are we pouring more money into this system, which obviously doesn’t work correctly all the time?

and a flawed system that only works part of the time for part of the population is NOT worth keeping.

Then I guess we’d better scrap the current educational system, and the medical system, and the tax code, and the Constitution, for that matter. Those are all imperfect systems that don’t work all of the time for all people. By your logic, we’d better get rid of them.

As for the ratings system, it works for the part of the population who can figure out the general meaning of obscure terms like “nudity” and “hard language.” For everyone else, they can go ahead and watch the entire movie on their own to figure out the content. I don’t recall anything in the ratings system that prevents you from checking out the movie on your own; in fact, it is encouraged.

So again, what are you complaining about? That ratings aren’t perfect, so we should get rid of them? Welcome to life. Nothing’s perfect.

Posted by: Andy | July 29, 2005 05:33 PM

Actually, seatbelts always do what they're supposed to do: They keep you from being flung about the car in an uncontrolled fashion, and anchor your ass to the seat. Barring mechanical failure due to part malfunction or incorrect use/maintenance, a seatbelt will always function in a reliable, predictable, consistent fashion.

Keeping your ass anchored in the seat is their only purpose. They are not, nor have ever been, magic spell against death. If you drive your car off a cliff, and fall a thousand feet, if you don't die, go play the lotto, it's your lucky day. As it happens, by keeping you from being flung about at many times the force of gravity is a great way to increase your chances of not dying in an accident. But they are not a barrier to death. Your use of that as an example shows a misunderstanding of what seatbelts are designed to do. Cause and effect only work if you thoroughly understand both. In this case, you appear not to.

I have never airbags, as have many other people who are automotive engineers. The design is dangerous, and required at one point, the disabling airbags for passengers outside of a relatively narrow range of physical dimensions. They may have improved the design so this is no longer necessary, but a ballistic charge six inches from your head is never a good thing. I worked with and around ACES-II ejection seats and had a chance to talk with B-1B crew who had used them. They had suffered back and other problems that took months, and in some cases years to overcome. However, it was preferable to making a large smoking hole in the ground. But explosives are dangerous, and the case for airbags was never impressive.

However, even airbags will behave in a predictable, reliable, and consistent fashion. Much of their problems were due to car manufacturers implementing them in a horrible fashion, and I have to say that the newer implementations, where the airbag is used as a safety "curtain" of sorts is far preferable than a bag exploding out towards your head at a high rate of speed. So while I don't like them currently, and if given the choice, disable them, I see how they're being redesigned in ways that handle my objections. I see no sign of this kind of work from ratings systems. The MPAA ratings are, with a couple exceptions, unchanged since the 1960s. All systems need review on a regular basis to ensure proper functionality. I see no evidence of this on a voluntary level from the MPAA. PG-13 and NC-17 were forced upon them by outside protest, not as a part of a regular review of the system.

You say the the ESRB keeps kids from adult games, yet situations like GTA:SA show this doesn't work in a reliable, consistent fashion. Of course, since the ESRB doesn't yet provide 100% review of final versioned games, it was guaranteed that this would happen. In effect, a flaw that a first year compsci student wouldn't have signed off on was, and is, an essential part of the ESRB process. It is incapable of consistency or reliability by design, and like a flawed aircraft or auto design, should not be used until it is determined if it is fixable, or if not, scrapped and a new system designed. People will live if they don't have a ratings board for video games for a bit. We survived years without one before, we can do it again.

Your attempt to use human imperfection as a way of saying that i should use nothing designed by humans again, shows your ignorance of the design process when done correctly. The auto and other industries admit that they cannot create perfect designs. To compensate, they have backup systems. For example, if your power steering pump fails, you can still steer the car, you just cannot steer it as effortlessly. THe manual steering is a backup. On the B-1B (I use this as an example since i'm familiar with it), there are four separate, independent hydraulics systems. So, barring outside agencies, (such as, in one case, a pelican hitting one of the craft on the wing pivot joint glove area), you would have to have four catastrophic failures to completely bring down all hydraulics on a B-1B. That does not make the plane unflyable, there are still old fashioned manual cable and crank backups for the wing and the landing gear, etc. So a proper design accepts that imperfection will creep in, and has backups designed to handle a failure in a graceful, ("graceful" in an engineering sense) manner, that allows functionality.

