unforum

[Arcas]

Offensive, indecent or just a question of taste?

[TheIllustratedMan]

Personally:

If it's relevant, it's appropriate.

[faeryqueen21]

Yeah, "inappropriate" is a difficult word to use. There are some people here who want a porno related ARG, and some who don't. So if one ever pops up, the people who want to will play it. The ones who don't, won't. Same with violence. "Hurts to Heal" was not for everyone. There were many reasons people didn't like that game, and I'm sure the torture theme was one of them. So I assume people who don't like violence would steer clear of an ARG like that. As long as people aren't posting nudie pictures or otherwise graphic things on THIS forum, an ARG can be about anything. That doesn't mean people will play it, but I don't think there are really limitations.

[thebruce]

interesting point.
What if someone were to set up an "indecent" ARG? Who polices them? Right now, we generally say 'if it fails, it fails' by community standards... but really any other major form of art, I believe, has some form of rating system or policing. If an ARG is successful at being truly anonymous, who's to stop someone from making an adult ARG, with no one to impose an age restriction, or a violent ARG with nowhere to call police if something goes too wrong, etc. We expect puppetmaster to be respecful of their players and the community, but who's to say we can't be deceived? Who's to enforce any guidelines?

Like you say, Kronos (in theory) could include adult content... (it's easier if there's no IP or product associated of course), but if there's no rating, people could suddenly be exposed who either ma not want to be exposed, or have parents/guardians who would not want them exposed.

If it's relevant, it's appropriate

While true in theory, that can certainly land people in some legal problems. In TV we see broadcast guidelines of time of day, or rating systems, now that generally anything does go. Likewise with movies, and video games. For say, site-seeing, some exhibits or events may have disclaimers about content, if not restricted age entry. So fundamentally speaking, what do ARGs have?

Now, of course we don't want to impose a level of fear, like repeatedly saying "Untraceable could happen!" or something, but the reality of it is, ARGs ultimately are an open concept with no authoritative structure in place. The only way to include some level of accountibility is to reveal who the creators are, or have a known connection with a non-fictional entity through whom contact can be made (eg a product or service being marketed) who would then be forced to be accountable to some degree. If neither of those exist, and the creator is effectively 'untraceable', then there ends up being no 'rules' per se, because there's no one upon whom to enforce them.

I believe there have even been some grassroots games that have started and ended without the PM(s) being revealed (though I believe those are usually imploded).

What's a solution?
We can say that yeah, the community could police itself, but again that assumes the person(s) behind any ARG can be tracked down to some degree - then there's accountibility, and an appropriate authority can be introduced if necessary. But there's no inherent guarantee the community can make that connection.

It could come down, again, to "parents vs. media". If technically anyone can play an ARG, someone underage may ome across some mature content. Whose fault is that? Some may put onus on the parents to parent and be aware of their child's activities online. Yet, they to some degree rely on some form of raing system, unless they invest time to experience the thing in question first. There may not be time. Content could change at any moment (what they deem ok may end up not being so unexpectedly), etc.

So yes, I think there are a number of partial measures that can be taken, but at best it's like a patchwork fix. There's still no inherent accountibility or submission to an authority. But perhaps, given all these partial measures, the chance of a problem occuring is fairly small, and relatively moot. *shrug*

...I think it was an episode of Sliders where they popped into an existence where only one guy and girl were left on earth (Adam/Eve throwback) - but were entrenched in a "virtual" mech game, where the enire population had actually been wiped out because the mechs were real. But they didn't know because to them, they were just absorbed by 'a game'. Yes, that's doomsaying... but it was an interesting topic to explore (and afaik, waaaaaay before subversive marketing or gaming, as we know it )

[konamouse]

Some might consider the videos in Resistence2 [R2] would be considered pretty graphic and more than just PG-13 (depending on your ability to stomach blood, gore, violence).

[Gregoriev]

[TheIllustratedMan]

Let me expand my statement to address issues of age.
First off, I have never been big on age as a deciding factor of ability to handle "mature" content. There are plenty of 12 year old kids who are capable of handling taboo subjects, and plenty of 40 year olds who aren't. It really comes down to the person.
That said, if something is relevant to the story, characters, or environment, it belongs there. At the same time, if the story, characters, or environment need violence, drugs, sex, etc. to work, chances are the person who understands and is interested in the game will be able to handle those themes.
The core of that idea is that the taboo subject will be presented in a larger context. Maybe it's an event that causes a character to react a certain way, or maybe it's someplace that the character must go to acheive a goal, and so on. If done properly (read: relevantly), the subject will blend with the storyline, and it will be understood by the audience in the proper way.
The only time that I can think of where this wouldn't apply is if we are sympathetic to someone who typically would be viewed as "evil". For instance, if the protaganist is a serial rapist, he will present his exploits in a positive light. Those of us who have seen rape in the opposite context will know that it is, in fact, a very damaging thing. The sheltered 15 year old who never knew what rape was until this game may see it differently.
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to default to that old argument: it's up to the parents to know their child, and know what is appropriate for him. I would say that the tag of "Content may change unexpectedly during online play" would apply in this situation, and if there's a chance that your child could be exposed to something he can't handle, don't let him play.

[Euchre]

Considering things seen on these forums like Human Pet and 90 Day Jane, some dark, violent, sadistic, and deadly subjects can be placed into a game or other form of chaotic fiction. If it exists, anyone can experience it sooner or later. Children will see violence, the unstable will be traumatized or incited to act, the mild will be treated harshly. What you have to really consider is how you really fit in that juxtaposition.

What to one person or group seems open minded is to others complete tyranny. What one may think is harmless to another may seem completely devastating. More often than not, human judgments are completely subjective. Often people try to convince themselves otherwise, but in the end it's as much a matter of how the other party wishes to perceive what you have done as how you intended it. Most only use the litmus test of their own self perception and are rarely if ever able to dissociate themselves from their own subjective perspective. Thus it's almost inevitable that you will offend someone, somehow. The only real test of this is time.

Many artists put out their work and refuse to ever 'explain it', because of the very fact that they wish YOU to draw your own conclusions. When a chaotic fiction is put forth, mediums like this forum which choose to host them theoretically take that sort of stance and let the individual participants decide what to think of it. Make no mistake, when any medium like this constrains itself by choosing which of these CFs are appropriate they have already compromised that total objectivity and narrowed their audience. In the case of unFiction, it has already done this by declaring itself 'family friendly' - so your expectations should be conditioned on what that means or might mean (as it's so hard to tell, because families are human, and humans are subjective...).

The whole idea of such an objective approach to the CF as a whole could be taken down fractally to granular levels when dealing with the subject matter and the participants in it. However, when you begin to travel down these levels is often where you see that concept fail (e.g. something like "we'll allow the penis talk, but not the penis pictures").

When I think of what I might consider offensive or in bad taste in one case and yet not in another, two words come to mind:
exploding chicks