The ratings systems have no such backup. If a rating fails, such as in GTA:SA, it's a complete failure, and the game has to be re-rated. The games sold cannot be un-sold, nor, if they are console versions, can they be patched. Even the PC versions cannot be patched without user permission. The only recovery here will require a reapplication of the rating, or recoding the game. Traumatic recovery is hardly 'failing gracefully'. A similar analogy would be if your had to reload the OS because your browser crashed. (Well, if you use Windows, you probably do half the time, but still.) Handling failures gracefully is part of "working correctly", and the sign of good design and forethought.

I actually don't see the educational system being as flawed at its basic level. But, no one will allow the educational system to simply teach. Teachers must carry a host of other duties, and become almost pseudo-parents. It is the tinkering that is causing the problems. Now, if skippy falls down and scrapes his knee, instead of making sure he didn't actually break anything or seriously injure himself, giving him a bandaid, and sending him back off to play we have the modern system, that requires a ton of work, offers of counseling, etc. The educational system has become so complex that there's no surprise it has problems. But, in spite of all the press telling me that my son isn't being taught math, or science, or music, I look at the actual school, (Public school mind you, randomly chosen when I moved to Missouri), and see the work he's doing, I see stuff that is far harder than what I did at the same grade level in the 70s. I see him being forced to not just learn rote facts, but also analysis and critical thinking. I see a system that's working, and I've seen this now across three states. Most of my really smart friends went to public school for k-12. So, while there are definitely incidences of failure, the system, as designed, is working, but no one ever got elected by saying "Hey, we have a great school system, and we should make sure that we only fix what's really broke". No one gets headlines with "Our schools: Working well". Politicians need controversy, and K-12 is a great way to do it. As well, if you include higher ed in our educational system, we have the best higher ed system in the world. If you do live in an area where the public schools are just ridiculously subpar, there are ways, well-established, of handling that. In other words, the system fails gracefully. As a well-designed system should. So, I'm pretty happy with schools in this country.

Our medical system isn't a failure, our insurance system however is, and the way we in this country handle providing medical care is a failure as well. But once you navigate the morass to get to the medical care you need, well, again, it's not a failure at all.

"Nothing's Perfect" isn't an excuse, it's a fact. but saying "Well since nothing's perfect, we should just accept a shitty system, because it's better than nothing" is stupid.

Again, there's no data on nothing. You literally cannot say "The MPAA is better than nothing" because you have no data for nothing. How do you know it's better? Where's your evidence?

I grew up with video games, and remember well the era before the ESRB, but I doubt there's any reliable study that collected data on nothing so that you could see what the ESRB has done good or bad. Everyone just ASSUMES that a ratings system is good? Why is it good? because ratings are good. Saying that ratings are good because ratings are good is....nonsensical.

you say they're better than nothing, but you don't even know what nothing is in this case. If you don't know what nothing is, how, pray tell can you know what's better than nothing? 'cause unless you're well over the age of 75, you've never had nothing where movies are concerned, and you have to be well into your thirties or fourties to remember nothing with regard to video games.

Your proof is based on an assumption, not reliable data, and is therefore flawed beyond hope.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 29, 2005 07:09 PM

Actually, seatbelts always do what they're supposed to do: They keep you from being flung about the car in an uncontrolled fashion, and anchor your ass to the seat.

And ratings do what they’re supposed to do: They provide general information about the content of a given game, and provide an age restriction for retailers to use.

Keeping your ass anchored in the seat is their only purpose. They are not, nor have ever been, magic spell against death.

And providing information about content is a rating’s only purpose. It is not, nor has it ever been, a magic spell guaranteeing that kids won’t get access to adult content.

As it happens, by keeping you from being flung about at many times the force of gravity is a great way to increase your chances of not dying in an accident.

And as it happens, providing general information about content, and providing an age restriction for retailers, is a great way to increase the chances of kids not getting access to adult content.

And just like seatbelts, ratings systems are worthless if they are not being used correctly. In the case of ratings, they require parents to pay attention to them, and they require retailers to restrict purchases based on them. But you use parental lack of responsibility and lack of retailer enforcement as a reason to get rid of ratings, which is tantamount to citing the number of automotive deaths in a given year, and concluding that we should get rid of seatbelts.

Your use of that as an example shows a misunderstanding of what seatbelts are designed to do.

I understand exactly what seatbelts are designed to do; you, on the other hand, seem to have no understanding of what ratings are designed to do. You cite the number of kids in an R-rated movie as an example that ratings don’t work, when that actually indicated a problem with enforcement and parental involvement, not the ratings system itself. Again, thank you for proving my point so succinctly.

Interesting side note: Do you know why airbags are so powerful? Because the designers assume that the passenger is not wearing a seatbelt. If they based their calculations around assuming a seatbelt, then airbags could be made much safer.

The MPAA ratings are, with a couple exceptions, unchanged since the 1960s. All systems need review on a regular basis to ensure proper functionality. I see no evidence of this on a voluntary level from the MPAA. PG-13 and NC-17 were forced upon them by outside protest, not as a part of a regular review of the system.

In this case, parents and other parties are part of the system. Ratings don’t do anything by themselves. They require involvement from parents, theater owners, and society at large.

You say the the ESRB keeps kids from adult games, yet situations like GTA:SA show this doesn't work in a reliable, consistent fashion.

The GTA:SA system is a sign of “mechanical failure,” where the system did not account for every possibility. Seatbelts went through the same process over the years, and they continue to prove. When seatbelts improve over time, you see that as a good thing. But when the ESRB improves over time, you take that as a sign that it is obviously a flawed system, and should be discarded. Your argument makes no sense.

It is incapable of consistency or reliability by design, and like a flawed aircraft or auto design, should not be used until it is determined if it is fixable, or if not, scrapped and a new system designed.

That is a flawed analogy: If an aircraft or car fails, there is a risk of serious injury or death. If a rating system fails, the worst case scenario is that kids get access to appropriate content, which is no worse than if the ratings system was not there in the first place.

And how about the seatbelt analogy here: What if you got in a car with older seatbelts that only work 50% of the time. Would you decide to use what you have, or just not wear the seatbelt at all?

People will live if they don't have a ratings board for video games for a bit. We survived years without one before, we can do it again.

And people survived for years without seatbelts too. But if I had a choice between a seatbelt that only works 50% of the time, and no seatbelt, I’ll choose the flawed seatbelt every time. Even if it breaks, I’m no worse off than not having a seatbelt at all.

Your attempt to use human imperfection as a way of saying that i should use nothing designed by humans again, shows your ignorance of the design process when done correctly.

No, I’m saying that’s where your arguments lead.

The auto and other industries admit that they cannot create perfect designs. To compensate, they have backup systems.
…
The ratings systems have no such backup. If a rating fails, such as in GTA:SA, it's a complete failure, and the game has to be re-rated.

First of all, backup systems are not critical in ratings, because if a rating “fails,” no one dies. And even GTA:SA was not a complete failure. The “M” rating still stopped retailers from selling the game to children under 17. The only “failure” was that any 17-year-old kids who attempted to buy the game were not restricted from doing so, and if they managed to find out the complex technique for unlocking this content, and if their parents did not intervene, then they saw a sex scene. And of course, this is no worse than if the rating had not been there in the first place.

Traumatic recovery is hardly 'failing gracefully'.

And people can’t be un-killed if a seatbelt fails. Sometimes, things don’t work correctly, and bad things happen. In the case of ratings, a flawed rating system is no worse than having no rating system at all.

"Nothing's Perfect" isn't an excuse, it's a fact. but saying "Well since nothing's perfect, we should just accept a shitty system, because it's better than nothing" is stupid.

Where did I say we should just accept the current system? I said we should continue using it until we can improve it or find a better one. If you have a seatbelt that only works 50% of the time, and you have to get somewhere, would you drive without a seatbelt, or drive with the seatbelt?

Again, there's no data on nothing. You literally cannot say "The MPAA is better than nothing" because you have no data for nothing. How do you know it's better? Where's your evidence?

Well, let’s use common sense: If there were no ratings, then movie theaters could not restrict entry to movies based on ratings. Now, what do you think the result of that would be? Do you think there would be more underage kids seeing those same movies, or fewer? And by the way, you can calculate data for “nothing” in this case: Just count the percentage of kids who are turned down from going to a restricted movie. That’s the percentage with ratings in place. Then change that number to 0%. That’s the percentage with no ratings. If one child is stopped because of ratings, than “ratings” will always be higher than “nothing.” Thus, unless you believe that no kids are ever kept out of movies based on ratings, you have to concede that ratings are better than nothing.

Because it provides information to parents and retailers. The retailers use that information to restrict purchases of adult content. Parents use that information to monitor what their kids can or can’t access.

you say they're better than nothing, but you don't even know what nothing is in this case.

Do I have to spell everything out for you? In this case, saying “ratings are better than nothing” means “ratings are better than not having ratings.” To study that, you don’t have to go back to the time before ratings; you just have to study the effect that ratings have on the media in question. The fact that parents use ratings for information is easily provable. The fact that retailers restrict access to adult content has been examined and quantified. In this case, you take the percentage of kids who were restricted from buying adult videogames. To calculate “nothing,” change that number to 0%. That’s “nothing.” That is the percentage of kids who would be restricted from buying videogames if ratings did not exist. Thus, unless you believe that no kids are ever kept from buying videogames based on ratings, you have to concede that ratings are better than nothing.

Posted by: Andy | July 29, 2005 08:34 PM

Thanks for showing me that ratings systems are based on the assumption that they're better than nothing. Not, "Well, when we didn't have a ratings system, there were the following problems...{list of problems}"

But an assumption that without ratings, BAD THINGS will happen. Oh, your point that without ratings, theaters couldn't deny access to movies by minors because there'd be no ratings? That's circular logic. Try again.

So it's an unreliable, inconsistent, opaque system run by private cabals...based on an assumption that any ratings system, regardless of efficacy or use is better than nothing.

There's no data that proves this. Note: "I like them and so do a lot of other people" is not repeatable, verifiable, statistically valid data. That's hearsay, and there's not a court in the land that will allow that as evidence. So that entire line of reasoning is invalid. Saying "The use of ratings proves their efficacy" is again circular. You have no baseline. "The use of ratings proves that they're working" is not too far removed from "Driving a volkswagon keeps me from being attacked by bears in downtown Miami" If that's your line of reasoning, I can (ridiculously) prove that ratings caused AIDS, because we didn't have AIDs before the MPAA ratings board, and the first documented case of AIDS can be traced back to 1969, two years after the MPAA ratings came about.

Using a system to prove that that same system works is ridiculous as a concept, and gets you laughed out of any room that contains people with a clue. Now, if you can show me verifiable studies, (read: I can get to the raw data in its unmassaged form) that compares societal issues that are caused by a large scale release of non-rated movies with rated movies, (no, comparing Porn to MGM doesn't count, porn is heavily regulated. Gotta compare at least within the same regulatory posture) with and without ratings over a long enough period of time to compensate for any single incident or incidents, (not ridiculously long, twenty years will do), and you can show me, in a quantifiable form, that ratings do indeed have a greater benificial effect on society than a lack of ratings, you might have a chance of getting me to concede that ratings are of some use.

But if your entire position is "Ratings work because they've always worked, and they've always worked because we've always had ratings, so therefore they work and always have", then that's an assumption at best, and utterly ridiculous if you are trying to prove that ratings are wrong. So far, all you have is an opposing opinion with no valid studies and data to back it up.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 29, 2005 10:13 PM

Thanks for showing me that ratings systems are based on the assumption that they're better than nothing.

It’s obvious that they are better than nothing; that does not imply that that is the only reason that ratings systems were implemented.

Not, "Well, when we didn't have a ratings system, there were the following problems...{list of problems}"

Boy, you really need everything spelled out for you, don’t you? Here’s one of the problems: When there weren’t ratings systems, parents and retailers did not know which games had adult content without playing them, so it was more difficult to restrict access to children. Honestly, I don’t know why I need to explain that point to you.

But an assumption that without ratings, BAD THINGS will happen.

Without ratings, it is more difficult to identify adult content, and restrictions on purchase will be applied inconsistently, if at all. Some stores may choose not to carry any content that is even remotely questionable, which will make adult content more difficult to obtain for adults. If you consider those “bad things,” then yes, you are right.

Oh, your point that without ratings, theaters couldn't deny access to movies by minors because there'd be no ratings? That's circular logic. Try again.

Read it again: It is not circular logic. Redundant, but not circular. So tell me: Without ratings, how will theaters deny access to minors?

So it's an unreliable, inconsistent, opaque system run by private cabals...based on an assumption that any ratings system, regardless of efficacy or use is better than nothing.

Yes, having a ratings system is better than having no ratings system. How can you dispute that? Tell you what: Why don’t you tell me what would improve by getting rid of ratings. Would there be fewer complaints from parents and politicians? Would children have less access to adult content? What would be better?

Note: "I like them and so do a lot of other people" is not repeatable, verifiable, statistically valid data. That's hearsay, and there's not a court in the land that will allow that as evidence.

I’ll remember that if I’m ever making this argument in court. However, since I’m not, your criticism doesn’t apply here.

And by the way, “I use ratings to get information about content” is not hearsay. It’s first-hand testimony.

Saying "The use of ratings proves their efficacy" is again circular. You have no baseline.

Yes, there is a baseline: The baseline is 0% of customers having their purchases restricted. You don’t have to get rid of ratings to measure that.

"The use of ratings proves that they're working" is not too far removed from "Driving a volkswagon keeps me from being attacked by bears in downtown Miami" If that's your line of reasoning, I can (ridiculously) prove that ratings caused AIDS, because we didn't have AIDs before the MPAA ratings board, and the first documented case of AIDS can be traced back to 1969, two years after the MPAA ratings came about.

You are claiming (if I read your ham-handed analogy correctly) that I don’t know the difference between correlation and causation. In fact, I am not equating the two. I am saying that if 50% of kids are kept from buying a game through the use of ratings, then it is obvious that without ratings, 0% of kids would be kept from buying that same game.

Using a system to prove that that same system works is ridiculous as a concept, and gets you laughed out of any room that contains people with a clue.

Look, if you don’t understand my argument, just say so, and I’ll explain it in terms you can understand. You don’t have to ramble on, when you clearly missed my argument entirely.

Now, if you can show me verifiable studies, (read: I can get to the raw data in its unmassaged form) that compares societal issues that are caused by a large scale release of non-rated movies with rated movies,

Stop. I don’t have to provide you with information about the societal impact of children seeing rated movies versus non-rated movies. All I have to do is demonstrate that retailers restrict purchases based on ratings. The purpose of ratings is to provide information to retailers and parents, so they can more easily decide what access to allow. All you have to do to prove this is go to a store, point to an M-rated game, and say, “Could an eight-year-old buy this game by himself?” When they say, “No,” you will know that the ratings board has provided information to that store.

But if your entire position is "Ratings work because they've always worked, and they've always worked because we've always had ratings, so therefore they work and always have"

That’s not my position at all.

Here, so that we’re on the same page, why don‘t you answer these questions that I asked before:

1. What if you got in a car with older seatbelts that only work 50% of the time. Would you decide to use what you have, or just not wear the seatbelt at all?

2. If there were no ratings, do you think there would be more underage kids seeing adult movies, or fewer?

3. If there were no ratings, do you think there would be more underage kids buying adult videogames, or fewer?

4. If there were no ratings, do you think there would be more complaints from parents and politicians, or fewer?

5. Do you believe that any child has ever been kept from buying a videogame based on its rating?

6. Do you believe that any child has ever been kept from seeing a movie based on its rating?

7. Do you think that any parent has ever kept his child from playing a videogame or seeing a movie based on its rating?

Posted by: Andy | July 30, 2005 12:22 AM

Again Andy, this is based on assumption. You have no data with which to back your claim, because you can't show me any comparative data, so the assumption, and all your defense is based on circular logic, and therefore, bullshit. Until you can show me real data that shows a good baseline, it's all crapola.

You got nothing, thanks for playing, buh-bye

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 30, 2005 09:25 AM

First of all, your claims that I am using “circular logic” are false. You just restated my arguments as circular logic, then claimed that that’s those were my arguments. They weren’t.

And once again, I prove my case with simple logic and common sense, and since you realize you can’t argue with common sense, you avoid answering my points directly and instead throw out red herrings like asking for “real data” for something that is patently obvious.

So tell me: If one child is stopped from seeing a movie because of a rating, then if there were no ratings, would that child be allowed to see the movie? Here, I’ll even give you multiple choice:

A) Yes.

B) No.

C) I don’t understand the question.

D) I’m going to ignore your question and claim that you haven’t proven anything.

Posted by: Andy | July 30, 2005 10:39 AM

Again andy, when you show me real data that has a valid baseline and something resembling statistical validity, then you'll have something worth looking at.

Until then, your entire "proof" is: Ratings work because people use them. People use them because ratings work. We've always had ratings because they work. They work because we've always had them.

You have not one shred of valid analysis to back that up, because you haven't a baseline to start with.

You got nothing. Again. Thanks for playing, Buh-bye.

Posted by: John C. Welch | July 30, 2005 06:58 PM

Again andy, when you show me real data that has a valid baseline and something resembling statistical validity, then you'll have something worth looking at.

Ah, I see you’ve chosen option D: I’m going to ignore your question and pretend you haven’t proven anything.

Until then, your entire "proof" is: Ratings work because people use them. People use them because ratings work.

We’ve gone on this long, and you still can’t comprehend my argument. Here’s my argument: Ratings work because they provide information to parents and retailers. The proof is: Reatilers restrict purchases based on ratings. Do you dispute this fact? Of course you don’t, because it’s obvious. So now you’re falling back on this “real data with statistical validity” mantra. If you need data to support this, it’s because you believe it’s untrue. So, is that what you’re saying? You believe that no one has ever been kept from a movie, or from buying a videogame, because of ratings? Come on, have the guts to commit to a position!

We've always had ratings because they work. They work because we've always had them.

When did I say that we’ve always had ratings?? We haven’t always had ratings. That’s obvious. You know that. I know that. So that’s what your down to: making up arguments for me, so you can claim my arguments are incorrect.

You have not one shred of valid analysis to back that up, because you haven't a baseline to start with.

Yes, the baseline is easy to figure out: Before there were ratings, there were no people who were restricted from seeing movies because of ratings. Before there were ratings, there were no people who were restricted from buying videogames because of ratings. That’s your baseline: 0.

Which leads me back to my original questions: