Archive: 187 posts

---

Recently MM has moderated the original Afraid by SpiderMaguire! The best movie in LBP2! Why? Sone kid got scared and reported it! What we need is a new age restriction system so this doesn't happen! This would open up LBP in so many ways such as 15+ DLC! Like Zombieland, Saw, Fallout, Bioshock! Of course this would work by linking you're PSN account and PS3 parental controls. We need MM to notice this so please try my level that explains problems with MM and LBP! I also mention that the cool pages aren't that great! Yes there is a lot of good stuff on it but half the times LBP1 rubbish pops up. I hare filtering everytime! The cool pages need catagorized into each single tag to make it better!! I'm also sick of the FAILED levels from LBP1 at the bottom of the MM picks! It's a disgrace! Play my level named "An Important Message" on my PSN: Apollo_xD What do YOU think of my ideas about age restrictions and cool pages with better categories? Link to level: http://lbp.me/v/zdvzw8

2011-03-27 15:36:00 Author: Apollo_xD Posts: 52

---

Despite that I generally feel that online petitions are an exercise in futility, the point is that the game is rated E, and as long online play is subject to this rating, no amount of begging and pleading for a mature section can or will come into existence. I'll have to pass on the petition, sorry.

2011-03-27 15:50:00 Author: Thegide Posts: 1465

---

Yet they continue to moderate "scary" movies? Doesn't seem to be for EVERYONE then including the older ones eg 15+

2011-03-27 15:55:00 Author: Apollo_xD Posts: 52

---

^^^ What he said. EDIT: sniped what the 2nd poster said Although I wish you could have filters saved so you don't have to do lbp2 levels every time. With the Mm Picks they are not failed lbp1 levels they are just very very very old when lbp1 first came out. They were good when they were published. and besides they are at the bottom of a very long list does it really bother you that much that 20 pages do there is an old level?

2011-03-27 15:57:00 Author: FocusRSdude Posts: 145

---

A game that was released as the rating E can't exactly get a mature section added into it, because otherwise it would cause confusion about the game rating or controversy about how a game has the wrong rating. It either stays E and people wonder why there is then a mature part, or it gets put up to match the mature levels and thus the game no longer appears suitable for everyone. In the UK here it is rated 7. The next after that is 12. Putting a game to that age rating means almost every young kid can't get the game and their parents may be reluctant to buy it. As much as it sucks levels may get reported for reasons some find to be insignificant, increasing the rating or adding mature sections or whatever isn't going to make them immune from moderation. I've seen levels that have nothing noticeably wrong with them be removed which are suitable to all ages. If a level that is aimed as suitable to everyone can get removed on a game rated E for everyone, then it would be just as easy to still remove a level aimed at a mature audience even with a mature section or whatever.

2011-03-27 15:58:00 Author: Moonface Posts: 310

---

MediaMolecule spent how many years and how much money and how much time on a freakin incredible game for us that has aspects and mechanics never seen before, where we can create any type of game we want to with so many tools where the only limit is your imagination. If they want to block off a few levels, Im not gonna complain.

2011-03-27 16:24:00 Author: ATMLVE Posts: 1177

---

Simple solution - don't make scary and/or other levels that are likely to get moderated. The game is rated E / 7+, so it's up to you to make levels that are suitable for those ages. If a scary level would probably be classified as 15+, then to be honest it shouldn't exist in the first place. I've not seen the level in question although I've just watched the first 20 seconds on YouTube, and considering it begins with a newsflash about someone who has been "brutally murdered" I'm not exactly surprised it was moderated.

2011-03-27 16:33:00 Author: Nuclearfish Posts: 927

---

"Online interactions not rated by the ESRB"

2011-03-27 16:42:00 Author: ATMLVE Posts: 1177

---

Then why put in a scary tag?! It was only moderated because a kid got scared of the face and reported it. Sure why moderate it? Parents don't care these days. Most kids are playing 18+ Call of Duty so why should it be strict on a non-violent game and moderate everything? I think MM are simply jealous of Afraid.

2011-03-27 16:58:00 Author: Apollo_xD Posts: 52

---

The movie was very well-made, sure, but it definitely isn't suitable for younger kids. You just have to be smart enough to handle material in a way everyone can appreciate. For example, you don't need excessive gore to make a scary experience. In fact, gore and monsters aren't scary in the first place. If you want to play a true survival horror game, play Amnesia: Dark Descent and take notes. There is minimal gore and the scare factor comes from not being able to see the monsters or fight back. I believe something of similar quality can be made in LBP2, but most creators need to find a way to incorporate terror in an age-appropriate scenario.

2011-03-27 17:03:00 Author: Sack-Jake Posts: 1153

---

Then why put in a scary tag?! "Scary" doesn't mean the same as "18+". It was only moderated because a kid got scared of the face and reported it. You have evidence for this? It was only one kid? If it was me I'd have made a level free of scary faces just to be safe. Sure why moderate it? Parents don't care these days. Most kids are playing 18+ Call of Duty Great idea, lets just get rid of all age ratings on everything ever on the assumption that nobody cares. I'm sure the world will be a better place because of it. why should it be strict on a non-violent game and moderate everything? Because it's a non-violent game. It's 7+, so obviously they're going to be strict to get rid of anything 18+. I think MM are simply jealous of Afraid. LOL.

2011-03-27 17:06:00 Author: Nuclearfish Posts: 927

---

I think MM are simply jealous of Afraid. I'm sure that's it. Well done

2011-03-27 17:09:00 Author: Chazprime Posts: 587

---

I think MM are simply jealous of Afraid. Yes, I bet thats EXACTLY why they moderated a 15+ level -_- When I saw afraid I frankly wasn't sure what to think of it. It DEFINITELY did not fit the "E" game rating but it was great camera work. Though, the creepiness did override all other aspects of the movie so i would definitely agree that MM moderating the level was a good decision for all those younger players.

2011-03-27 17:20:00 Author: Julianotis1 Posts: 110

---

I think Mm (or another games developer) should start developing an adult alternative to LBP. Something like LBP in respect of the unlimited creative options, but something darker, sexier, with more edge and attitude. Of course, you could just play an Ungreth level.

2011-03-27 17:34:00 Author: Ungreth Posts: 2130

---

...something darker, sexier, with more edge and attitude. ROFL Sounds to me like just another night in your pod.

2011-03-27 17:37:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383

---

I watched Afraid, and it was awesome ;D But what was different in the original? the face was different,? but how?

2011-03-27 17:40:00 Author: Dexist Posts: 570

---

If there were no age ratings the world would be no different. All kids these days have 18+ games. You do realise in fact many 12 year olds smoke and drink right not because of games but because of normal TV and everything else outside their front door. A game where you create wouldn't encourage anyone to do 18+ stuff. Afraid wasn't 18+ scary. It wasn't even 15+ scary so STILL why is there a scary tag?! Clearly you're going to defend MM Nuclearfish; you basically work with them.

2011-03-27 17:52:00 Author: Apollo_xD Posts: 52

---

Never got around watching it... :kz: Mind showing a link to the face or describing it? On Topic: Scary doesn't have to mean blood, guts, & gore, now does it? Scary can mean a lot of things: Like the scary thought of going on a Roller Coaster for the first time, or scary as in Dead Space, but it doesn't ALWAYS have to be about the violent version.

2011-03-27 17:59:00 Author: IronSkullKid99 Posts: 515

---

Also, Mm handled MGS4 DLC perfectly and it's a Mature game. They could easily give the same treatment to other M titles, so your entire argument really doesn't make any sense. If they want to give us content based on a mature game, they can.

2011-03-27 18:13:00 Author: Sack-Jake Posts: 1153

---

This wasn't violent. It had a creepy face with sound effects.

2011-03-27 18:13:00 Author: Apollo_xD Posts: 52

---

Simple solution - don't make scary and/or other levels that are likely to get moderated. ^ This. I was going to comment on several other points, but Nuc beat me to it on all counts. This is not a mature game. It's for all ages. Levels get moderated because of the content the creator chose to create. You have a choice to make a level for all ages or risk getting your level moderated. It's really that simple.

2011-03-27 18:16:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239

---

Heres a link for anyone who wants to see the unmoderated version of this level. Careful, its actually very creepy! The voice acting was absolutely fantastic! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ut7_4nvZD6k

2011-03-27 18:20:00 Author: grayspence Posts: 1990

---

^ Epic Avatar is Epic. :kz: ^ EDIT: Saw the vid. Really wasn't that scary. Unexpected, yes, but not scary, but still enough to give a 7-10 year-old nightmares. :kz:

2011-03-27 18:32:00 Author: IronSkullKid99 Posts: 515

---

If there were no age ratings the world would be no different. All kids these days have 18+ games. You do realise in fact many 12 year olds smoke and drink right not because of games but because of normal TV and everything else outside their front door. A game where you create wouldn't encourage anyone to do 18+ stuff. Afraid wasn't 18+ scary. It wasn't even 15+ scary so STILL why is there a scary tag?! Clearly you're going to defend MM Nuclearfish; you basically work with them. My son is 9. I don't allow him to watch anything past a PG rating, and don't allow him to play games other than "E" for everyone. If I thought MM wasn't moderating inappropriate levels for my child, I wouldn't let him play it. I just watched the video.... enjoyed it.... and would have been apalled if I had found my son watching it in LBP. I would have hit the good grief. Period.

2011-03-27 18:58:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430

---

Despite that I generally feel that online petitions are an exercise in futility, the point is that the game is rated E, and as long online play is subject to this rating, no amount of begging and pleading for a mature section can or will come into existence. I'll have to pass on the petition, sorry. Unless, of course, the EULA is updated? Who's to say the 7+ isn't limited to the Story? Obviously, at the moment, it is a overall rating - which probably won't be changing anytime soon... But's whos to say it can't?

2011-03-27 19:05:00 Author: Nurolight Posts: 918

---

Clearly you're going to defend MM Nuclearfish; you basically work with them. Now I'm sorry, but I think this is kinda uncalled for. Creating a level for the GOTY edition and getting some of your levels MmPicked hardly qualifies as working for them. More to the point, Nuclearfish was simply defending his point. Edit: This wasn't violent. It had a creepy face with sound effects. It is violent, actually. A man getting torn to pieces by a spectral face is most certainly violent.

2011-03-27 19:13:00 Author: FlipMeister Posts: 631

---

Clearly you're going to defend MM Nuclearfish; you basically work with them. Heh, I'm not even defending Mm because Mm have nothing to do with moderation or the rating. Unless, of course, the EULA is updated? Who's to say the 7+ isn't limited to the Story? Obviously, at the moment, it is a overall rating - which probably won't be changing anytime soon... But's whos to say it can't? It's not really a question of "why can't it change" but "why shouldn't it change". LBP is family friendly and it should stay that way, even if it was possible the EULA could be updated.

2011-03-27 19:24:00 Author: Nuclearfish Posts: 927

---

Heh, I'm not even defending Mm because Mm have nothing to do with moderation or the rating. ^^ This. Also: "I am constantly trying to persuade Sony to release an adult version of LittleBigPlanet... LittleBigPlanet: Filth, where all the moderated content goes to. I'd love to see that, but they're not having any of it." So, uh, who are we raging against this time? Confused OP is confused. And possibly just trolling... Who knows. At the end of the day, there are ToS for publishing stuff in this game... If you publish things in violation of those, then they may get moderated... It's the risk you take.

2011-03-27 19:32:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

Okay, okay back to topic. I think that there should be a system where levels have age ratings as well as tags. Yes it was violent, yes it was scary! Now just you all go and look at the back of the LBP2 box. What does it say? Violence and FEAR! Levels shouldn't be moderated because of this! Anyone who buys the game has been warned that there is violence and fear. Whoever good griefed has no reason to. Their reason is, It was scary so MM modded it so kids wouldn't get scared. They were warned that game would have fear and violence so therefore NO reason to moderate. Thank you.

2011-03-27 19:32:00 Author: Apollo_xD Posts: 52

---

Violence and fear, such that it would make it unsuitable for a 3+ game, hence the 7+ PEGI rating, which is where I assume you are getting this from? You're aware of how little violence and fear is required to be considered too violent or scary for a 3 year old, right? Here's a tip: not much. So people were warned that it might be too scary for 3 year olds, not that any level of violence and fear is to be expected

2011-03-27 19:39:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

It says in the BACK IF THE BOX, Violence, Fear, Online.

2011-03-27 19:50:00 Author: Apollo_xD Posts: 52

---

Next to the 7+ part? Yeah. PEGI 7: Any game that would normally be rated at 3 but contains some possibly frightening scenes or sounds may be considered suitable in this category. What I was pointing out was that you'd taken those things out of context. I was simply placing them back into the context in which they were intended. That is, the implication is that there may be enough fear and violence to make them unsuitable for 3 year olds. TBH, there is a whole discussion to be had about the nature of what is and isn't appropriate in LBP and what benefits there might be if the game was segregated into age categories. however, you ranting and insisting that a couple of deliberately misinterpreted symbols on the back of the box means that "anything goes", does anything but enable a scenario where such a discussion might take place....

2011-03-27 19:56:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

i think this supposed kid is a wuss...my opinion lol good griefing a masterpiece like this?? he still can by the rules... as much as i oppose this. but publishing this lvl there is no real prob. if he wants to still have his work UNMODERATED, he could just hav it locked, and pass the key over to whoever asks for it... wouldnt this just pass the prob??? sure not as many plays... but is that what this lvl is going for?? a quota? if this guy can put such feeling into this lvl im sure he knows its a **** good lvl(good crusade tho!XD)

2011-03-27 20:48:00 Author: XELLAmunster Posts: 89

---

I never got around to watching it, but I remember some levels in LBP1 (hello Test Subject 101 with someone getting a drill shoved in and blood coming out), it just wasn't nessecary. You don't have to resort to gore to make something scary.

2011-03-27 20:56:00 Author: kirbyman62 Posts: 1893

---

"Online interactions not rated by the ESRB". Put a warning in the description, and theoretically NOTHING should be moderated, less copyrighted material.

2011-03-27 21:24:00 Author: xero Posts: 2419

---

...Now just you all go and look at the back of the LBP2 box. What does it say? Violence and FEAR! Levels shouldn't be moderated because of this! Anyone who buys the game has been warned that there is violence and fear... On the US version it says "Comic Mischief" and "Mild Cartoon Violence." In other words, the Three Stooges and Tom and Jerry. Not murder and mayhem, blood and guts, or decapitation and dismemberment. It doesn't matter how well-executed a level is, it's content simply doesn't fall within the specified guidelines that we all agree to when logging on to LBP. I just don't see how you can defend this level when the content is at the very least questionably adult. "Online interactions not rated by the ESRB". Put a warning in the description, and theoretically NOTHING should be moderated, less copyrighted material. Your level could be moderated for any reason they choose. Specifically, the EULA (for the US, at least) refers to User Generated Content that is "unlawful, obscene, defamatory, threatening, harassing, predatory, pornographic, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or encourages conduct that would violate any law, or is otherwise inappropriate." They also have the right to "edit, remove or refuse to post any User Generated Content for any reason without prior notice..." That's legal-ese for pretty much anything.

2011-03-27 21:29:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239

---

Ok, I just watched the video on youtube. After that, I must wholeheartedly agree with MM decision to moderate. Im a 15 year old guy, and it gave me the creeps; considering anyone who buys the game has access to any level, that means any little kid could stumble across it. Although it was a fantastically made movie, I must say that we cant have stuff like that available to little kids. Also, the dude did say **** once, does MM care about that?

2011-03-27 21:37:00 Author: ATMLVE Posts: 1177

---

I just finished playing it and to be honest, I see why it was moderated. The movie was very good. One of the best out there that is good and not obnoxious. Believe me a petition isn't worth it considering what I saw in the movie. Some child, who is still in the single digits, probably saw it and had nightmares of their cute sackboy or girl being brutally murdered like in the movie. Yet, they continue to play FPS games that are mature rated and, they don't even blink an eye at what happens. Something is amiss about that. All things aside, slapping a warning on the level description could have stopped the moderation probably.

2011-03-27 21:39:00 Author: siberian_ninja15 Posts: 444

---

He published the long one again with a face from the monster pack. However, everything else seems unchanged. This movie deserves a fan club with the amount of buzz its producing right now!

2011-03-27 21:41:00 Author: grayspence Posts: 1990

---

This is very worrying, cause after all, a large portion of the levels being published involve mature themes in one way or the other. The second MM introduced an actual GUN, the community exploded with huge quantities of levels with a rather dark atmosphere that involved killing custom made characters. And with the introduction of sackbots, that trend doesn't seem to incline. Just look at Vietnam FPS, for instance. I think they should rather focus on moderating levels with religious or political content instead of some face that says "Boo".

2011-03-27 21:47:00 Author: Discosmurf Posts: 210

---

"Online interactions not rated by the ESRB". Put a warning in the description, and theoretically NOTHING should be moderated, less copyrighted material. Lol. That line is a disclaimer to protect the raters - specifically to protect them against prosecution for silly things like "not being able to see into the future". Yes the ESRB does not rate things that happen online after the time at which the ratings are carried out... It has nothing to do with moderation, based upon the EULA, which regulates your online activities and is completely separate to and independent of the ESRB.

2011-03-27 21:48:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

Lol. That line is a disclaimer to protect the raters - specifically to protect them against prosecution for silly things like "not being able to see into the future". Yes the ESRB does not rate things that happen online after the time at which the ratings are carried out... It has nothing to do with moderation, based upon the EULA, which regulates your online activities and is completely separate to and independent of the ESRB. And thats the game! Seriously people give it a rest. The only thing that the level was moderated for was the face. Like I have said, he republished with a less scary face, but still kept everything else the way it was. I still thought it was fantastic without the face. Not even the creator was shocked this much by the moderation, and I dont think anyone who has watched it wouldnt agree. It not like the levels gone forever!

2011-03-27 21:55:00 Author: grayspence Posts: 1990

---

That line is a disclaimer to protect the raters - specifically to protect them against prosecution for silly things like "not being able to see into the future". Yes the ESRB does not rate things that happen online after the time at which the ratings are carried out... It has nothing to do with moderation, based upon the EULA, which regulates your online activities and is completely separate to and independent of the ESRB. "Online interactions not rated by the ESRB" I did put that on the first page. I put it there before I had seen the movie, suggesting that moderating a level for mature content is stupid because theres a warning about it on the front of the freakin box. However, after I watched the movie, I changed my mind, and I now agree with MM for moderating it. It was a little too much.

2011-03-27 22:06:00 Author: ATMLVE Posts: 1177

---

So...do you guys think it's acceptable to show a "representation" of female reproductive organs in LBP? I don't mean the naughty bits. I mean the internal parts - womb, ovaries, etc. Or would I...erm...I mean, the creator get moderated for that? No reason, just asking...

2011-03-27 22:29:00 Author: Ungreth Posts: 2130

---

So...do you guys think it's acceptable to show a "representation" of female reproductive organs in LBP? I don't mean the naughty bits. I mean the internal parts - womb, ovaries, etc. Or would I...erm...I mean, the creator get moderated for that? No reason, just asking... why not ask poms?? lol after his lil mishap with the 'miracle of life' lvl hes made... he knows from experience u cant really even represent "SOMETHING" with a rocket ship that shoots out...uhmmm... well n/m that... and yet its 1 of the best rated lvls out there!

2011-03-27 22:39:00 Author: XELLAmunster Posts: 89

---

why not ask poms?? lol after his lil mishap with the 'miracle of life' lvl hes made... he knows from experience u cant really even represent "SOMETHING" with a rocket ship that shoots out...uhmmm... well n/m that... and yet its 1 of the best rated lvls out there! Ive always wondered how he got away with that...

2011-03-27 22:46:00 Author: ATMLVE Posts: 1177

---

Zhaheheh! Oh boy... topics like this always make my day, xD really if a level gets more violent then one of Ungreth's levels (and his levels are already on the edge) then there's something wrong with ya, We all knew that the game has a E rating and that you have to be super careful of what content we put in are levels, LBP2... the game that can make any game we want... but that's not without limit thankfully. PG is about as far we can go far as level rating, WE can push PG13 if we are careful, depends on what kind of PG13 stuff we are talking about, a lot of it is a no go. in the end of the day i like that LBP is a game that even if forced feels Pure and free of evil. OK only if you avoid the H4H and Free DLC levels, ETC. but yeah i like a game sometimes that don't feel like a Sin pit~ *mew

2011-03-27 22:52:00 Author: Lord-Dreamerz Posts: 4261

---

What if I put a nude painting in my level? Is that considered inappropriate/obscene even though it is purely of an artistic matter or of educational value? Does the idea of freedom of speech apply to video games?

2011-03-27 23:01:00 Author: Enlong3 Posts: 357

---

What if I put a nude painting in my level? what kind of nude painting? a real person or art? or just a sack person with no detailed parts? it depends o what we are talking about here, oh you can have your freedom of speech. long as it don't go past PG

2011-03-27 23:04:00 Author: Lord-Dreamerz Posts: 4261

---

I havent read the thread but, Moderation is basicly to take out like harmful stuff etc, I mean remember not only adults play lbp, if the Moderation thing goes away then, they might as well not rate the game E. Not sure how its a bad thing, but I know it sucks when your level get moderated for no reason It happened to me on a Halloween Level and I never knew why, it was just a cartoony halloween thing with prizes and it got moderated.

2011-03-27 23:07:00 Author: Bloo_boy Posts: 1019

---

what kind of nude painting? a real person or art? or just a sack person with no detailed parts? it depends o what we are talking about here, oh you can have your freedom of speech. long as it don't go past PG I don't know, let's say I wanted to recreate the Michelangelo statue anatomically correct. Would this be considered obscene for young ages even though schools and the law say no? If it were to be moderated, could this be considered a violation of my freedom of speech?

2011-03-27 23:13:00 Author: Enlong3 Posts: 357

---

I don't know, let's say I wanted to recreate the Michelangelo statue anatomically correct. put a leaf over his you know where like they did in old cartoons and we have no problem. but no it's not really a violation of your freedom of speech. a game has a rating, just like life has laws.

2011-03-27 23:18:00 Author: Lord-Dreamerz Posts: 4261

---

im surprised this lvl tho... really got moderated... and yet we can still wacth KILL JUSTIN BIEBER lvls and the last 1 i saw, included the title '...NOW WITH REAL BLOOD!!' as someone said earlier the more important lvls to look out for are containing anything 18+ like hardcore drugs and nudity... 1 of the first lvls ive seen was actually an lbp stripclub... YES u heard me rite. first lvl i ever GG'd

2011-03-27 23:18:00 Author: XELLAmunster Posts: 89

---

^ it just comes down to it's hard for them to notice All levels that go pass the ratings and popular more well made levels are more easy to notice then a little one with almost no plays. but sooner or later they'll get to them too most likely. *mew PS: don't ask me about the Kill justin levels n what not. I've no idea how they pass.

2011-03-27 23:24:00 Author: Lord-Dreamerz Posts: 4261

---

good to know... but that strip thing i played... if i rmmbr rite...had about 500+plays anyways tho what do you think is the limit?? what would make u GG a lvl??

2011-03-27 23:27:00 Author: XELLAmunster Posts: 89

---

Lol. That line is a disclaimer to protect the raters - specifically to protect them against prosecution for silly things like "not being able to see into the future". Yes the ESRB does not rate things that happen online after the time at which the ratings are carried out... It has nothing to do with moderation, based upon the EULA, which regulates your online activities and is completely separate to and independent of the ESRB. I'm aware of this. I understand that Sony reserves the right to moderate whatever they please, and I didn't say they couldn't. I said they shouldn't. Which, by the way, is a matter of opinion, and ergo completely unarguable. The fact remains that anything in an online world is fair game. No one moderates the internet, yet millions of children have access to that. It falls upon the children themselves to make decisions, or god forbid, the parent for ensuring their child isn't doing something they're not supposed to. Yes the game is rated E. Does the level contain nudity? Sexual themes? Drug or alcohol use? Something can be scary and still be child appropriate... as long as it doesn't scar them for life, who really cares? Side note... Beginning your post with one line saying nothing but "Lol" implies condescending arrogance. Whether that was your intention or not, such things don't usually warrant welcome feelings.

2011-03-27 23:27:00 Author: xero Posts: 2419

---

If it were to be moderated, could this be considered a violation of my freedom of speech? You don't have freedom when you agree to the EULA. That's kind of the point. schm0's post on the previous page quoting the EULA pretty much says that by agreeing to play the game online you're giving up your right to publish anything inappropriate, and that they are within their rights to remove anything even without a reason. So even if your anatomically correct Michelangelo statue wasn't technically considered to be inappropriate, it could still be moderated. EDIT: I'm aware of this. I understand that Sony reserves the right to moderate whatever they please, and I didn't say they couldn't. I said they shouldn't. Which, by the way, is a matter of opinion, and ergo completely unarguable. The fact remains that anything in an online world is fair game. No one moderates the internet, yet millions of children have access to that. It falls upon the children themselves to make decisions, or god forbid, the parent for ensuring their child isn't doing something they're not supposed to. "Anything in an online world is fair game"... if you say so. You could use the same logic to argue against the need of moderators on this very forum. Why should they remove posts they deem inappropriate? Oh yes, of course, only to make this a nice family friendly community that everyone can enjoy being a part of.

2011-03-27 23:34:00 Author: Nuclearfish Posts: 927

---

Bottom line guys - their server, their rules. They can (legally) moderate and delete pretty much anything they want to - and don't have to have a reason to do so. They have set some guidelines that they recommend you go by, and then everybody's happy and the level doesn't disappear. In terms of freedom of speech - you still have that. Just not when displaying it inappropietly on their servers.

2011-03-27 23:43:00 Author: standby250 Posts: 1113

---

I don't know, let's say I wanted to recreate the Michelangelo statue anatomically correct. Would this be considered obscene for young ages even though schools and the law say no? If it were to be moderated, could this be considered a violation of my freedom of speech? You don 't have freedom of speech on private property. Why don't people understand that? You're welcome to say anything you like in your house, but I can kick you out of mine if I don't like what you say. It's the same thing here. Those servers are private property, and MM has every right to moderate the content on them any way they choose. lol it appears I was 2 minutes late posting this...curse you guy above me.

2011-03-27 23:46:00 Author: tdarb Posts: 689

---

You don't have freedom when you agree to the EULA. That's kind of the point. schm0's post on the previous page quoting the EULA pretty much says that by agreeing to play the game online you're giving up your right to publish anything inappropriate, and that they are within their rights to remove anything even without a reason. So even if your anatomically correct Michelangelo statue wasn't technically considered to be inappropriate, it could still be moderated. So I guess that could mean they could delete anything just for the lulz. A contract doesn't allow the promisor to reserve any right they want if it violates the law. A contract that is in violation of the law becomes unenforceable. If I could prove that online environments within video games are a protected medium under the US constitution, I could say that my first amendment rights had been violated under that contract thus rendering it invalid. I'm not sure how online environments are considered private property. You can be sued for defamation if you post something defamatory about someone on an internet forum. The problem is that its not private because it is open to the public.

2011-03-27 23:50:00 Author: Enlong3 Posts: 357

---

If I could prove that online environments within video games are a protected medium under the US constitution, I could say that my first amendment rights had been violated under that contract thus rendering it invalid. But... MM is British...

2011-03-27 23:52:00 Author: standby250 Posts: 1113

---

But... MM is British... But SCEA is American.

2011-03-27 23:56:00 Author: Enlong3 Posts: 357

---

Which, by the way, is a matter of opinion, and ergo completely unarguable. No, it's fact's that are unarguable. Opinions are totally arguable, that's why they are opinions... I'm aware of this. I understand that Sony reserves the right to moderate whatever they please, and I didn't say they couldn't. I said they shouldn't. Yes, but you also made that completely unfounded link between the ESRB's choice to add a disclaimer about online interactions with the notion that Sony shouldn't moderate their servers. I don't know what your theory is there, but it doesn't appear to make any sense tbh. The fact remains that anything in an online world is fair game. The fact remains that this is only true if you own the servers, and even then you have restrictions under national and international law. Of course the actual issues with the enforcement of those laws is something else entirely, but it doesn't mean they don't exist. But in the cases where you don't own the servers it is exactly the same as tdarb says: you're on private property and in such cases "everything goes" is far from the truth. @enlong3: The 1st amendment is not relevant here regardless of the nationality of the company. Just go read up on the basics of the 1st amendment and you'll understand why... It specifically relates to Congress censoring the free speech of the population. You also totally misinterpreted the nature of private property. A shop often is private property, but the shopkeeper can kick you out on a whim. Just because other members of the public can watch you getting kicked out doesn't mean it's "a public place" The First Amendment precludes government restraint of expression and it does not require individuals to turn over their homes, businesses or other property to those wishing to communicate about a particular topic.

2011-03-28 00:02:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

I do agree that there is a bit of hypocrisy in what gets moderated in the game. In this game you can strap a flame thrower to your head and mow down 1000 zombies with their brains sticking out, and it's ok to run through a level and murder 500 Vietnamese sack-people; in fact, they MM picked that. But a picture of a face covered in white paint with baggy eyes killing a sack person after the screen fades to black is unacceptable. I mean, why is it not only ok in the other levels, but actually encouraged with an MM Pick? Is it cuz sack people with army helmets on or rotting flesh are still cute, even when they're being riddled with bullets? That's really my only problem with the moderation, it's pretty inconsistent. I don't understand how one act of violence gets praised while the other gets censored. Is it because there's no actual blood in the FPS (cuz other than a little blob on the street in the picture during the newscast, I didn't see any in the movie level either)? Or because it's war, and that's viewed differently? Was it the supernatural element? Or, is it the old thing where the death of one is a tragedy, the death of many is a statistic? My son is 9. I don't allow him to watch anything past a PG rating, and don't allow him to play games other than "E" for everyone. If I thought MM wasn't moderating inappropriate levels for my child, I wouldn't let him play it. I just watched the video.... enjoyed it.... and would have been apalled if I had found my son watching it in LBP. I would have hit the good grief. Period. Did you let your son play the MM Pick "Vietnam FPS"? If so, why, and why didn't you report it? I'm simply asking, I'm not implying anything or being condescending in any way. I'm just curious. anyways tho what do you think is the limit?? what would make u GG a lvl?? I went through my entire time in LBP and never found a level with offensive content. So far, I've reported 2 in LBP 2. One was a level with an overtly racist title in which you used a saw to kill a bunch of black sackbots. It was completely appalling. Then there was one where you simulated having sex with the six axis, fully rendered and complete with bodily fluids. Later in the same level, there was a series of photos of a hentai film of some kind, and nothing was left to the imagination. These are examples of things that are inarguably wrong. I would give "Afraid" the benefit of the doubt and say that while the creator knew he was making something that pushed it, he probably didn't know he actually crossed any lines. Either way, I can accept that it was censored, I just have to wonder why other things weren't.

2011-03-28 00:07:00 Author: nextlevel88 Posts: 149

---

oh yeah, this has nothing to do with the government. Nvm the first amendment defense then. I'll think of something else. Also, freedom of speech is a right which can be waived under a contract if the other party agrees to. Although private enterprises can't discriminate against people so a shop keeper couldn't legally kick out someone just because of their race.

2011-03-28 00:09:00 Author: Enlong3 Posts: 357

---

"Anything in an online world is fair game"... if you say so. You could use the same logic to argue against the need of moderators on this very forum. Why should they remove posts they deem inappropriate? Oh yes, of course, only to make this a nice family friendly community that everyone can enjoy being a part of. Yes... yes you could. Moderators are not needed in any forum. They do, however, tend to keep things a little less chaotic by moderating flamers and keeping arguments under control. Moderation of "inappropriate content" is completely optional, unnecessary, and up to the moderators' and administrator's discretion. We're talking about moderating based on opinion. If a moderator is of the opinion that something is inappropriate, they can remove it or change it at will. Just as I am of the opinion that such things should not be moderated from LBP. Creative freedom... Yes, some things should be moderated, but fear should not. It is, after-all, just a passing emotion. No, it's fact's that are unarguable. Opinions are totally arguable, that's why they are opinions... It is unarguable in the sense that you cannot tell me that my opinion is wrong. You seem to have not understood my meaning by that. Yes, but you also made that completely unfounded link between the ESRB's choice to add a disclaimer about online interactions with the notion that Sony shouldn't moderate their servers. I don't know what your theory is there, but it doesn't appear to make any sense tbh. It's a shame that not everything everyone says makes sense to everyone else, isn't it? I find it daft that people are trying to argue my opinion with me. I've shared an opinion, and if you don't agree with it, too bad. You don't have to. That doesn't mean you have to tell me that I'm wrong and use satire to try and bring my beliefs down. I've given my two cents, and have nothing further to contribute to this thread at this time. In light of this (and the fact that I'm on the verge of being attacked), I'll take my leave.

2011-03-28 00:16:00 Author: xero Posts: 2419

---

I'd also like to say this. Remember how MM technically own all levels on Littlebigplanet - so you cannot claim copyright? I mean, once you publish, technically it belongs to MM / Sony. Although that means they can do whatever they like with it, such as advertise, it also goes the other way. Meaning that it belongs to them, so they can be sued or whatever for the content displayed on LBP - such as copyrighted games being impersonated etc. So they will want to protect themselves. Also, the fact that it's declared PEGI online, means that they are basically telling parents that they are ok to let the little ones roam around LBP, and that they are making sure that the content is suitable. They have to do this, as they have basically agreed this with the age rating companies, so they have a certain amount of responsibility here.

2011-03-28 00:29:00 Author: standby250 Posts: 1113

---

I really don't know why people are still arguing over this, i found it all pretty simple to understand, and talking about it on a forum won't get Sony to change their minds, now if it just comes down to wanting to know how far you can push the ratings, like i said try to stay close to PG as possible, and if you don't know how far PG can go, I'd say go look it up on google/wiki. but yeah people have made topics like this before, they don't go anywhere. this is the LBP we got, love it or hate, it's not gonna change.

2011-03-28 00:39:00 Author: Lord-Dreamerz Posts: 4261

---

Online is either unrated or rate "M" or 18+ There should be no excuses for kids to good grief levels in LBP. It's not the communities fault, it's the parents. You do realise you need to be 18+ or have parental guidance to make a PSN account which gets you to these levels. So really, if parents are gonna good grief scary levels then don't let your child on PSN. Online is the Internet. The internet isn't safe and kids need to be told about the dangers of it. Also they need to learn to read and follow instructions. In Afraid he specifically said "12+ and mentioned that there will be some scary scenes" if you played a flashing light level which said that there will be flashing lights and had you epilepsy and got it. Would you sue if you had an epileptic fit? Probably but if you were warned before and failed to follow the warning then you're stuck and it's your own fault not the creator.

2011-03-28 00:51:00 Author: Apollo_xD Posts: 52

---

But SCEA is American. But SCEA will no longer have control over PSN as of the the beginning of the next month. (And no, that's no April Fool's joke.) I mean sure, it is gonna be handled by SNEA which is almost the same, but eh.

2011-03-28 00:54:00 Author: Silverleon Posts: 6707

---

But SCEA will no longer have control over PSN as of the the beginning of the next month. (And no, that's no April Fool's joke.) I mean sure, it is gonna be handled by SNEA which is almost the same, but eh. Oh yeah, anyone know the reason for this? Maybe we might get something out of it?

2011-03-28 00:58:00 Author: Enlong3 Posts: 357

---

Oh yeah, anyone know the reason for this? Maybe we might get something out of it? I THINK its meant to be another atempted countermeasure vs Haxors, at least that's what's expeculated, seems they had it with SCEA's mild ways and moderation.

2011-03-28 01:08:00 Author: Silverleon Posts: 6707

---

I think the whole SNEA thing is to prepare for integration with the NGP. They've basically done all they can against the hackers.

2011-03-28 02:26:00 Author: Sack-Jake Posts: 1153

---

Online is either unrated or rate "M" or 18+ ...So which is it? That covers pretty much the entire spectrum. There should be no reason for kids to have to good grief levels in LBP. It's not the communities fault, it's the creator. fixed it for ya You do realise you need to be 18+ or have parental guidance to make a PSN account which gets you to these levels. So really, if parents are gonna good grief scary levels then don't let your child on PSN. So what you are suggesting is that instead of moderating a few unruly levels, they should just not bother and create an environment in which kids can't play a kids game? Online is the Internet. Actually it is just the LBP community :/ The internet isn't safe and kids need to be told about the dangers of it. Its perfectly safe with a magical thing called moderation Also they need to learn to read and follow instructions. I think you need to go read a little about moderation. The very roots of this "petition" are a misguided attempt to guarder attention. You aren't even targeting the correct people. Mm cannot control moderation In Afraid he specifically said "12+ and mentioned that there will be some scary scenes" if you played a flashing light level which said that there will be flashing lights and had you epilepsy and got it. Would you sue if you had an epileptic fit? Probably but if you were warned before and failed to follow the warning then you're stuck and it's your own fault not the creator. The difference is intent and intent makes all the difference. Flashy levels and video games do not attempt to trigger epileptic fits. Meanwhile scary levels do intend to scare people.

2011-03-28 03:13:00 Author: Littlebigdude805 Posts: 1924

---

Did you let your son play the MM Pick "Vietnam FPS"? If so, why, and why didn't you report it? I'm simply asking, I'm not implying anything or being condescending in any way. I'm just curious. Nope, neither my son nor I have played it, so I can't comment on whether I would have "good griefed" it. Of course, "I" have never "good griefed" anything. I think I'm a fairly intelligent person, and I can look at other people's viewpoint. Generally, if something goes against my personal feelings I try to look at it from other people's perspective. I would only good grief something that I believed violates the rights of parents to protect their children from material that is generally considered offensive. I couldn't tell you whether Vietnam FPS falls under that category. If it had gruesome murder and blood, done in a way that could indelibly stamp nightmare inducing images in my child's thinking, than I would hope it was moderated. If it was "animated violence" without any gore, but still depicted you killing other people I would not moderate it, but I certainly would tell my son not to play it. The reason I made the comment above is that many people in this thread seem to forget that all parents aren't co-equal. Some parents let their children watch pg-13, R, Unrated.... even X rated material. There are parents that don't monitor what their children are doing, what they are invovled in, or what games they are playing. They allow their children to play games that realistically depict killing other people. I don't allow that. The reason I bought LittleBigPlanet in the FIRST place was because it was rated "E" and had a system in place that would make it fairly safe for me to allow my child to play it. In fact, I didn't buy it for myself. It certainly would be interesting to see what would happen if Sony set up a separate server that allowed mature content, which parental controls. I have a feeling it would be filled with levels that were designed JUST for shock value.

2011-03-28 03:32:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430

---

I gotta throw something in here. So here we go! Ever heard of this thing called the "EULA"? Read it, and then come back here please.

2011-03-28 04:08:00 Author: jalr2d2 Posts: 256

---

For horror levels I'd suggest putting any dodgy stuff later into the level and use the beginning to build atmosphere or tension or whatever. Younger or casual players likely won't bother going far into the level if it's "boring".

2011-03-28 04:16:00 Author: Ayneh Posts: 2454

---

A lot of interesting stuff. I appreciate your answer and applaud you for your active role in your what your child interacts with. It's because of parents like you that adults can still have adult things and not have to worry about corrupting children. I still stand behind what I said before, that it's odd what they choose to censor and what they choose to pass, but none of it matters as long as it's MM or Sony that's doing the censoring, not the community. What I mean by that is, when a level is reported, it's then played. If the moderator agrees, then it's removed. I just hope it's not a "report = ban, end of story".

2011-03-28 04:35:00 Author: nextlevel88 Posts: 149

---

Yes but then whether a level gets moderated will be on the shoulders of an opinionated, individual, human being. Which always gives people the image that some cyber bully (or troll) is sitting behind a computer looking for levels to devour. By analyzing the frequency of reports it is easier to find if a level is truly offensive to the community or not, and by leaving this task to a computer no one can blame an anonymous "troll" or more importantly Mm for that matter. What bothers me is that had it been any lesser level, we wouldn't be arguing. Just because it was popular doesn't make it any better than it is.

2011-03-28 05:16:00 Author: Littlebigdude805 Posts: 1924

---

I am glad that Sony is doing a wonderful job of keeping the LBP community suitable for people of all ages. I am grateful for all the hard work and dedication that is put into the moderation efforts to help keep the online community from corrupting young minds. Thank you Sony and MM.

2011-03-28 05:29:00 Author: Enlong3 Posts: 357

---

i think its hilarious how some ppl here are complaining how apalled they be to find someone playing this lvl...(would this really be the only one???) to have a master account on PSN you must b ATLEAST 18 n UP.... 18 AND PLUS.... everone wants to scim the rules here, but anyone here that owns a ps3 without being of legal age, is breaking the rules. so plzz... dont try and be the face of justice on ur high horse judging everyone else... YOU KNOW WHO U ARE.

2011-03-28 07:04:00 Author: XELLAmunster Posts: 89

---

I agree what the majority of people are saying, because around here rules aren't made to be bent. But is it me or do people seem to be a turning a blind eye from levels that are much much worse than this? Has anyone every played HORRID DESPAIR? Fantastic level, scared me more than any level has before. It includes blood and gore and makes your heart pumping fast. Its been played by 23,000 (both part 1 and part 2) people and apparently noone filed a greif report. How is that? Either the moderation people aren't doing their work right or somehow absolutely no one griefed it!? Not just horror level issues but copyright issues too, for goodness sake they Mm Picked a Zelda level! LBP.me link : HORRID DESPAIR Part 1: http://lbp.me/v/r2s9bc HORRID DESPAIR Part 2: http://lbp.me/v/svr3g4 But no denying that Afraid was a greatly made level, and its a shame it got moderated.

2011-03-28 07:36:00 Author: Crazed Creator Posts: 177

---

I've been waiting for this idea for ages. I didn't post as I thought mods would lock.

2011-03-28 07:41:00 Author: sackruler905 Posts: 103

---

... and it's ok to run through a level and murder 500 Vietnamese sack-people; in fact, they MM picked that. But a picture of a face covered in white paint with baggy eyes killing a sack person after the screen fades to black is unacceptable. I mean, why is it not only ok in the other levels, but actually encouraged with an MM Pick? Is it cuz sack people with army helmets on or rotting flesh are still cute, even when they're being riddled with bullets? ... Now now, you're over exaggerating, you do not murder, sure you're killing but they're fighting back. You're making it out as it's deaths are very gruesome "rotting flesh" "riddled with bullets?" please, they fall over when you shoot them (like in many community levels), make a little grunt and fade away. I've seen some levels were sackboy is stabed, spiked, squished to death, burnt to death, electrocuted, plasmafied... what a moment, don't most levels have this standard? The violence was so mild in my level, I made sure of it. I'm even trying to tone down a violent battle in a cutscene I'm making for a future level. The person who was being murdered by the ghost face was very disturbing in Afraid and I agree with the moderation, it was no way suitable for kids too see.

2011-03-28 11:34:00 Author: PPp_Killer Posts: 449

---

When I think how many kids are out there gunning each other down in cold blood, over and over again, for several hours a day on Black Ops, while many of the mature, adult gamers are over here playing LBP, this whole debate seems ridiculous. My 13 year old son is one of those kids. He likes LBP and plays it time to time, but his friends think it's a game for wussies and among his age group, Black Ops is considered the coolest thing ever, so that's what he mostly plays. I didn't agree to my son having Black Ops. My wife felt that he would be left out of his peer group by not letting him play it, which would do more damage to his development than being exposed to "mature" content, and perhaps she's right...I don't know. Age ratings on games are a futile exercise. That capital M for mature only tells a kid, "this is the game you need to get if you want your peers to think you're cool", and by hook or by crook they will find a way to play it. It was only a couple of years ago I stood in the local games shop and witnessed a mother buying her son GTA4 for christmas. The kid looked about 7 years old at most, but she didn't ask the shop staff if it was appropriate and they didn't remind her that it wasn't. Most parents (in the UK at least) are pretty liberal minded (or plain ignorant) about what their kids are exposed to nowadays, and most game shops will make a quick buck whenever they can. I think it's absurd though, that a parent would let their kid play LBP and then complain when that kid is exposed to a scary face. This game is based around user made content that until you as a "responsible" parent have checked it out yourself could contain anything at all (I once played a level that featured graphic sexual acts). If you're gonna let your kid hang out in a playground that you've never been to, don't complain when they get injured on faulty, dangerous equipment.

2011-03-28 12:11:00 Author: Ungreth Posts: 2130

---

If LBP: Filth was ever released.. oh the fun Ungreth and I would have! We would be the top creators in it we would! 1 of the first lvls ive seen was actually an lbp stripclub... YES u heard me rite. first lvl i ever GG'd Ungreth, someone didn't like stiff pistons. When I think how many kids are out there gunning each other down in cold blood, over and over again, for several hours a day on Black Ops, while many of the mature, adult gamers are over here playing LBP, this whole debate seems ridiculous. My 13 year old son is one of those kids. He likes LBP and plays it time to time, but his friends think it's a game for wussies and among his age group, Black Ops is considered the coolest thing ever, so that's what he mostly plays. I didn't agree to my son having Black Ops. My wife felt that he would be left out of his peer group by not letting him play it, which would do more damage to his development than being exposed to "mature" content, and perhaps she's right...I don't know. Age ratings on games are a futile exercise. That capital M for mature only tells a kid, "this is the game you need to get if you want your peers to think you're cool", and by hook or by crook they will find a way to play it. It was only a couple of years ago I stood in the local games shop and witnessed a mother buying her son GTA4 for christmas. The kid looked about 7 years old at most, but she didn't ask the shop staff if it was appropriate and they didn't remind her that it wasn't. Most parents (in the UK at least) are pretty liberal minded (or plain ignorant) about what their kids are exposed to nowadays, and most game shops will make a quick buck whenever they can. I think it's absurd though, that a parent would let their kid play LBP and then complain when that kid is exposed to a scary face. This game is based around user made content that until you as a "responsible" parent have checked it out yourself could contain anything at all (I once played a level that featured graphic sexual acts). If you're gonna let your kid hang out in a playground that you've never been to, don't complain when they get injured on faulty, dangerous equipment. I <3 you. If Ungreth and I published half of the stuff we made in LBP you would all CRY! We put that silly level to shame in graphic content! Don't even get me STARTED on the underground thing we were thinking about..

2011-03-28 12:36:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800

---

It's good to see this topic is finally started. It should to happen that very popular level been damaged (moderated) to run a discussion wich long ago was supposed to start. There are quite a number of moderated levels. What they have in common? Neither violence nor unacceptable content, no nudity ... common is that there is no criterion or any explanation for such a violent (moderating) approach. It does not matter whether it is MM or Sony did. In 'Afraid' only 'scary' face was changed, and all the horror / scary content remained the same! This obviously was not about a violent or similar content, but something else. I am aware of the EULA, but this thread and this petition should be about the rights to be informed and warned about moderating, and giving the LBP community explanations and reasons for moderating (deletion of levels !!!). This would help 'moderated' authors and all others to know what can't do in their creations. (Or, as already mentioned in this thread, only a few authors can do some things, others not ?). That's at least they could do to a community that has paid big money (cummulative, ofcourse) to participate in LBP world and really contributed to the popularity of the game!

2011-03-28 13:40:00 Author: goranilic Posts: 332

---

Before I start, I want to say I have no problem with Afraid and this is simply my opinion on the matter. Personally I'd have no problem with my 8 year old daughter watching this film. There are no references of any nature that can be considered unfit for any person of any age. It's a good healthy scary story. The 'bad guy' is a ghost. Something that can't be proven to exist in the real world. I would be more concerned if it was a human being that was hunting the two guys but still nowhere near enough to good grief it. I want to point out some similarities with Afraid and The Lost demo which is amazing by the way by Standby250 who has been posting in this thread. There is blood in both levels and there is a news anchor reporting on murders in both levels although The Lost doesn't mention the word 'murdered'. I'd like to also mention that both creators advise the viewer or player that they consider the content of their level to be viewed or played by no one under the age of 12. The similarities in these two levels and that Vietnam FPS level bring me to my main argument which somebody has already touched on. Consistency. For some levels to be praised by the developers and one to be moderated is joke in my opinion. Afraid had no more 'mature' content in it than either of the other two levels I've just mentioned. Kids are exposed to more horrors on the news these days at any time of the day than they ever will be in Afraid. These are only my opinions however and are not meant to offend anybody. The main reason I believe it was moderated though is because of it's exposure to many players. I really do think that you could have a level as harmless as Gummi bears but if it got many Good Grief reports it'd get moderated for this reason and not for it's content. Also I want to say that I agree that they can moderate anything they want but when there is so much inconsistency it'll never be right.

2011-03-28 13:49:00 Author: shindol Posts: 78

---

Emmm.. Afraid probably didnt been moderated because that it was scary.... it had a drastic blood scenes. If he remove bloddy scenes it would probably go Buh, LBP2 got PEGI Scary mark so it should be no problem with that Yea It PEGI 7 (aka E) game and both Sony and MM can't help it, or else they will be in trouble.

2011-03-28 15:11:00 Author: Shadowriver Posts: 3991

---

"Online interactions are not rated by the ESRB" You are given fair warning. We could definately do with an option to publish with a "Mature Warning" that would eliminate the level from searches for people with perental control filters on. It's difficult to 2nd guess what people 'will' find offensive - and by the sounds of it - the community has been deprived of an awesome level just because some kid has a weak constitution. Having to bite your tongue or think "Can I put that in my level?" is self censorship and kills creativity - let it all slide I say - and then allow something to be rated as "Mature" when publishing it, so only people allowed to view mature content will be able to see it. Not to say that the content will be 'mature' - but we are talking about cartoon violence here - as I've yet to see any 'realistic' depictions of violence in LBP.

2011-03-28 15:18:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

This is the description of a 7 rated game from PEGI so people have an idea of what is acceptable to publish. PEGI 7 Any game that would normally be rated at 3 but contains some possibly frightening scenes or sounds may be considered suitable in this category. Some scenes of partial nudity may be permitted but never in a sexual context.

2011-03-28 15:37:00 Author: shindol Posts: 78

---

So even by the PEGI-7 rating, the level should have been allowed then?! I remember I once built a Mighty Boosh level in LBP but didn;t publish it because one of the Boss Men was a giant boxing Kangaroo who's testicals you had to squeeze in order to defeat. It was harmless, (innocent) fun - and in case anyone hadn;t noticed - Kangaroos really do have testicals - I didn't create them that way But I never published the level as I was so sure that some hyper-sensitive do-gooder would Good-Grief the level. I have seen more sexually explicit things on childrens nature shows - it's all subjective

2011-03-28 15:43:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

I've been waiting for this idea for ages. I didn't post as I thought mods would lock. Your benevolent overlords have had a change of heart, it seems. As long as your posts are within the rules (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=21530-Rules-Consequences) and guidelines (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=36936-Moderation-Policy-Overhaul), why would we have a problem with this? ...What they have in common? Neither violence nor unacceptable content, no nudity ... common is that there is no criterion or any explanation for such a violent (moderating) approach. It does not matter whether it is MM or Sony did. In 'Afraid' only 'scary' face was changed, and all the horror / scary content remained the same! This obviously was not about a violent or similar content, but something else. I am aware of the EULA, but this thread and this petition should be about the rights to be informed and warned about moderating, and giving the LBP community explanations and reasons for moderating (deletion of levels !!!). This would help 'moderated' authors and all others to know what can't do in their creations. (Or, as already mentioned in this thread, only a few authors can do some things, others not ?). That's at least they could do to a community that has paid big money (cummulative, ofcourse) to participate in LBP world and really contributed to the popularity of the game! I would suggest making this an official suggestion over on GetSatisfaction (http://getsatisfaction.com/littlebigplanet), then. It's the best way to get their attention, rather than this little thread on LBPC. Before I start, I want to say I have no problem with Afraid and this is simply my opinion on the matter. Personally I'd have no problem with my 8 year old daughter watching this film. There are no references of any nature that can be considered unfit for any person of any age. The majority of the film, yes... but blood and simulated mutilation, and the description of such an act by the news anchor? I'd rather have to deal with the monster in the closet or the boogey man than have to explain this. In my opinion, the story could have been equally effective without these plot points. Take the blood away from the crime scene, the news anchor's description of the crime, and the squishy sounds during the mutilation and decapitated limb, and I'd agree with you. That being said, as a fellow parent it is not my right to tell you that you are wrong. We may certainly disagree (which we do, I believe) but what is acceptable to you is your choice. I'd still prefer to have a moderation system in which questionable levels can be scrutinized. ...The main reason I believe it was moderated though is because of it's exposure to many players. I really do think that you could have a level as harmless as Gummi bears but if it got many Good Grief reports it'd get moderated for this reason and not for it's content.If this were true, the Good Grief system would be abused by "clans" or groups of people looking to disparage individual creators for otherwise harmless content. I don't have any recollection of any previous precedent on this, do you? Also I want to say that I agree that they can moderate anything they want but when there is so much inconsistency it'll never be right.Nothing designed by humans will ever truly be perfect. Such is the nature of our frailties. I would only ask this: would you prefer there were no moderation at all? Surely some sort of a system in place is better than none, no? EDIT - @Apollo_xD: You created a level to complain about this in addition to this thread? Again, if this is so important to you, I would suggest you open or follow this topic on GetSatisfaction (http://getsatisfaction.com/littlebigplanet) already. A level in LBP2 is not the best way to get MM/Sony's attention.

2011-03-28 16:12:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239

---

This is the description of a 7 rated game from PEGI so people have an idea of what is acceptable to publish. PEGI 7 Any game that would normally be rated at 3 but contains some possibly frightening scenes or sounds may be considered suitable in this category. Some scenes of partial nudity may be permitted but never in a sexual context. Does this mean no violence?

2011-03-28 19:31:00 Author: Fishrock123 Posts: 1578

---

[color=blue]It is unarguable in the sense that you cannot tell me that my opinion is wrong. ... In light of this (and the fact that I'm on the verge of being attacked), I'll take my leave. I'm just gonna touch on this before moving on. In no way did I tell you your opinion was wrong or attack you. I posted an alternative interpretation of the fact that you seemed to base your original opinion on, i.e. I presented a differing opinion to yours. I'm sorry, I tend to assume that people who post their opinions on Internet discussion forums might be interested in discussing those opinions (and others) on the Internet.... In no way was intended to be an assault to your strongly held beliefs. Sooooo, moving on ... If you're gonna let your kid hang out in a playground that you've never been to, don't complain when they get injured on faulty, dangerous equipment. Yes parents have to take responsibility for their kids and there is a hell of a lot of blame culture centered around parents pointing the finger at any abstract scapegoat when they screw up the upbringing of their kid, but is there no middle ground though? For example, you don't wanna send your kid off into the playground without checking that it's not a deathtrap, sure. But at the same time, is it not natural for a parent to be glad that the people responsible for the upkeep of the playground are actually looking after it? Should parents want to have to vet every teacher that their kids come into contact with, or feel that they have to sit in the classroom next to them to (overbearingly) protect them, or is it better for parents to have enough trust in the school to believe that the chances are nothing bad is gonna happen when they drop their kid off each day? Moving closer to the topic at hand, into the realms of media, is it so very bad that parents can assume that around 4PM, there's not gonna be anything particularly nasty on the TV? Or should parents be expected to pre-record every show just in case someone slips a random showing of A Serbian Film in there? Of course, there are no guarantees, many kids shows and daytime shows are live, or have live components, in which anything could happen, but it's generally reasonable to assume that the people producing such entertainment material, marketing it for children and then profiting on it, should exercise some effort to just make sure it's actually suitable for the audience? Even if the only reason they do so is to secure their continued profitability. It's reasonable for a parent to expect that. So why not a video game? Make no mistake, the fact that LBP2 comes out rated as a 7+ is not an accident. Sony didn't sit there and just go "ah, make whatever Media Molocule, the ratings will be what they will be, we don't care!" No, they will have specifically targeted that market. Why then, would they target the 7+ market but then not make some effort to prevent the stuff rated above that (yes, even the stuff that has a 12+ disclaimer on it. Seriously, you think highlighting that your stuff is inappropriate is a get out of jail free card?) isn't present. Of course, there are still no guarantees, and the nature of UGC means that Sony has less control over the content than the TV networks broadcasting afternoon kiddy shows, but they can have some control and influence. The simple fact that there is a moderation system in place and that it is understood vaguely what is considered appropriate due to age ratings, discourages many people from publishing some of their creations that they know aren't suitable (see various anecdotes from this thread). Other things, that genuinely aren't suitable (that rat porn thing, for eg.), get removed. Overall the state of the community is that the vast majority of material is kept within stuff that is around the 7+ age rating. Which means that, whilst parents can't be assured that their kids won't stumble upon something unexpected, the vast majority of the content is going to be in line with their reasonable expectations for what might appear in a 7+ game. And I think it's also reasonable to make the observation that the vast majority of the UGC in LBP is within the bounds of what is considered acceptable for this age rating. So based upon that, based upon the fact that the behemoth corporation that is Sony has decided it is most profitable in their best interests to continue with a moderation policy that keeps the age-related rating in place, what exactly do we think that complaints about moderation of things that might, maybe, be considered scary will achieve? Especially when so many of the arguments presented here are almost insubstantial in their weight. So then let's look at some of the arguments why "no moderation should be carried out at all", which seems to be a popular viewpoint in this thread. Someone mentioned that it's "against the rules" for anyone under the age of 18 to own a PS3. It's really not. Yes, the holder of a master account should be over 18, but it's perfectly acceptable for an under 18 to own the PS3 hardware and have a sub account. And none of that has anything to do with Sony's moderation policy. We've also scratched off the 1st amendment argument and until someone can actually explain the "ESRB doesn't rate online content" using anything other than Underpants Gnomes logic (http://www.apostropher.com/blog/img/underpants-gnomes-business-model.png) I'm happy to call that nonsense as well. The "that one kid was probably just a wuss" argument is both inaccurate (it take multiple good griefs to get a level taken down automagically) and, along with the similar "who cares if some kid gets upset", basically little more than a trollpost. That the internet itself is unmoderated: Again, this has no bearing on how individual organisations choose to run their corners of it and there are plenty of websites where a parent can reasonably allow their child to go to without being subjected to "anything under the sun" So, let's move on to the "restrictions on free expression" (or variants thereof). It's not. No one is stopping you from expressing yourself, creating whatever you want to and showing it to whoever you want to. What you have been restricted from doing is publishing that expression. Which is no different to any other publisher, be that print, web, televisual or whatever, from refusing to publish or host your material - it's not a fundamental violation of your creative expression. Of course, that the LBP servers are the only place that you can publish you LBP creations (unless they are non-interactive videos, in which case it's perfectly possible to publish externally, in which case you will most likely be able to get away with a lot more, I'm never 100% sure what the license has to say about that) means that you are stuck with not being able to find an alternative publisher, as you would normally be able to in other forms of media. But then, if that's the best defense you have, then maybe it could be written off as "your own silly fault" for deciding to create your masterpiece in a medium that has such known restrictions? Now to the argument of "if this level was moderated, why wasn't x" or "why was x level that genuinely contained nothing that anyone could possibly consider pushing it moderated". Because the moderation system is broken. In amongst all the half baked protests that "anything goes on the internet", there is a very valid discussion to be had on the inconsistent and non-transparent nature of the moderation system. We have been told that after a given number of good grief reports, a level will be automatically marked as moderated. From various peoples' experience, often no communication is made that the level has been moderated, or any explanation of why - not to mention that the timescales for turnaround apparently range into the infinite. This is something that needs to be changed. If anything should be petitioned its the non-transparency and the ridiculous time it takes for the Moderators to actually respond to the auto-moderated content. Not only that, as far as we are aware, no punishment is ever actually given out to those who grief for no good reason (a stupid scenario, as not punishing those that abuse the system makes more work for yourself as moderator, though, that does give the moderators credit that they actually do any work at all, which is itself debatable). Then there is the lack of appeals process... Lots of issues with the way in which the moderation process is run. If this were true, the Good Grief system would be abused by "clans" or groups of people looking to disparage individual creators for otherwise harmless content. I don't have any recollection of any previous precedent on this, do you? This has happened many times. For every genuinely well OTT level or creation that has been moderated appropriately, there is at least one other that is well within the bounds of acceptability where the only conceivable reason for moderation is grief reports made out of spite. Also, for those of you wondering what the stance on Copyrighted content is, there is a good reason why that is inconsistent. The nature of copyright and the responsibilities of hosters of online UGC is inherently inconsistent. Sony isn't required to moderate a copyright violation unless the copyright holder requests that they do. Of course, if your level containing copyrighted material is griefed enough times to reach the auto-mod limit, then you're out of luck too. not to mention the further complications brought about by this: Also, a few companies I can't mention approached us and said, "we want to whitelist ourselves. Please, unless we get really, really offended and come and tell you, we want you to whitelist our levels and never pull them." Like, gaming IP holders. And that was an awesome reaction, to have that level of understanding and support, that the game industry understands that a good level in LittleBigPlanet is a good thing for your IP. I can't condone it because I'm not the owner of that IP, but ultimately, we made the tools available to the IP holders. If they don't like their IP being infringed, we'll immediately remove it. But some enlightened people have realized that a good LBP level can add some value to their brand, and that's great. There was supposed to be more flow to that post, but it got too long and I got bored and bailed on it (there might also be some half-finished sentences in there - feel free to fill in the blanks with something insightful and witty). But yeah, petitioning for "no moderation", or petitioning "against MM" (whatever that means?) or even petitioning "against the moderation of content that might be considered kinda edgey for the age rating of game and even the creator labeled it as unsuitable" seems to be just random ranting with no real purpose - it's not gonna change anything. And all the posts trying to justify that Sony should have no moderation system in place at all. It all comes down to the same thing as someone asking you to take your shoes of in their house. Sure you can stomp around in your boots and tell them they are wrong, but don't be surprised if you find yourself out on your ****. It also most likely serves as hindrance to the cause of moderation reform. By venting about things being moderated that are genuinely on the edge of what is reasonable (judging from an rough average of opinions expressed, rather than any one individual opinion), it smothers the genuine issues that we really should be raising to Sony, about the entire process of moderation, the lack of communication that the moderators provide and the interfaces given to users for moderation. Oh, and just before I go, I'd like to point out that these are my opinions so you can't tell me I'm wrong Nah, just kidding, go for it if ya wanna

2011-03-28 20:41:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

@schm0 As I said in my post I do agree that the game needs moderation. It's true, nothing designed by humans will ever be perfect but when a level such as Vietnam FPS that is in line with a PEGI 12 rating is Mm picked and Afraid which is also in the same category is moderated then it's a little contradicting. If whoever moderate's this game thought Afraid was a little too much for people to play then I respect their decision regardless of my opinion but it then need's to go across the whole board. I understand that a lot of underplayed levels that need moderating go under the radar but Vietnam FPS has been picked by somebody at Mm so it's under the moderators nose. Now I don't agree that either of these levels should be moderated or should have been moderated but there needs to be a lot more consistency in the system. There are kids playing Vietnam FPS now waving a realistic AK-47 at sacbots and pulling the trigger for a kill. If this is less alarming to moderators than a fantasy ghost story then I'm not to sure what else I can say.

2011-03-28 21:30:00 Author: shindol Posts: 78

---

This has happened many times. For every genuinely well OTT level or creation that has been moderated appropriately, there is at least one other that is well within the bounds of acceptability where the only conceivable reason for moderation is grief reports made out of spite. I'm not saying it hasn't. Rather, I was wondering more if anyone had any actual documented proof of said behavior. Anecdotal evidence is one thing, but in each case I've seen where a level has been moderated, the creator always has a really poor excuse: "I just made a dirty joke, it wasn't that bad" or "Just cuz I used the nazi symbol a couple times lolz I hate MM" or something to that effect. Granted I haven't been exposed to the LBP community for as long as some of you have, but it's really only been two and a half years since the game was released. (I admit I'm somewhat of a noob when it comes to "things that happened in the LBP community before I owned a copy of the game.") Furthermore, if this does indeed work, why wasn't this tactic used on the Stephanie_Ravens' levels that everyone deplored so much? @shindol: Thanks for the clarification! I certainly agree, there's lots of gray area out there. There's more I could write, but that last sentence pretty much sums it up.

2011-03-28 21:57:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239

---

I'm not saying it hasn't. Rather, I was wondering more if anyone had any actual documented proof of said behavior. ACTUAL documented proof is virtually impossible, since we don't have access to servers. HOWEVER, undocumented.... there was a period last year where a number of high profile levels were moderated.... including one from Anposteller and one by Steve_Big_Guns on the top of highest rated. Spaff even posted on this site saying it "was a mess". MrsSpookyBuz mentioned to me privately that a few had confessed to her they were part of a group that was doing it, and she said she was disappointed to find out at least 1 was a member of this site. I BELIEVE there was disciplinary action taken, but it was all a bit hush-hush at the time. Spaff made it perfectly clear that if people were doing it out of spite, and not for legitimate reasons, they would be disciplined (i.e.... banned?).

2011-03-28 23:20:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430

---

Now now, you're over exaggerating, you do not murder, sure you're killing but they're fighting back. You're making it out as it's deaths are very gruesome "rotting flesh" "riddled with bullets?" please, they fall over when you shoot them (like in many community levels), make a little grunt and fade away. I've seen some levels were sackboy is stabed, spiked, squished to death, burnt to death, electrocuted, plasmafied... what a moment, don't most levels have this standard? The violence was so mild in my level, I made sure of it. I'm even trying to tone down a violent battle in a cutscene I'm making for a future level. The person who was being murdered by the ghost face was very disturbing in Afraid and I agree with the moderation, it was no way suitable for kids too see. But killing is killing, whether they fade away like a Jedi or get crushed by a stone, they're dead, and you killed them. I have no problem with your level, in fact I use it as a model of what can be done in this game when I show it to people. But regardless of how little detail you put into the deaths, you're still taking a real-world weapon and shooting real-world bullets -not paint- at cute, cuddly sackbots named after a real-world nationality based on a real-world altercation. This is something that would be much more likely to earn an "M" or "T" rating from the ESRB, depending on blood. The rotting flesh thing was about the million and one zombie levels, not yours. But speaking of blood and rotting flesh: The majority of the film, yes... but blood and simulated mutilation, and the description of such an act by the news anchor? I'd rather have to deal with the monster in the closet or the boogey man than have to explain this. In my opinion, the story could have been equally effective without these plot points. Take the blood away from the crime scene, the news anchor's description of the crime, and the squishy sounds during the mutilation and decapitated limb, and I'd agree with you. I agree, I wouldn't have had the grisly details in the newscast, and I would've cut to black and just had a scream at the end of the movie. What you don't or can't see in horror is always scarier than what you can. But I digress... The dismembered limb was given to us by MM as part of the scary Monsters pack. When you put the zombie costume on a sackbot, it's brain hangs out of its head. Literally, exposed organs. There are skulls available as objects. Sure, the singing, dancing Halloween skeletons are hilarious, but don't forget, a skull is also what's left behind by a decapitated head. However, I guess I really could've saved myself the typing and just quoted this for emphasis, cuz it's all I've been saying since my first post in this thread: Now to the argument of "if this level was moderated, why wasn't x" or "why was x level that genuinely contained nothing that anyone could possibly consider pushing it moderated". Because the moderation system is broken. There are a ton more great points in rtm's post. There needs to be moderation, there's no question about it. But in order for these creations to have a sense of excitement and fun, there needs to be danger, emotions need to be triggered (fear included), altercations need to occur, tension needs to mount, things need to be attacked and destroyed, there has to be good and evil, etc. In order to create these things and still stay within the guidelines, they need to be more clearly defined and more consistently enforced. That is a petition I'd be willing to sign (if I was a petition-signing kind of guy, that is...).

2011-03-29 01:17:00 Author: nextlevel88 Posts: 149

---

I am against the petition. Having been a long time moderator on a site that has very wide variety of age groups I know that people have differing reactions to gore/violence/horror/sexually orientated material etc. Not just from one age group to another, but within age groups. What one 11 year old may find acceptable, another may find utterly horrifying. Even if there were to be separate groups for different ages, there would still be Grief Reports frpm people who objected to something, even though it was within their appropriate age range. Having separate groups would make things much more difficult for Sony to moderate as well. One would assume that the age group into which each level was categorised would chosen by the creator. This would be dependent on each creators on views on what would be an acceptable group to place it in. Again, as different people have different views on what would be acceptable, there would be a high chance of things being put in the wrong group, which would only lead to confusion. The alternative would be that all levels were vetted and grouped by Sony, which would mean unimaginable delays in levels becoming available to play. I also think that partitioning off LBP would also fracture it, which IMO would be detrimental to the LBP experience. Older, more knowledgeable creators, with a greater understanding of logic and such things could end up making more adult themed levels, which would be unavailable to younger players. This would create a situation where younger players could only experience levels created by less advanced creators, meaning they could end up with a second rate experience. I know these are sweeping statements, and is based on the assumption that older creators wouldn't create for the younger players, but they do show what a worst case scenario could be. Not everything fun has to be splattered with the blood of a hundred sack-bot corpses xD I say keep LBP the same for everyone, as it was intended to be.

2011-03-29 02:27:00 Author: Caleneledh Posts: 15

---

So I was going over the new EULA that will have to be affirmed by all PSN users come April 1st and I thought there were some pretty restrictive rules outlined out in it. One of the biggest agreements that I noticed is that people must agree not to use any external devices with their PS3 to access the PSN unless it is either made or licensed by Sony. This means no keyboards, controllers, intercoolers, etc from third parties may be used with a PS3 to access the PSN. Another thing I found to be kind of overstepping the boundries is that Sony can claim a right to any user material that is the sole creation of a PSN user. We must give Sony the right to use, distribute, copy, modify, display, and publish anything that we make without payment to the rightful creator. Sony can also give the right to its third parties to use our creations. Furthermore, we must waive all claims against Sony including any moral rights. Lastly, Sony reserves the right to remove any information or User Material at its sole discretion. So Sony doesn't allow us to use their software/content with any special rights but they can have all the rights they want with our creations without even having to compensate us. Whatever we make with Sony's software automatically gives them special rights to use it be it for commercial purposes. That's like saying Photoshop has a special right to use whatever image you create using their software without having to compensate the rightful owner. For these reasons, certain elements of the EULA contract should be considered unenforceable as they are unconscionable. Firstly, the parties engaged in the contract do not have any level of bargaining power between themselves and Sony. The EULA, which can be classified as an adhesion contract, does not allow the adhering party to have any opportunity to negotiate the certain rights that Sony automatically entitles themselves to without proper compensation to the rightful owner. Sony's vastly superior bargaining power comes to a disadvantage to the end user who has virtually no other choice to accept the agreement if they wish to take full advantage of the product they rightfully paid for and are entitled to. The creators of the intellectual property within Sony's software should be entitled to the exclusive right to their creations and should not be so harshly subjected to submit to Sony's EULA which is heavily balanced to their advantage. There is clearly a substantially unequal bargaining power between the two parties and enforcing such terms would be unfair to the rightful creators of the Intellectual Property. Sony's agreement unfairly deprives the end user of the exclusive right to their creations with no compensation to them. It is clear that Sony has overstepped their boundaries therefore there are certain provisions within the EULA that should not be adhered to. Sony cannot influence us on how to use the hardware that we have rightfully paid for and possess as our private property. Sony should not be able to claim the rights to our intellectual property nor tell us to waive all claims against them from unjustly enriching themselves with our creations with no compensation to the owner. I just wanted people to be aware of this and to note that the views expressed in this post in no way reflect the actual opinions, values or beliefs of the poster and are made of a purely controversial nature with the intent to incite productive discussion. All assertions stated above are of opinion and are in no way meant to represent actual fact. I do not warrant that the above information is correct nor accurate.

2011-03-29 04:46:00 Author: Enlong3 Posts: 357

---

@Enlong: You never really sat down and read the EULA before, have you? These types of protections are pretty standard for any major corporation who enters into an agreement with the public. It's to protect them from lawsuits and endless litigation. It's also meant to be broad and powerful. You are right about one thing. Sony can't influence you to do anything in that contract. They're just legally protected (and obligated to act, in certain cases) if you decide to break the agreement in any way. You summed it up yourself: ...accept the agreement if (you) wish to take full advantage of the product (you) rightfully paid for and are entitled to.This is pretty standard across any complex legal agreement you enter into, such as purchasing a car or opening a credit card. You've just discovered what it means to "read the fine print." If you'd like to design high-end gaming hardware/software and allow it's purchasers to do whatever they want, by all means, have at it. Just make sure you get a good lawyer.

2011-03-29 05:20:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239

---

If LBP: Filth was ever released.. oh the fun Ungreth and I would have! We would be the top creators in it we would! Ungreth, someone didn't like stiff pistons. lol i liked stiff pistons... im talkin about 2 or 3 years ago... an actual cutout naked sack yadda yadda lol

2011-03-29 05:25:00 Author: XELLAmunster Posts: 89

---

@Enlong: You never really sat down and read the EULA before, have you? These types of protections are pretty standard for any major corporation who enters into an agreement with the public. It's to protect them from lawsuits and endless litigation. It's also meant to be broad and powerful. You are right about one thing. Sony can't influence you to do anything in that contract. They're just legally protected (and obligated to act, in certain cases) if you decide to break the agreement in any way. You summed it up yourself: This is pretty standard across any complex legal agreement you enter into, such as purchasing a car or opening a credit card. You've just discovered what it means to "read the fine print." If you'd like to design high-end gaming hardware/software and allow it's purchasers to do whatever they want, by all means, have at it. Just make sure you get a good lawyer. I did read the EULA, up to the point where everything got boring and I got tired of reading it. You're right, these are pretty standard protections, I agree but it is important to remember that not all protections are protected from being enforced. The more broader they are, the more vulnerable they are to be unenforceable. Their attempts at avoiding litigation is just making me want to litigate them more and more to be honest. Consumers have rights too you know, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that those rights are enforced, as soon as someone tells me what those rights are. P.S. Open Source software

2011-03-29 05:34:00 Author: Enlong3 Posts: 357

---

just dont publish the levels or lock them

2011-03-29 07:12:00 Author: Renegade Assassin Posts: 19

---

Whatever we make with Sony's software automatically gives them special rights to use it be it for commercial purposes. Yep, which has always been the case with LBP. That's like saying Photoshop has a special right to use whatever image you create using their software without having to compensate the rightful owner. If Adobe decided to add this to their license then yes it would be enforcable. Of course, the reason they don't is because they would sell less copies of photoshop However, it is possible to buy a license to photoshop that inherently has restrictions on how extensive your intellectual rights are - if you buy a student license to photoshop, you will agree to restrictions to some of your intellectual property rights as a matter of course. This is not to the extent that Adobe can utilise your IP for their own purposes, but it serves as strong example that software licences often restrict your default IP rights. Other examples from the world of software: It's perfectly common and reasonable for source code and binary libraries to come with source that restrict your ability to profit from, or even redistribute derivative works... Yes, indeed, Sony could, if they wanted to, charge you for publishing levels on their server. I can't, off the top of my head, think up a specific example of another software license in which intellectual property is automatically granted to a service provider by a customer (though I don't doubt that they exist), but there are parallels elsewhere. For example, generally, images / recordings of your likeness (including photographs, sound recordings, video etc.) are all protected in various ways. However, if you go to a concert, if you pay money to go to the concert, you normally waive many of those rights. By purchasing a ticket and choosing to attend the event, you transfer certain rights to your likeness to the organisers of the concert, who can video you, record you, reproduce and redistribute those recordings, and even profit from your likeness, without further consent being required or renumeration being transferred to you. Which sounds pretty familiar, no? Sure somethings aren't legally binding, and consumers have rights some of which can't be waived. However, intellectual property is something that you absolutely can choose to transfer to another person and many, if not most, people do so on a daily basis, in one way or another... And yes, I did read the disclaimer at the end of your first post

2011-03-29 12:03:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

Anyway, I still remember the LBP Filth idea from the same MM guys. LOL Make a premium DLC for people over 18 and we're all set

2011-03-29 12:21:00 Author: OmegaSlayer Posts: 5112

---

Make a premium DLC for people over 18 and we're all set Like CoD and all M games it still be full of 70% kids~

2011-03-29 14:24:00 Author: Lord-Dreamerz Posts: 4261

---

I was worried about this...I started a 'Zombie Level' unlike any other, but had to put it on hold because it was way too scary...It had lots of very gory decomposed corpses and gave the player several different weapons to blow the brains out the back of the head or flamethrower to set them on fire...I wanted to make a really scary level that was like 'Revenge of the living Dead', 'C.H.U.D', or John Carpenters 'The Thing', but it even freaked me out while making it because it was so detailed. I knew it would be taken down.It would be nice to of had an M rating release of LBP2 so that these types of levels won't get pulled. Does anyone know who the LBP2 moderators are?

2011-03-29 22:39:00 Author: hungryhippo Posts: 76

---

I'm actually very surprised that Afraid got taken down. . . sort of. I've seen waaaaay worse levels (as far as gore, etc.) - just search "Mature", "18+" on LBP1 and you'll find some pretty wild and perverse levels. Some are actually quite well made, just as Afraid was. In fact, I think the only thing in Afraid that was over the top for little ones was the blood that came pouring out of the doorway. I think MM would have left it alone if it was just the scary face. However, the only real difference between this one and other scary levels is that this one was on Cool Pages. It was simply too public for MM to let it go after, I assume, some complained. It's too bad, cause it was a well made and fun level. But, if you want to make a level for "adults" - the best thing you can do is keep it from getting on the Cool Pages.

2011-03-30 00:08:00 Author: CYMBOL Posts: 1230

---

Guess it would still be removed even if you put a title screen warning the players before the level begins, or an agreement to enter at there own risk type of deal...

2011-03-30 04:14:00 Author: hungryhippo Posts: 76

---

Geohot will prove you guys wrong, you just wait and see. Thankfully there are still people out there that fight for our rights against huge, power-hungry corporations who think they have all the power over the minority group - the consumers. We are puppets to them and its about time that someone broke from their strings and attacked the puppeteer. The only problem is that I think Sony is bribing the courts with all the money they have because the court doesn't seem fond of ruling in geohot's favor like ever. It just goes to show how powerful and influential corporations can be and that it becomes necessary sometimes to put an end to their domination by sticking it to the man.

2011-03-30 05:42:00 Author: Enlong3 Posts: 357

---

YEAH RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE MICRO$OFT $ONY!!!111 Uggggh,... yeah a guy that makes rap batlte videos about companies is the savior of electronic rights or whatever, I hope the guy that manages to bring about this "great" change manages to present himself as more than a attention seeker looking for e-fame and paypal donations. if LBP2 didn't have any moderation or protection systems it would fail apart, we have already seen what happens when one or two people mange to hijack things back in the first game I'd hate to see that repeat itself on a larger scale. That said MM needs to come clean about the abuse of the moderation systems, I assume they are working on but don't want to talk about it for annoying PR reasons.

2011-03-30 06:14:00 Author: BinaryStarman Posts: 6

---

This game was rated E for a reason. If they started introducing things such as what you mentioned, LittleBigPlanet would be alot worse in my opinion. At the minute it was fine, and the kid getting scared was a one off. It was going to happen dispite the warning given in the level description. The system is fine at the minute but I do think the levels that are picked for MM picks are a joke, some of them have the most usless gameplay i've ever had the misfortune to play. Also cool pages, some of the most played levels are the most disliked ones, such as press triangle fast. That was a complete rip off which would have taken no more than 15 minutes to make, where as platformers actually have some time poured into them to make them fun and challenging for everyone to play. That's my opinion, you are welcome to agree or disagree.

2011-03-30 10:04:00 Author: Unknown User

---

Guess it would still be removed even if you put a title screen warning the players before the level begins, or an agreement to enter at there own risk type of deal... You actually have a good point there. Big corporations are not the only ones that can author their own "Terms of service" agreements. Until you accept the "terms of service" you are free to negotiate the terms (granted most big corporations have a 'no negotiation' policy - but that is just their own policy, rather than it being the law) I rewrote the terms of my employment contract in a similar way, by writing my own small print in the contract stating I would not be available for over-time between certain hours (the default wording said I had to be available practically any hours) - when they then tried to get me to do over-time - I told them "No", and they said I was contractually obliged to - I then told them to go and look at my employment contract that I signed and they agreed to - and sure enough - they hadn;t read 'my' small print. Big companies always try and get you with "You didn;t read the small print" - well, the same rule applies to them. So If you have a title screen that has an "I agree" or "I disagree" - you are creating your own "terms of service" - which could include "I agree that I am over 18 and will not Good-Grief the level"; then you are agreeing that you must be over 18 and what you see in the level might be offensive and that you will not submit a grief report. If they do, then they have broken their agreement. & It'd stand up in court if you could afford an expensive enough lawyer

2011-03-30 12:24:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

So If you have a title screen that has an "I agree" or "I disagree" - you are creating your own "terms of service" - which could include "I agree that I am over 18 and will not Good-Grief the level"; then you are agreeing that you must be over 18 and what you see in the level might be offensive and that you will not submit a grief report. If they do, then they have broken their agreement. Maybe we should test this out...could someone make a "terms of service agreement" which can be shared with some level designers to test if will work...would be neat if it does

2011-03-30 12:39:00 Author: hungryhippo Posts: 76

---

So If you have a title screen that has an "I agree" or "I disagree" - you are creating your own "terms of service" - which could include "I agree that I am over 18 and will not Good-Grief the level"; then you are agreeing that you must be over 18 and what you see in the level might be offensive and that you will not submit a grief report. If they do, then they have broken their agreement. Instead I just watch your level on YouTube and good grief it anyways. While it sounds like a nice idea, I don't think a disclaimer would ever work. The disclaimer only protects the creator (not Sony) from being sued for the content. Regardless, Sony's EULA trumps all of this anyways. It's their system and network, and the content you create is legally theirs to do with as they please, despite all the warnings, user-created terms of service, or any other similar mechanism in your level. It's a moot point. There are two points I have found in this thread that make any sort of sense: 1) Improve the moderation system to be more transparent to the creator and prevent abuse of the "Good Grief" feature 2) Develop your level with a sensitivity to the content and its audience (i.e. a game rated "E" for everyone.) Improving the moderation system is a necessary evil, although I have no clue what that would entail as far as redefining the process and methodology. All I can say is that I would not want to be on a team looking to revamp the current system and figure out how to prevent abuse. The second concept is much easier to implement. You want to make sure your level never gets moderated? Don't make horror flicks with gruesome scenes, Nazi references, crude jokes, or anything else that could ever be interpreted as offensive. It's really just that simple. Don't like that your "creativity" is being stifled by this limitation? Sorry to say this, but if your "creativity" is limited solely to content that is crude, shocking, or offensive, then you're probably not being very creative to begin with. Just my two pennies.

2011-03-30 15:56:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239

---

Well I hope your petition gets noticed by Mm.

2011-03-30 16:36:00 Author: sackruler905 Posts: 103

---

^ It won't as most of us are against the OP's petition against MM~

2011-03-30 16:41:00 Author: Lord-Dreamerz Posts: 4261

---

Geohot will prove you guys wrong, you just wait and see. I hope Sony grinds that dude into dust. I love how he's nothing more than a petty thief and some idiots treat him like he's Robin Hood. He provided a way to steal, plain and simple. Hoping that he wins is foolish for anyone that is honest and actually appreciates this industry. If he's allowed to spread his methods for piracy, who do you think is going to pay for it? I can tell you: the "minority" consumers. If everyone has access to pirate software, then the software immediately has to become more expensive. Eventually a game will cost $120, $60 going towards your game, and $60 going towards the copy that "Geohot" stole, just to cover their costs. I prefer not to buy games for criminals, thank you. I'm all for rebelling against a corporation, but perhaps you should look at Gamestop abusing your hobby by re-selling games without any restitution for the creators. But this stuff about Sony controlling YOUR product after the sale is ridiculous. They don't, you can do anything you want to the console, including leaving the "Install Other OS" feature on if you want. You just lose access to another service that Sony provides for FREE, the PlayStation Network. It really all comes down to their game, their servers, their decision. That part really isn't debatable. What they should or should not delete, however, is debatable. A list of guidelines isn't always enough cuz it often leaves too many gray areas. I really think telling the creator what particular part of their level got it banned would be enough to start putting together a list of what's acceptable and not acceptable, and also kill the possibility of abusing the system.

2011-03-30 18:07:00 Author: nextlevel88 Posts: 149

---

@The Geohot comments: There is so much complexity to that whole issue, that both sides touching upon it here have clearly missed (the whole laughable saint vs sinner juxtaposition itself demonstrates that no rational discussion would be forthcoming). It's also not really relevant to any of this discussion, in any way. & It'd stand up in court if you could afford an expensive enough lawyer Whilst we're playing silly hypotheticals: So you are proposing that: You find a lawyer who was bored / stupid / charged enough money to take on this case. He convinces a court to subpoena Sony to provide you with the identities of those people who good griefed you and also copies of the level files from the servers. You then convince the court that this evidence is compelling enough to formulate a case upon. You then take the good griefers to court to sue them damages for .... For what exactly? For the emotional distress caused to you by having your level removed from the servers? Maybe, but as your level had no right to be there, would that still count? The fact that it was removed was only in part due to the fact it was good griefed, so is the blame for it being removed entirely down to them and can the emotional distress be actually attributed to those individuals who broke the agreement they had with you? I have no idea. But I'm approximately 100% Sony have no liability under the situation that you describe. Sorry to say this, but if your "creativity" is limited solely to content that is crude, shocking, or offensive, then you're probably not being very creative to begin with. Now that's not entirely fair. Just because a creation is not suitable for an E for everyone rating does not automatically mean such disparaging remarks should be made against it... I very much doubt that much of the works of Takeshi Miike or HR Giger (just 2 random names to pop into my head) would fit into what is reasonable for LBP, but to label them as being "not very creative" for that reason is completely unfair.

2011-03-30 19:05:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

Whilst we're playing silly hypotheticals: So you are proposing that: You find a lawyer who was bored / stupid / charged enough money to take on this case. He convinces a court to subpoena Sony to provide you with the identities of those people who good griefed you and also copies of the level files from the servers. You then convince the court that this evidence is compelling enough to formulate a case upon. You then take the good griefers to court to sue them damages for .... For what exactly?[...] I have no idea. Yeah, I'm not sure either. It was just an idea. But I bet a lawyer would still be willing to take some money off you, even if the case went nowhere But if there is fair warning (and I'm we're not actualy talking about obviously offensive things that shouldn't be in LBP - like sex [Horses in Stockings, is how Stephen Fry put it, I believe] or swearing) - surely that should offer a "questionable" level some buffer against immediate/unexplained moderation. And by "questionable" I mean the sliding gray scale of cartoon violence to obscene gore -and the MASSIVE grey area in between the two. (awesome silly hypotheticals as always) It's not like you can depict anything very realistically in LBP anyway - it will always be cardboard cutout/hand-made looking just because of the nature of LBP. And you have no idea what will give a child nightmares - there were things in Childrens TV (that is programming specifically designed for children) that used to give me nightmares. for instance; This gives me nightmares and I'm an adult http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx8wCLrIVC0&feature=related

2011-03-30 20:54:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

Guess it would still be removed even if you put a title screen warning the players before the level begins, or an agreement to enter at there own risk type of deal... Yeah, so like if I made my level like this: Player(s) enter level & get on Controllinators First Screen says this contains Violent/Gorey Scenes. Press X to enter or O to Back Out. Press x & another screen. Are you sure? X & Are you really sure? X, Really, Really sure?*Kids getting annoyed* *10 slides later* Level Starts, kids crap their pants & GG it. Nobody wins. :kz:

2011-03-30 22:20:00 Author: IronSkullKid99 Posts: 515

---

Now that's not entirely fair. Just because a creation is not suitable for an E for everyone rating does not automatically mean such disparaging remarks should be made against it... I very much doubt that much of the works of Takeshi Miike or HR Giger (just 2 random names to pop into my head) would fit into what is reasonable for LBP, but to label them as being "not very creative" for that reason is completely unfair. I did a quick search on Miike. A description of his most controversial scenes from his wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takashi_Miike#Controversies): ...one typically flamboyant gory killing involves a character slicing a man in half from head to groin, and severing another's face, which then slides down a nearby wall. I think it's pretty clear that something like that would be inappropriate. However, the same article cites his family-friendly films as a stark juxtaposition to that material. HR Giger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HR_Giger) is probably known most for his work in designing and creating the Alien from the Alien series, which are quite gruesome movies in their own right. Some of his work also depicts what is described on his entry as displaying "fetishistic sexual imagery." Again, not exactly what I'd label "E" for Everyone. (However, similar to Miike, HR Giger's work is not limited to just these elements, but a body of work that ranges from the benign to what some would call extreme.) Not trying to cherry-pick the artists you chose off the top of your head, but their violent, gory or sexual elements would simply not be appropriate in LBP. In a rated "R" film or an art studio perhaps, but not a LBP level. There are certainly grey lines in all of this as to what may be labeled offensive (Vietnam, etc.) The criteria for what "is" and "isn't" has been discussed in length throughout this thread. There is no hard definition. The EULA gets specific, but each term is intentionally ambiguous. Bottom line: if you are creating something that could even possibly be found offensive, you run a higher risk of being moderated. If you're a creative sort and enjoy making levels in LBP, why would you paint yourself into this corner? I can't speak for all creators, but I am constantly asking myself "What is the best way to achieve this in my level?" Why convince yourself that the only way to achieve a certain effect, emotion or visual style is to be gruesome, crude, or otherwise offensive? Are there other ways to do this? Do I have to focus on a severed limb in my level? Do I have to describe the crime scene in grisly detail? My answer is "No." It's simply a creative choice that comes with the risk of having your level shut down.

2011-03-30 22:34:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239

---

^ Ichi the Killer. Good times At the very least, I would sincerely hope that by this time people have learned to keep local backups of their work published online. This way, at least if you get moderated, you can take a step back and look at where you might have offended someone...

2011-03-30 22:49:00 Author: Thegide Posts: 1465

---

What's scaring me is how many people on LBP2 are supporting this thing.

2011-03-31 01:50:00 Author: Arkei Posts: 1432

---

Ok, so I just watched the "offensive" movie in question... and I can't see what the fuss is about. Many levels have red stickers representing blood. The worst you see is a severed Sack Arm (from the horror pack). It is actually an incredibly well made level, using standard movie techniques to create suspense... the actual 'gore' happens off camera - so the scariest thing you see is a 'scary' face... which itself is not offensive - or even gory - or in my opinion scary - it's just a face. The reason why it seems scary is because how well made it is, and how well used the standard movie techniques to create suspense are used. It's like the old 40's/50's horror films that were once considered 18+ but are now acceptable to be shown during daytime TV. It's discouraging creators to do a good job on creating atmosphere in their level. Also words like "brutally" or "mutilated" are not in themselves offensive or not suitable for everyone. They are simply descriptive words. Are you not allowed to describe things using descriptive words now? Why is it a level concentrating on violence - that also contains blood, like the Vietnam FPS level (which if included on the disc would have raised it's rating above an E) - gets an MM pick - but this level that doesn't actually contain any violence (just a 'murder scene' - [which in actuality is some red stickers and the severed sack boy arm from the horror pack]) gets modded? The moderation rules are not equally applied to all levels, which is hypocricy. He seems to have been modded for doing a good job in creating a suspensfull atmosphere in his level - But why release a horror pack if you aren't going to let the creators actually use it to make horror levels?

2011-03-31 07:14:00 Author: Macnme Posts: 1970

---

This thread has made me finally realise just how gratuitously offensive and inappropriate my levels must be for LBP's intended audience. I apologise to anyone who was offended by the male pole dancer from Stiff Pistons, the "George, where's my body?" scene from Tenement or the guy who explodes in a shower of blood and guts at the conclusion of Space Assassins. I repent of my sins and I promise that my next level will feature cute puppies, pretty flowers and Disney princesses. No, honestly....I'm being serious.

2011-03-31 09:41:00 Author: Ungreth Posts: 2130

---

I repent of my sins and I promise that my next level will feature cute puppies, pretty flowers and Disney princesses. But.... What are you going to do to them?

2011-03-31 10:02:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

But.... What are you going to do to them? The player will take the role of Rapunzel and visit the Disney princesses in their palaces, taking gifts to them such as baskets of fruit and kittens with pink ribbons. Along the way she will help people and rescue animals in peril. Not the answer you were hoping for, I guess...but I'm deadly serious. That's gonna be my next project.

2011-03-31 10:10:00 Author: Ungreth Posts: 2130

---

The player will take the role of Rapunzel and visit the Disney princesses in their palaces, taking gifts to them such as baskets of fruit and kittens with pink ribbons. Along the way she will help people and rescue animals in peril. Not the answer you were hoping for, I guess...but I'm deadly serious. That's gonna be my next project. I think that project must be forbidden Too sweet for kids eyes and teeth.

2011-03-31 11:21:00 Author: goranilic Posts: 332

---

The player will take the role of Rapunzel and visit the Disney princesses in their palaces, taking gifts to them such as baskets of fruit and kittens with pink ribbons. Along the way she will help people and rescue animals in peril. Not the answer you were hoping for, I guess...but I'm deadly serious. That's gonna be my next project. ...why does South Park's "Woodland Critters Christmas" episode suddenly come to mind?

2011-03-31 12:30:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383

---

...why does South Park's "Woodland Critters Christmas" episode suddenly come to mind? Bah....why won't anyone believe me!? No, I'm serious jww. There is no catch. This one is being made for Lucia, at her own request. She wants me to make a level where she can play as Rapunzel and visit the Disney princesses, so I intend to keep it cute and clean. If it's any reassuarance though, it won't ever be published...it's planned for home use only. (Unless of course, there's anyone here who actually wants to play a level like that)

2011-03-31 12:51:00 Author: Ungreth Posts: 2130

---

Bah....why won't anyone believe me!? No, I'm serious jww. There is no catch. This one is being made for Lucia, at her own request. She wants me to make a level where she can play as Rapunzel and visit the Disney princesses, so I intend to keep it cute and clean. If it's any reassuarance though, it won't ever be published...it's planned for home use only. (Unless of course, there's anyone here who actually wants to play a level like that) Awwww... Yup, I can see you doing that for Lucia. ...and sure, go ahead and publish. That could be kinda funny next to the other levels.

2011-03-31 13:00:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383

---

Awwww... Yup, I can see you doing that for Lucia. ...and sure, go ahead and publish. That could be kinda funny next to the other levels. Only if you publish Powerpuff Girls Pinball first

2011-03-31 13:09:00 Author: Ungreth Posts: 2130

---

Only if you publish Powerpuff Girls Pinball first ARGH... that was a secret too! lol

2011-03-31 13:23:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383

---

Welp. There it goes. I'd managed to hold on to a little spark of faith in humanity, but it's all gone. Yay. Thanks, LBPC. Ah well, maybe I'll gain a bit back when someone who actually wants these orwellian guidelines has weeks and weeks of their hard work snatched away. It'll happen, you know. It always does. Just look at that new EULA - that's your punishment for not standing by Geohot. Sony realized you'd still support them if they took away more rights, and so... they did. I hope those who made Toyota levels are okay if their hard work is used in Toyota ads with no payment. Because, you know, that's what you're gonna start seeing now. Toyota will make Sony a nice little deal, and they'll let their hard working little minions make some great ad content for free. But no, back to sleep, little sheep. Don't let me disturb you. Oh yeah, Mm's hard at work making new content for you. And I hear they might even price it fairly this time. Have fun paying for basic PSN use, everyone~

2011-03-31 13:28:00 Author: Voltergeist Posts: 1702

---

Bah....why won't anyone believe me!? No, I'm serious jww. There is no catch. This one is being made for Lucia, at her own request. She wants me to make a level where she can play as Rapunzel and visit the Disney princesses, so I intend to keep it cute and clean. If it's any reassuarance though, it won't ever be published...it's planned for home use only. (Unless of course, there's anyone here who actually wants to play a level like that) There's no shower scene in there? Bah...forget it.

2011-03-31 15:52:00 Author: Chazprime Posts: 587

---

Ok, so I just watched the "offensive" movie in question... and I can't see what the fuss is about. ...The moderation rules are not equally applied to all levels, which is hypocricy. I think you answered your own question here. ...this level that doesn't actually contain any violence (just a 'murder scene' - [which in actuality is some red stickers and the severed sack boy arm from the horror pack]) gets modded? Murder isn't violent? He seems to have been modded for doing a good job in creating a suspensful atmosphere in his level - But why release a horror pack if you aren't going to let the creators actually use it to make horror levels?It was modded because of it's mature themes and arguably graphic elements. Of course, none of us can know for sure, but that would be my guess. Also, I don't recall a "Horror" pack being released for LBP. There's a "Monster Pack" that includes, according to the LBP website (http://www.littlebigplanet.com/en/game_guide/ps3/downloadable_content/monsters_level_kit/), "Horror sounds : A goodly number of suitably grim sounds." If you take a look at the stickers (http://www.littlebigplanet.com/images/sized/images/assets/shared/dlc/imagery/monsters_stickers-138x77.jpg) and trailer for the pack (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3FXWNjBDo4), you'll see a stark difference between that and the "Afraid" video. One is considerably more graphic and mature. And that's really all I'm saying. Some people in this thread are crying "Woe is me" and "This is the end!" because this level got moderated. My point is, the level clearly shows some elements that could/maybe/might/perhaps be considered reportable. Whether or not moderating this level is appropriate is certainly debatable. This thread has made me finally realise just how gratuitously offensive and inappropriate my levels must be for LBP's intended audience. I apologise to anyone who was offended by the male pole dancer from Stiff Pistons, the "George, where's my body?" scene from Tenement or the guy who explodes in a shower of blood and guts at the conclusion of Space Assassins. I repent of my sins... Gratuitously offensive and inappropriate? Perhaps. It's a risk you chose to take when creating the level. And if your level was moderated, would you know why? Furthermore, do you think it would be any less effective/awesome/shocking without those elements? Some may argue "Yes." In the description for the Tenement thread (https://lbpcentral.lbp-hub.com/index.php?t=38984-Tenement-%28Halloween-2010-Special-edition%29-*BETA-ONLY*), for instance, you clearly state: "Disclaimer: This level contains some adult themes and certain scenes may be inappropriate for younger players." Would you really be surprised if the moderators took notice of your level? I hope nobody reads my statements here and think that I am some sort of purist or that I want all levels to have sugar drops and rainbows and cuddly bears in them. Far from that, actually. What I am trying to say is that creating a level has boundaries, but lots of gray area in between. And when creators take conscious choices to make levels of a mature, graphic or potentially offensive nature, they are simply more likely to have those levels moderated, and they should understand and accept that fact. LBP is not a game in which you may publish any content carte blanche. Unfortunately, the moderation guidelines for levels are not defined, completely ambiguous, and not applied evenly across the board. There is also strong anecdotal evidence that it can easily be abused. This is where the problem lies. My statements about creativity, etc. may have sounded harsh, but in a way it just underlines the gray area between the two sides of the issue. I may certainly enjoy levels with mature themes and content, but do I feel that they belong in LBP? The parent in me says "No." The adult in me says "Meh." Welp. There it goes. I'd managed to hold on to a little spark of faith in humanity, but it's all gone. Yay. Thanks, LBPC. Ah well, maybe I'll gain a bit back when someone who actually wants these orwellian guidelines has weeks and weeks of their hard work snatched away. It'll happen, you know. It always does. Orwellian? Hardly. Look, little kids play this game. That's a fact. Do you think it's appropriate for them to view a gory death scene in LBP? Hear crude language? Sexual themes or imagery? If the game were rated "M" for mature, you may be able to answer those questions "Yes" with credibility. There needs to be moderation in this game. Right now, it's simply inadequate. Just look at that new EULA - that's your punishment for not standing by Geohot. Sony realized you'd still support them if they took away more rights, and so... they did. ...But no, back to sleep, little sheep. Don't let me disturb you. Oh yeah, Mm's hard at work making new content for you. And I hear they might even price it fairly this time. Have fun paying for basic PSN use, everyone~ This has nothing to do with Geohot, jailbreaking, Other OS, or anything like that. It has to do with a broken and imperfect moderation system within LBP that has no tangible definition.

2011-03-31 16:12:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239

---

Only if you publish Powerpuff Girls Pinball first What's this Powerpuff Girls Pinball game? lol jk I agree with the mods telling us why they modded something more than no mods. Otherwise LBP will just become a 4chan video game. Not to mention the eye cameras... :L Like someone stated. The only thing changed in the new level was the face... And it hasn't been modded yet. Which means ipto facto, it was the face. (Which reminded me a lot of the face in Courage with the moon) By the way, murder doesn't always mean violent. Look at Tom and Jerry. There were plenty of episodes where Tom or Jerry faked dieing but it looked like they were dying. Not a good example? Look at newer cartoons for kids. They STILL use the old ketchup gag to simulate blood (stickers). Also, I'm pretty sure the creator had the whole "Don't show the guys dying" idea in his head. That may be a reason as to why he showed them dieing from off screen. (Or he left it up to the watcher's imagination) Yes, kids do play this game, but some kids also go on the web, play other (worse) video games, go trick or treating, steal, lie, and sometimes run out into streets. Also, has anyone ever heard the scream 2 (I think) set all the way down? It sounds pretty disturbing. Almost like a demon or devil cry. So yes, the mod system is broken, no set lines or borders, and some levels have already gone borderline, without knowing where that line is.

2011-03-31 16:16:00 Author: Devious_Oatmeal Posts: 1799

---

You do have the power to bend the rules in your favour. If the game is not rated for online, then you can support your case by showing everyone how easy it would be to add a Mature Page (checking your PSN Birth). That way, you can make adult movies and if a kid gets in and reports it... BAM! They can't access Mature pages anymore and are prevented from using the Grief Button for 3 days.

2011-04-03 07:16:00 Author: davestanley Posts: 87

---

You do have the power to bend the rules in your favour. If the game is not rated for online, then you can support your case by showing everyone how easy it would be to add a Mature Page (checking your PSN Birth). That way, you can make adult movies and if a kid gets in and reports it... BAM! They can't access Mature pages anymore and are prevented from using the Grief Button for 3 days. So what you are suggesting is a page that cannot be reported...and if someone does report a level with in it..they are punished?? This isn't a video store, you can't just have a special adult section behind the curtains... What your suggesting is more easily compared to adding adult only monkey bars to a play ground Where I stand on this? If you can't make a level in good taste (which there is no excuse for not) then you may be playing the wrong game. Try to understand the audience that you are publishing to.

2011-04-03 07:24:00 Author: Littlebigdude805 Posts: 1924

---

After reading all this, I don't think my darker 9 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472033/)-ish style level will be worth my time making. :/ It was gonna have dead sackpeople strung up my string, a bad guy collecting sackpeople and using their skin/material and magic fluff/brains to create enemies with sewn on doll parts with dead sackboy spirits and such...yeah... Now that I read that back... maybe not such a great idea? But Toy Story is rated G, and that had Sid's creepy toys. :/

2011-04-03 11:49:00 Author: midnight_heist Posts: 2513

---

I hope those who made Toyota levels are okay if their hard work is used in Toyota ads with no payment. Because, you know, that's what you're gonna start seeing now. Toyota will make Sony a nice little deal, and they'll let their hard working little minions make some great ad content for free. I think that a $2000 television and a new PS3 is enough payment. Plus the possibility of making some LBP content in the future. Check yo facts.

2011-04-03 13:38:00 Author: Sack-Jake Posts: 1153

---

Unfortunately, the moderation guidelines for levels are not defined, completely ambiguous, and not applied evenly across the board. There is also strong anecdotal evidence that it can easily be abused. I was thinking about this.... is there any way this could be accomplished? Not sure it can. It's the difference between a LAW and a PRINCIPLE. A law clearly spells out what it is you cannot do.... but it isn't practicle to have a law for everything. Sometimes we have to go by PRINCIPLES. A principle gives you guidelines on how to conduct yourself. Is it possible to have blood without it being considered violent or gratuitous? Sure. Is it possible to have violence without blood? Sure. It's almost impossible to pre-define what is inappropriate in LBP. We have to reply on principles.... is what you're creating appropriate for a 6-year-old, for instance. And each person is going to make that determination based on a different set of principles. The best you can do if you don't want to have a moderated level is understand what people are offended by.

2011-04-03 14:16:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430

---

After reading what CCubbage said, something clicked... A target audience in this WAS 12+/14+. Actually, I'm fairly certain that that's the main target audience. NOT 6 year olds. Think about it. What six year old actually CAN make decent levels with the tools they provide? Look at how complicated the logic is. Heck, I'm starting to think they made the game for 12+ and they are hoping either their younger siblings will play it, or something of that nature. The fact that they upgraded the logic is evidence that they wanted more complicated levels. Not only that, but they are VERY aware of their audience's ages from things like E3 and forums. Let's look at scenarios. 1. Only 6 year olds get a hold of the game. Not much creating and it isn't all that great. 2. 11 or younger get the game. Now there's a few so-so levels. (So-so as in, they may be similar) 3.12+ Levels start getting better. ONLY when the game gets in the hands of the older crowd, is there awesome levels. (IMO of course) I didn't see them advertising the game with levels made by 6 year olds... I saw levels that were made by players that had to at least be competent in the logic enough, to make those levels. Competent enough to where when they saw something like Afraid, they understand that that's a scary level. I'm sure you can fill in the rest.

2011-04-03 16:22:00 Author: Devious_Oatmeal Posts: 1799

---

A target audience in this WAS 12+/14+. Actually, I'm fairly certain that that's the main target audience. NOT 6 year olds. True.... but my point was that with an "Everyone" rating on it, plus cute little Sack People as primary characters.... you have to figure 6-year-olds WILL be playing it. So, if a parent buys it for their child and sees material that is not suitable for their child, there's a much better chance it will get moderated. It doesn't even have a "10+" on it, which is common for games targetted at that audience. Not to long ago I saw a sad face with an "I hated it" message on one of my levels.... linked to the player... they had a picture of themselves. The kid must have been 6 or 7 years old. When I purchased LBP for my son he was 7. Loved it. But, he did a lot more playing in cool pages than creating.

2011-04-03 17:27:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430

---

What I was getting at was that those levels would only be there if it wasn't for the older people making those levels. I'm not saying 6 years shouldn't play, by all mean NO. It's quite alright for them to play it, just if a kid gets scared from something they saw in Afraid; it shouldn't be modded. Mainly because of the fact that if it wasn't for the older one's, the game wouldn't be as popular. So the game needs the older one's otherwise the game would die out. IMO, a cute mascot doesn't mean it's for children. Though, it does attract them. Conker was a cute squirrel, Happy Tree Friends..., other "mascots" that were cute but turned out to be horrible toons for kids. Would your son be playing the game at all still if there were no older players? (I mean NO offense by anything in this post. Just, you're one of the people that can "defend" the youngins) Most likely he would, but most of the levels would probably be made by you. Not the cool pages. Well... IF they made the rating for older people, the youngins would miss out. But, if it stays where it's at we can't have some of these interesting levels. (At their full intent anyways) They can't necessarily "change" the online rating, because 14+ implies all the levels are for older children.

2011-04-03 17:59:00 Author: Devious_Oatmeal Posts: 1799

---

What I was getting at was that those levels would only be there if it wasn't for the older people making those levels. I'm not saying 6 years shouldn't play, by all mean NO. It's quite alright for them to play it, just if a kid gets scared from something they saw in Afraid; it shouldn't be modded. Mainly because of the fact that if it wasn't for the older one's, the game wouldn't be as popular. So the game needs the older one's otherwise the game would die out. But none of that really matters unfortunately. It's a E-rated game, so even though it may seem limiting at times, you have to design content suitable for the lowest common denominator: 6-year olds. That's all there is to it.

2011-04-03 18:12:00 Author: Chazprime Posts: 587

---

But like I said in the last post. They can't really change that, due to the 10+ stamp implying it's not for youngins. Despite the fact that not all levels are made for 10+. They have it as E because that covers the greatest spectrum, and holds more "truth". See what I mean?

2011-04-03 18:17:00 Author: Devious_Oatmeal Posts: 1799

---

But like I said in the last post. They can't really change that, due to the 10+ stamp implying it's not for youngins. Despite the fact that not all levels are made for 10+. They have it as E because that covers the greatest spectrum, and holds more "truth". See what I mean? Okay, now I'm confused....where is this 10+ stamp?

2011-04-03 18:36:00 Author: Chazprime Posts: 587

---

Is it possible to have blood without it being considered violent or gratuitous? Sure. Is it possible to have violence without blood? Sure. This is precisely what I was referring to when I was asking my rhetorical questions in my post. These are decisions that the creator must consciously take, and as a result they must understand the potential repercussions of those choices. It's almost impossible to pre-define what is inappropriate in LBP. We have to reply on principles.... is what you're creating appropriate for a 6-year-old, for instance. And each person is going to make that determination based on a different set of principles. The best you can do if you don't want to have a moderated level is understand what people are offended by.I think there's certain things we can all agree are unacceptable: vulgur language, pornography, graphic violence, racism, sexism, etc. These are somewhat defined in the EULA. It's the gray area that's the problem, and instead of focusing on the moderation part (which is broken) I believe it's the creator's responsibility to ask themselves what sort of risk they may be taking with their content. An ignorant person might not see anything wrong with their racist statements, however, and this is one example why the moderation system needs to be more defined. After reading what CCubbage said, something clicked... A target audience in this WAS 12+/14+. Actually, I'm fairly certain that that's the main target audience. NOT 6 year olds. Except for this label on the box http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/he/thumb/5/55/ESRB_E.png/75px-ESRB_E.png The ESRB Definition: Titles rated E (Everyone) have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language. Also, the Collector's Edition came with a plushie. I'm not sure you can reliably make this argument. Think about it. What six year old actually CAN make decent levels with the tools they provide? Look at how complicated the logic is. Heck, I'm starting to think they made the game for 12+ and they are hoping either their younger siblings will play it, or something of that nature. The fact that they upgraded the logic is evidence that they wanted more complicated levels. Not only that, but they are VERY aware of their audience's ages from things like E3 and forums.The complexity of content that a six-year-old can create is irrelevant. It's what they have access to play. In a lot of ways, LBP2 simplified the logic, not complicated. There are many new tools in LBP2, and some of them are indeed complex. But defining a game's audience by the complexity of its tools, and furthermore, the complexity of the resulting content, is a broken argument. I saw levels that were made by players that had to at least be competent in the logic enough, to make those levels. Competent enough to where when they saw something like Afraid, they understand that that's a scary level. I'm sure you can fill in the rest. I would argue that any level created for the game should strive to be appropriate for all ages, and if not, understand the potential consequences of creating a level that is not. One's competency for logic should have nothing to do with it. But none of that really matters unfortunately. It's a E-rated game, so even though it may seem limiting at times, you have to design content suitable for the lowest common denominator: 6-year olds. That's all there is to it. I wouldn't say suitable, which infers "designed for". But I'm really just splitting hairs here. There are tons of rated "G" movies that have elements of adult humor dangling just out of reach for the standard kid's wits (the Shrek series comes to mind.) For instance, when I saw Higginbotham "tripping out," I was immediately reminded of motifs from 60's drug culture. Most kids just simply don't have this frame of reference. The same applies to the "stripper" meerkats, etc. While I was seriously considering that the Negativatron had likely laced those socks with something that can't be prescribed, the main point was not lost on a younger audience: he had lost his mind in one fashion or another.

2011-04-03 18:39:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239

---

Recently MM has moderated the original Afraid by SpiderMaguire! The best movie in LBP2! Why? Sone kid got scared and reported it! What we need is a new age restriction system so this doesn't happen! This would open up LBP in so many ways such as 15+ DLC! Like Zombieland, Saw, Fallout, Bioshock! Of course this would work by linking you're PSN account and PS3 parental controls. We need MM to notice this so please try my level that explains problems with MM and LBP! I also mention that the cool pages aren't that great! Yes there is a lot of good stuff on it but half the times LBP1 rubbish pops up. I hare filtering everytime! The cool pages need catagorized into each single tag to make it better!! I'm also sick of the FAILED levels from LBP1 at the bottom of the MM picks! It's a disgrace! Play my level named "An Important Message" on my PSN: Apollo_xD What do YOU think of my ideas about age restrictions and cool pages with better categories? Link to level: http://lbp.me/v/zdvzw8 I agree with you apollo. But people on these forums always find a way to make you seem like the bad guy.

2011-04-03 18:40:00 Author: donta133 Posts: 182

---

You people are giving it so much attention i'm thinking about making graphic/gory art and publishing it to see what happens.

2011-04-03 18:43:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800

---

Except for this label on the box http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/he/thumb/5/55/ESRB_E.png/75px-ESRB_E.png The ESRB Definition: Titles rated E (Everyone) have content that may be suitable for ages 6 and older. Titles in this category may contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language. The post you quoted was taken out of context. The rest of the post explained the first part. I said why they couldn't "just change it" in my second post. Also, the Collector's Edition came with a plushie. I'm not sure you can reliably make this argument. Kids aren't the only one's that like the plushie. Most of the people I know wanted that plushie. Especially my older 21 year old sister. The complexity of content that a six-year-old can create is irrelevant. It's what they have access to play. Out of context again. What I meant was the older the age, the better/different the content is. (refer to third paragraph below) In a lot of ways, LBP2 simplified the logic, not complicated. There are many new tools in LBP2, and some of them are indeed complex. But defining a game's audience by the complexity of its tools, and furthermore, the complexity of the resulting content, is a broken argument. Let me rephrase. Since the logic is easier to work with it gets more complicated. Sure the tools themselves aren't all that complicated, but when they start coming together they make complicated "frameworks". Not necessarily. You have the different people of different knowledge as an example. Nuclear Physicists have their field, Biologists have theirs, and Psychologists have theirs. Obviously no Nuclear Physicists are on LBP (Not that I know of anyways) but in the LBP community, you can tell the different fields apart. I'm not saying they're stuck in their field nor am I saying one's better than the other, but they're there. And we all know it, conscientiously or sub-conscientiously. Basically, the content produced is based on the community. So if the community was mostly idk... 14+ the content produced is from that group. I would argue that any level created for the game should strive to be appropriate for all ages, and if not, understand the potential consequences of creating a level that is not. One's competency for logic should have nothing to do with it. But that argument is based on the rating E. Yes the game has an E rating, but my argument was said ignoring that variable (outside the circle). If I was arguing within the circle (E rating) then your argument would hold ground and I would even agree with you. Basically, my argument asks for change. There are tons of rated "G" movies that have elements of adult humor dangling just out of reach for the standard kid's wits (the Shrek series comes to mind.) For instance, when I saw Higginbotham "tripping out," I was immediately reminded of motifs from 60's drug culture. Most kids just simply don't have this frame of reference. The same applies to the "stripper" meerkats, etc. While I was seriously considering that the Negativatron had likely laced those socks with something that can't be prescribed, the main point was not lost on a younger audience: he had lost his mind in one fashion or another. True, but not all stories need, have to, or want to be told in that manner. Otherwise every 18+ movie would be like cartoons these days and they would have lost some of their appeal to some audiences. You people are giving it so much attention i'm thinking about making graphic/gory art and publishing it to see what happens. You totally should.

2011-04-03 22:14:00 Author: Devious_Oatmeal Posts: 1799

---

The post you quoted was taken out of context. I suppose I don't understand what you're trying to say or how it applies to moderated content. Well... IF they made the rating for older people, the youngins would miss out. But, if it stays where it's at we can't have some of these interesting levels. (At their full intent anyways) They can't necessarily "change" the online rating, because 14+ implies all the levels are for older children. My point is that your level doesn't have to have mature content to be "interesting." For every one of the "interesting" levels you describe, there are 10 more that approach their levels without this type of content and maintain the same (or greater) level of excellence. Take a look at the Spotlights here. You'll find the vast majority do not contain mature content. Look, you can place mature content in your levels. You just run a higher risk of having that level moderated. Is that fair? I argue "Yes." Is it fair that the moderation applies haphazardly and without any sort of standardization or feedback to the creator? Absolutely not. Kids aren't the only one's that like the plushie. Most of the people I know wanted that plushie. Especially my older 21 year old sister.There are 60 year old ladies that collect Barbie dolls. It doesn't mean that Barbie is targeting their product to 60 year olds. Point is, the plushie was intended for kids, not your 21 year old sister. Are you arguing that the target audience of this game is not the younger crowd? ... Yes the game has an E rating, but my argument was said ignoring that variable (outside the circle). If I was arguing within the circle (E rating) then your argument would hold ground and I would even agree with you. Basically, my argument asks for change.Why argue "outside the circle" when the game and it's content (all the materials, stickers, sound effects and tools you are given to work with, even the levels that come on the disc) are "in the circle?"

2011-04-03 23:47:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239

---

I suppose I don't understand what you're trying to say or how it applies to moderated content. Sometimes my words don't make sense to anyone else. I suppose I still need to work on that. I sometimes confuse myself too. lol [QUOTE=schm0;820417]My point is that your level doesn't have to have mature content to be "interesting." For every one of the "interesting" levels you describe, there are 10 more that approach their levels without this type of content and maintain the same (or greater) level of excellence. Take a look at the Spotlights here. You'll find the vast majority do not contain mature content. I didn't say it had to have mature content to be interesting. Just some people want to have that freedom. Look at Afraid or Ungreth's levels. Look, you can place mature content in your levels. You just run a higher risk of having that level moderated. Is that fair? I argue "Yes." Is it fair that the moderation applies haphazardly and without any sort of standardization or feedback to the creator? Absolutely not. Is it fair... Well, based on the rating yes, but as a player and creator no. Should they tell you why it was modded... You bet that's a yes. There are 60 year old ladies that collect Barbie dolls. It doesn't mean that Barbie is targeting their product to 60 year olds. Point is, the plushie was intended for kids, not your 21 year old sister. Are you arguing that the target audience of this game is not the younger crowd? Oh come on. You, as well as everybody else knows that those plushies weren't just for the kids. Otherwise, why would they put into the CE? Obviously if you look at the box. It's meant for everyone. Well... Let's do this. Ignore the box. Totally ignore the box. Throw it into the trash. NOW... Play the levels in the game: some mature, some in the middle, some for the youngins. In your honest opinion. Who does the game look like it's for? (Keep in mind that sackboy being a cute mascot doesn't count, due to things like Happy Tree Friends, Conker, and The animals from that South Park episode) Why argue "outside the circle" when the game and it's content (all the materials, stickers, sound effects and tools you are given to work with, even the levels that come on the disc) are "in the circle?" Well, the things on the disk aren't the only things we use. We also use our imagination (Which is outside the circle). And to use the stuff on the disk as a guideline. That just has sensor all over it. It is in my total opinion that they went easy on the main story levels so the community could beat them.

2011-04-04 00:34:00 Author: Devious_Oatmeal Posts: 1799

---

I really enjoyed Afraid and I was sad that it got moderated, but I am not surprised that it got the treatment it was given.

2011-04-04 00:43:00 Author: Infernox Posts: 93

---

Oh come on. You, as well as everybody else knows that those plushies weren't just for the kids. Otherwise, why would they put into the CE? Stuffed animals are for kids. In any department store in the world, you will find them with the rest of the children's toys. There is no such thing as a stuffed animal store for adults. If you think otherwise, then I'm not sure what else to tell you. Obviously if you look at the box. It's meant for everyone. Well... Let's do this. Ignore the box. Totally ignore the box. Throw it into the trash. NOW... Play the levels in the game: some mature, some in the middle, some for the youngins. In your honest opinion. Who does the game look like it's for? (Keep in mind that sackboy being a cute mascot doesn't count, due to things like Happy Tree Friends, Conker, and The animals from that South Park episode)It's a game that everyone can enjoy: adults, children, teens, and everyone in between. However, you can't simply discount the fact that sackboy is, himself, a stuffed sackperson (i.e. a stuffed animal/plushie.) The "mascots" you mentioned are clearly and intentionally adult in nature and quite the opposite of what sackboy represents. Nor can you discount that this game was given a rating by people who do nothing else but rate video games. Box or not, the game's rating exists nonetheless. I'm sorry to break this to you, but the game's target audience is children. The vast majority of levels are created by children. The vast majority of levels are shared by children. And the vast majority of levels are played by children. Well, the things on the disk aren't the only things we use. We also use our imagination (Which is outside the circle). And to use the stuff on the disk as a guideline. That just has sensor [sic] all over it. It is in my total opinion that they went easy on the main story levels so the community could beat them.Everything made sense except the censor part. There is nothing to stop you from publishing any content you want. There is also nothing from stopping the level from being good griefed and taken down, even more so if that level contains inappropriate content. In a nutshell, what started this debate was "what was inappropriate about this level?" Are you saying that there is nothing in this level that could arguably be considered inappropriate? It's a classic ghost story, albeit with a few mature themes and somewhat graphic depictions (and descriptions) of violence. It's these latter portions that I argue make this level questionable at the very least.

2011-04-04 01:24:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239

---

Wait, what?!?! I thought the argument was for a change in the moderation... Stuffed animals are for kids. In any department store in the world, you will find them with the rest of the children's toys. There is no such thing as a stuffed animal store for adults. If you think otherwise, then I'm not sure what else to tell you. Why you twisting my words? I never said there was a stuffed animal store for adults. Yes they may be for kids, but last time I checked-You may want to stand back for this one- Don't older people give out stuffed bears on Valentine's Day? Not only that, but there are bears for nearly every holiday that say stuff like "Kiss me I'm Irish". It's a game that everyone can enjoy: adults, children, teens, and everyone in between. However, you can't simply discount the fact that sackboy is, himself, a stuffed sackperson (i.e. a stuffed animal/plushie.) The "mascots" you mentioned are clearly and intentionally adult in nature and quite the opposite of what sackboy represents. Nor can you discount that this game was given a rating by people who do nothing else but rate video games. Box or not, the game's rating exists nonetheless. First off. Just because they've been doing it so long doesn't necessarily mean they're right. Which is why there have been debates and fights over their opinions. I'm sorry to break this to you, but the game's target audience is children. The vast majority of levels are created by children. The vast majority of levels are shared by children. And the vast majority of levels are played by children. I'm just curious, but what makes you so sure and do you have any evidence? Everything made sense except the censor part. There is nothing to stop you from publishing any content you want. There is also nothing from stopping the level from being good griefed and taken down, even more so if that level contains inappropriate content. In a nutshell, what started this debate was "what was inappropriate about this level?" Are you saying that there is nothing in this level that could arguably be considered inappropriate? I already read the whole "nothing can stop you from publishing a level" stuff in the other posts. That's a fact. A pointless fact, but a fact nonetheless. It's like saying, "Nothing can stop you from moving your left hand" or "Nothing can keep you from jumping". Anyways, define "inappropriate". I'm sure the paintinator was inappropriate, I'm pretty sure some of these zombie levels were "inappropriate", and I'm pretty sure some of the levels made by older players is "inappropriate". Now tell me... They gave us a severed arm, a paint smudge that looked very similar to a blood run (You know which one), and a rusty saw blade. Tell me what someone could make with this... Yes, yes. "The pack's not called 'The Horror Pack'", but c'mon. Look at it. A severed head? Who you fooling. No one, that's for sure. It's a classic ghost story, albeit with a few mature themes and somewhat graphic depictions (and descriptions) of violence. It's these latter portions that I argue make this level questionable at the very least. The level's up isn't it? All they changed was the face. Which, really sold the whole thing.

2011-04-04 04:22:00 Author: Devious_Oatmeal Posts: 1799

---

Why you twisting my words? I never said there was a stuffed animal store for adults. Yes they may be for kids, but last time I checked-You may want to stand back for this one- Don't older people give out stuffed bears on Valentine's Day? Not only that, but there are bears for nearly every holiday that say stuff like "Kiss me I'm Irish". ...Except the CE of LBP2 is not some sort of holiday exception. It was included in the CE because kids like stuffed animals. That was my point. I wasn't trying to twist your words, I was trying to point out that your sister wanting a stuffed animal does not mean all adults want stuffed animals. She is the exception to the rule, in this case. First off. Just because they've been doing it so long doesn't necessarily mean they're right. Which is why there have been debates and fights over their opinions.And just because there have been "debates and fights" over ESRB ratings does not mean there was one over this game. If you could point me to an article or blog post debating or fighting over this rating, I'd be happy to give it a read. LBP2 was aiming for an E rating and received one. Again, my point is, this game is for all ages, but targeted mostly towards a younger audience. I'm just curious, but what makes you so sure and do you have any evidence? If you really don't think that it's kids that make of the overwhelming majority of LBP players, then I suggest you play about an hour of random online play and find out for yourself. I'm sure Sony's market research team could tell you definitively. To be honest, I really didn't think a statement like this would need any actual evidence to back it up. Do you think the majority of players playing LBP are legal adults? Anyways, define "inappropriate". I'm sure the paintinator was inappropriate, I'm pretty sure some of these zombie levels were "inappropriate", and I'm pretty sure some of the levels made by older players is "inappropriate". Now tell me... They gave us a severed arm, a paint smudge that looked very similar to a blood run (You know which one), and a rusty saw blade. Tell me what someone could make with this... Yes, yes. "The pack's not called 'The Horror Pack'", but c'mon. Look at it. A severed head? Who you fooling. No one, that's for sure.It's a "Sackboy Arm" and "Sackboy Leg." They're not severed. They're the body parts of a sackboy doll. And there's certainly not a severed head in the game (there's a "Sack Doll" sticker with the eye's X'd out and a hanging tongue, which fits the definition of "cartoon violence.") The "Red Paint Splat" could be used to represent blood, sure, but there's also a green, yellow, blue and white version of the same sticker. My point is, they weren't intended to be used to portray horrific images of violence (otherwise they'd be labeled as such.) And I'm sure you could still use all of those elements in a creative way without being graphically violent or extreme. "Afraid" uses these tools in a serious (and creative) manner, but in a way that leans more towards the "gray" area of appropriate content. I really think to argue otherwise is disingenuous.

2011-04-04 05:45:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239

---

...Except the CE of LBP2 is not some sort of holiday exception. It was included in the CE because kids like stuffed animals. That was my point. I wasn't trying to twist your words, I was trying to point out that your sister wanting a stuffed animal does not mean all adults want stuffed animals. She is the exception to the rule, in this case. It was a limited time offer. Not a holiday, but in a way it is similar. But that's what I meant about you twisting my words. I talked about my sister, then you come out and say that all adults don't want stuffed animals. I never said all adults want stuffed animals. All I meant was that some want stuffed animals. So they aren't just for kids; which you said they were. And just because there have been "debates and fights" over ESRB ratings does not mean there was one over this game. If you could point me to an article or blog post debating or fighting over this rating, I'd be happy to give it a read. LBP2 was aiming for an E rating and received one. Again, my point is, this game is for all ages, but targeted mostly towards a younger audience. See, you did it again. I never said there was a debate on this game. There have been debates; so they aren't always right. That was my point. IMO, one of the reasons there has yet to be a debate on this game is because most of those other debates had to do with 18+. This debate, on the other-hand, is around the ages of 6-14. That's not really as big as a concern than mature content. And before anyone starts saying anything that hints at me wanting mature (18+) content, I say now that that isn't what I want. If you really don't think that it's kids that make of the overwhelming majority of LBP players, then I suggest you play about an hour of random online play and find out for yourself. I'm sure Sony's market research team could tell you definitively. To be honest, I really didn't think a statement like this would need any actual evidence to back it up. Do you think the majority of players playing LBP are legal adults? You twisted my words again. I didn't say that the majority was adults. Majority shouldn't have anything to do with this argument actually. Just because the majority is children, DOES NOT MEAN that the target audience was just children. Your statement was a fallacy. That's like saying that since the majority of cups are used to hold something, they are only used to hold something. What I am trying to say is that other people play this game. Not just kids. The older age group has different tastes than the younger. Afraid is a good example. Not only that, but Mm IS AWARE OF THIS. Like I said, they can't just change the rating, then that implies that the game is only for that age. SO... They went with the E rating to cover the whole group. If the game was only meant for kids that were 11 or younger. Than they should/would have stuck a tag on there that said, "11 or younger". I'm just saying... To cater to only the younger group is a kind of double standard. We as the older group want to make levels like Afraid. We like that. And since the game is rated E. They should cater to the wants of EVERYONE. It's a "Sackboy Arm" and "Sackboy Leg." They're not severed. They're the body parts of a sackboy doll. And there's certainly not a severed head in the game (there's a "Sack Doll" sticker with the eye's X'd out and a hanging tongue, which fits the definition of "cartoon violence.") The "Red Paint Splat" could be used to represent blood, sure, but there's also a green, yellow, blue and white version of the same sticker. Parts of a sackboy that came in a monster pack. Again... Who you fooling? Those other color stickers are for other splats. Green, slime. Yellow, mustard. Blue, no clue. White, mayo. Red... I bet the majority of players use this one for blood. Sure it can be ketchup, but c'mon. What stage have you seen that's used it for that? Even then, that's 1 stage out of 4 million compared to the vast amount of zombie levels, horror levels, and basically, any level where a guy dies and the creator chose to add a blood stain. By the way, this whole game is "cartoon violence". My point is, they weren't intended to be used to portray horrific images of violence (otherwise they'd be labeled as such.) And I'm sure you could still use all of those elements in a creative way without being graphically violent or extreme. "Afraid" uses these tools in a serious (and creative) manner, but in a way that leans more towards the "gray" area of appropriate content. I really think to argue otherwise is disingenuous. The level is still up... And no, just no. Just because they weren't labeled "SEVERED ARM" or "SEVERED LEG" DOES NOT MEAN that they weren't intended for that purpose. More than likely, they were labeled what they were labeled because it covers a broader spectrum rather than implying that they should only be used for horror scenes. So what you're telling me, is that when you saw the leg and arm. One of the things that popped into your head wasn't, "That could totally be used to make a horror scene."? Because, that's what popped into my head. Hmm... I think I know how to solve the issues. Different sections. A 14+ section in-game, and a E section for other levels. That's fair isn't it? Well, in theory. The problem is; there's a bigger risk of some 14+ levels slipping through. But I think a solution would be that if a level gets modded (certain levels), they could just be moved to the older section. I would move for something like this to be applied.

2011-04-04 16:37:00 Author: Devious_Oatmeal Posts: 1799

---

It was a limited time offer. Not a holiday, but in a way it is similar. But that's what I meant about you twisting my words. I talked about my sister, then you come out and say that all adults don't want stuffed animals. I never said all adults want stuffed animals. All I meant was that some want stuffed animals. So they aren't just for kids; which you said they were. The argument was that this game is designed to be more appealing to kids. One argument in support of this point is that a plushie was included in the CE. Your counter-argument was that your sister, an adult, desired said plushie. I refuted that argument stating that an exception to this rule (that some adults like plushies) did not address the rule as a whole: that the plushies were intended to be for kids, not your adult sister. I never said "they're just for kids", you did. See, you did it again. I never said there was a debate on this game. There have been debates; so they aren't always right. That was my point. IMO, one of the reasons there has yet to be a debate on this game is because most of those other debates had to do with 18+. This debate, on the other-hand, is around the ages of 6-14. That's not really as big as a concern than mature content. And before anyone starts saying anything that hints at me wanting mature (18+) content, I say now that that isn't what I want.I brought up the ESRB rating to further support my argument that this game was designed for kids (the game is rated E for Everyone, or kids 6 and up). You called into dispute the ESRB ratings, arguing that some ESRB ratings had been fought over and debated. However, I refuted this argument, stating there was no such debate or fight over the rating for this game. I didn't twist your words here. You say it yourself: "They aren't always right. That was my point." The insinuation there is that "E for Everyone" is one they got wrong. I couldn't disagree more. You twisted my words again. I didn't say that the majority was adults. Majority shouldn't have anything to do with this argument actually. Just because the majority is children, DOES NOT MEAN that the target audience was just children. Your statement was a fallacy. That's like saying that since the majority of cups are used to hold something, they are only used to hold something. What I am trying to say is that other people play this game. Not just kids. The older age group has different tastes than the younger.You called into question my statement that the majority of the game's players are children. You asked for evidence. Then, after all this, you concede this point (in bold.) Your analogy falls short. The cups were designed to hold something. Just like the game was designed for children. The fact that they can be used for other purposes is secondary and ignores the main argument altogether. Afraid is a good example. Not only that, but Mm IS AWARE OF THIS. Like I said, they can't just change the rating, then that implies that the game is only for that age. SO... They went with the E rating to cover the whole group. If the game was only meant for kids that were 11 or younger. Than they should/would have stuck a tag on there that said, "11 or younger".Except they don't do ratings going downwards. They recommend a minimum age to experience the game's content. This gives the parent (who makes the purchase for their children) a guideline as to what is appropriate (E for everyone) and what is not (M for Mature.) I'm just saying... To cater to only the younger group is a kind of double standard. We I, as a member of the older group want to make levels like Afraid. We I like that. And since the game is rated E. They should cater to the wants of EVERYONE. me.Fixed that for you. I never said they should cater only to the younger group, I said that creators should keep all ages in mind when creating their levels. Even the creator of Afraid and Ungreth are sensitive to this fact by including warnings on their content, even though I believe this doesn't deter anyone from actually viewing their levels. Parts of a sackboy that came in a monster pack. Again... Who you fooling? Those other color stickers are for other splats. Green, slime. Yellow, mustard. Blue, no clue. White, mayo. Red... I bet the majority of players use this one for blood. Sure it can be ketchup, but c'mon.It's spray paint. Frisbee originally made pies, until one day someone thought it'd be fun to start tossing around their pie tins. Thus, the popular toy was born. Nobody uses a frisbee to eat pie anymore. It doesn't mean it wasn't intended to be a pie tin to begin with. What stage have you seen that's used it for that?Probably about 10-15% of the levels in LBP1, and plenty of user-created levels. The level is still up... And no, just no. Just because they weren't labeled "SEVERED ARM" or "SEVERED LEG" DOES NOT MEAN that they weren't intended for that purpose. More than likely, they were labeled what they were labeled because it covers a broader spectrum rather than implying that they should only be used for horror scenes....or it could be that they were to be used to create sackboy doll "monsters" with realistic sackboy arms and legs? (This was before sackbots, mind you.) Your use the word "severed" is your own interpretation of what they actually are: sackboy doll parts. So what you're telling me, is that when you saw the leg and arm. One of the things that popped into your head wasn't, "That could totally be used to make a horror scene."? Because, that's what popped into my head.Sure, it popped into my head. But did I, as the creator, choose to use it in this way? No. Why? I have no desire to use it in that fashion because I don't feel that LBP is the correct medium for such concepts. That's just my own personal preference. Do I feel I have the right to tell others they can't create such content? No. But I think it's completely unrealistic for those creators to then turn around and cry foul if their level is subsequently moderated for the choices they make. Hmm... I think I know how to solve the issues. Different sections. A 14+ section in-game, and a E section for other levels. That's fair isn't it? Well, in theory. The problem is; there's a bigger risk of some 14+ levels slipping through. But I think a solution would be that if a level gets modded (certain levels), they could just be moved to the older section. I would move for something like this to be applied. It'd be fair if there were two games released, one rated E and another rated 14+. Your idea sounds acceptable if you believe more mature content belongs in the game. I am simply arguing that it doesn't. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting a two-tiered approach, one that includes a "rating for older people" and that "if it stays where it's at we can't have some of these interesting levels." I disagree wholeheartedly with this argument. You can have levels that are appropriate for all ages and "interesting." I believe that levels don't need to include murder, dismembered body parts, and graphic descriptions of crime scenes to be effective and fun. I also don't see this as a debate over a specific subsection of ages (i.e. what is appropriate for a child aged 6-14 vs other older age groups.) Rather, it's an argument as to what is acceptable for all ages, including those 6-14. To be fair, the level is well-designed, the voice acting is great, and the story-telling is even better. The use of sound effects, lighting and timing are close to perfect. On a whole, I'd give this level a 10/10 from a design standpoint. The adult in me has no problems with this level. The parent in me does. "Afraid" is arguably inappropriate for a six year old. And a six year old has the same access to this level as an adult. There's no getting around that in a game that's rated E. Look, I really don't feel like we're ever going to see eye to eye on this. I find fundamental flaws in your arguments and we disagree on whether mature content has a place in this game. I think the idea that mature content is acceptable in a game that is rated E for Everyone is simply unrealistic and, to be quite frank, selfish. However, it's not my place to tell another creator what they can and can not create. I can only voice my opinion. I also think we come at this discussion from two very differing perspectives: myself as a parent, and yourself as a young adult (I assume by your statements that you don't have kids. I may very well be wrong, and if so, my apologies.) You're entitled to your opinion, even though we may agree to disagree.

2011-04-05 02:50:00 Author: schm0 Posts: 1239

---

I agree with you apollo. But people on these forums always find a way to make you seem like the bad guy. Appearently you only want people with your opinion here then. Let's all leave! Isn't time people get over this? If you have THAT strong of a desire for blood, gore, and all other things worse than a horse in a bikini, then why don't you just find another medium to make stuff on?

2011-04-05 04:58:00 Author: jalr2d2 Posts: 256

---

The argument was that this game is designed to be more appealing to kids. One argument in support of this point is that a plushie was included in the CE. Your counter-argument was that your sister, an adult, desired said plushie. I refuted that argument stating that an exception to this rule (that some adults like plushies) did not address the rule as a whole: that the plushies were intended to be for kids, not your adult sister. I never said "they're just for kids", you did. What I was saying was that because kids AND adults liked the plushie, you could not use the plushie as a reason for it being for kids. A correct statement would be that it's for kids AND adults. I brought up the ESRB rating to further support my argument that this game was designed for kids (the game is rated E for Everyone, or kids 6 and up). You called into dispute the ESRB ratings, arguing that some ESRB ratings had been fought over and debated. However, I refuted this argument, stating there was no such debate or fight over the rating for this game. I didn't twist your words here. You say it yourself: "They aren't always right. That was my point." The insinuation there is that "E for Everyone" is one they got wrong. I couldn't disagree more. Well... they weren't wrong on their choice, but they weren't right either. Yes, I'm a man that contradicts himself quite often, but makes sense. If they were right, then this conversation would have never taken place, or rather, there would be no need for this argument. If they were wrong, then the rating would be higher. But since neither of these is true, I don't believe that they were wrong or right in their choice. (Also, as a side note. One of the main fallacies I disagree with is that, "because something contradicts, it's false." This is not always the case, but in some it is, but not this one. Just because it is taught, does not mean it's true) You called into question my statement that the majority of the game's players are children. You asked for evidence. Then, after all this, you concede this point (in bold.) Your analogy falls short. The cups were designed to hold something. Just like the game was designed for children. The fact that they can be used for other purposes is secondary and ignores the main argument altogether. But that's false and true. To say the game was designed for children, infers that it was for children and ignores the adults in some way. Similar to the first quote, a correct statement is that the game was designed for both children AND adults. Except they don't do ratings going downwards. They recommend a minimum age to experience the game's content. This gives the parent (who makes the purchase for their children) a guideline as to what is appropriate (E for everyone) and what is not (M for Mature.) Yes, but this rating is based on the on-disk material. Like I've said times before, they can't necessarily change the rating, because that infers that it's meant for just that rating. They had to go with the E rating because the game is suitable for both the youngins AND adults. To say it is 14+ means that only 14+ should play it. But in fact, it's also suitable for younger players. So they were kind of unknowingly forced to ignore the 14+ crowd because they stopped at E. It's actually a kind of freedom of speech verses morals in a way. Funny... Fixed that for you. I never said they should cater only mainly to the younger group, because I said that creators should keep all younger ages in mind when creating their levels. Even the creator of Afraid and Ungreth are sensitive to this fact by including warnings on their content, even though I believe this doesn't deter anyone from actually viewing their levels. I didn't like your correction, because it implies that they should ignore the older group, which they shouldn't, and it was rude. But because I like to see eye to eye on an argument, I did some changes myself. The warnings... They should deter people from it. But they fail. This is not the fault of the creators. It's like saying it's GTA's fault for kids getting hold of the game. So the creators should not be punished. It's spray paint. Frisbee originally made pies, until one day someone thought it'd be fun to start tossing around their pie tins. Thus, the popular toy was born. Nobody uses a frisbee to eat pie anymore. It doesn't mean it wasn't intended to be a pie tin to begin with. I didn't say it was intended for blood. But that's what it's used for. The Frisbee thing helped my point, but it's now used majority of the time as blood now. Probably about 10-15% of the levels in LBP1, and plenty of user-created levels. But that's based on your opinion. You don't actually know for sure. Just as I don't know for sure that it's used mainly as blood. But I believe that in a poll of 100 players, the majority would say blood. ...or it could be that they were to be used to create sackboy doll "monsters" with realistic sackboy arms and legs? (This was before sackbots, mind you.) That was taken into mind before that statement. True, they could be used for that, and likely were, but I'm pretty sure it was mainly used as severed limbs. Your use the word "severed" is your own interpretation of what they actually are: sackboy doll parts. Sure, it popped into my head. But did I, as the creator, choose to use it in this way? No. Why? I have no desire to use it in that fashion because I don't feel that LBP is the correct medium for such concepts. That's just my own personal preference. I say severed because I feel that that's what they are used mostly for, so yes, but that fact has no reason to be in this argument. You say sackboy parts because you personally don't think them as severed. Do I feel I have the right to tell others they can't create such content? No. But I think it's completely unrealistic for those creators to then turn around and cry foul if their level is subsequently moderated for the choices they make. That's unfair though. You're blaming the creators for something that could have been avoided if the level was never griefed. The only reason the level was modded was because a kid ignored the creator rating and played the level. It's like saying, "I blame Sony for my boy getting a hold of the game at Game-stop." That's not fair. It'd be fair if there were two games released, one rated E and another rated 14+. Your idea sounds acceptable if you believe more mature content belongs in the game. I am simply arguing that it doesn't. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting a two-tiered approach, one that includes a "rating for older people" and that "if it stays where it's at we can't have some of these interesting levels." I disagree wholeheartedly with this argument. You can have levels that are appropriate for all ages and "interesting." I believe that levels don't need to include murder, dismembered body parts, and graphic descriptions of crime scenes to be effective and fun. I also don't see this as a debate over a specific subsection of ages (i.e. what is appropriate for a child aged 6-14 vs other older age groups.) Rather, it's an argument as to what is acceptable for all ages, including those 6-14. Here's why we can't come to an agreement. I see this argument as it's unfair to mod some levels because there are kids that play this game. So because there are kids that play this game, they ignore the wants of the older crowd. Those wants being I want to be able to express myself but NOT in a childish way. I too don't think a level needs those things to be fun, but sometimes when you add those elements, it's more fun than a more kiddie version. In your opinion, which was better, the original of Afraid, or the modded version? SO... The reason we can't come to an understanding is because I'm attacking from the outside (a walled city for example), and you're enforcing the rules. To be fair, the level is well-designed, the voice acting is great, and the story-telling is even better. The use of sound effects, lighting and timing are close to perfect. On a whole, I'd give this level a 10/10 from a design standpoint. The adult in me has no problems with this level. The parent in me does. "Afraid" is arguably inappropriate for a six year old. And a six year old has the same access to this level as an adult. There's no getting around that in a game that's rated E. Ok, the adult side agrees in some way with me. Likewise, the uncle in me agrees with you in some way. Look, I really don't feel like we're ever going to see eye to eye on this. I find fundamental flaws in your arguments and we disagree on whether mature content has a place in this game. I think the idea that mature content is acceptable in a game that is rated E for Everyone is simply unrealistic and, to be quite frank, selfish. However, it's not my place to tell another creator what they can and can not create. I can only voice my opinion. I also think we come at this discussion from two very differing perspectives: myself as a parent, and yourself as a young adult (I assume by your statements that you don't have kids. I may very well be wrong, and if so, my apologies.) You're entitled to your opinion, even though we may agree to disagree. I too found some fundamental flaws in your arguments, but I didn't at first see the need to point that out. You were purposely trying to make me look bad, and I am a little offended by that. But whether it was intentional or not, I accept your apology. You are correct on me not being a parent, BUT I am an uncle. (not as great as a parent, but I see where your arguments come from). I will say though, that just because someone isn't a parent, doesn't mean they can't see your point of view. I am a little offended on some level by that. But forgiveness is something I believe in. So apology accepted. Despite whether I'm a parent or not. Now... To end this little shabang, I would like to say some final words as well. I watch my niece and younger sister. I let them play LBP2. If there is something that I see isn't appropriate for them, I jump in front of the screen and exit the level. Strange, but I do what i must to keep them from seeing something that's not for them. Also, if I'm watching something like a horror movie, and someone else is watching the kids at that time, I always make sure they don't see the movie and shove them away from it. Just in case it could give them nightmares. Appearently you only want people with your opinion here then. Let's all leave! Isn't time people get over this? If you have THAT strong of a desire for blood, gore, and all other things worse than a horse in a bikini, then why don't you just find another medium to make stuff on? Not possible. What other medium is there that's this easy to use, has a big community, is something I can play with my friends, and is as cheap? (the PS3 does not count in the price)

2011-04-05 06:34:00 Author: Devious_Oatmeal Posts: 1799

---

Nice discussion, but missed the thread topic. 'Afraid' has a scary face changed, but all the elements that are produced scary effects remained, and did not experience a new moderation-deleting (for scaryness, horror, blood). Vietnam RPG allows mass murder of Vietnamese (racism, blood, violence). There are tons of Zombie levels produced every day (horror, violence). A bunch of other levels with GG potential will not mention. This is clear proof that moderation does not occur because of the mature context, but something else that we do not know. Obvious absence of criteria gives an unfair status to some creators. Is a number of GG reports a key criteria ? Is this a good and fair approach ? As I said earlier, for the money we gave for the game and for creators contribution in popularization of the game, we deserve to get fair warning and an explanation of moderators intervention. And we deserve change of moderating system too, if it is inappropriate.

2011-04-05 09:10:00 Author: goranilic Posts: 332

---

This is clear proof that moderation does not occur because of the mature context, but something else that we do not know. Obvious absence of criteria gives an unfair status to some creators. Is a number of GG reports a key criteria ? Is this a good and fair approach ? Actually, it's clear proof the same people who played it and clicked the "good grief" button havn't played it since it was republished. Right now, the bottom line is this: it's a system moderated by the public (who have a right to good grief something they think is inappropriate) and upheld by Sony (who have a right to say 'I disagree with the people who pressed the good grief button). It would be virtually impossible to do it any other way.... unless each level published had to be scrutinized before being made public. This would require the creators to pay an additional fee for publishing each level - it would become more like the Apple App Store, where each published creation requires a full review to make sure it fits with specific "rules". Honestly, I'm not quite sure what people here expect Sony and MM to do - it's rated "E" for everyone, and uses the public to determine if the content is suitable for "Everyone". If you try to push the bounderies, you take the chance that SOMEONE will find the content offensive. The thing I find a bit unnerving about this thread..... why would you WANT to push the bounderies and publish material that isn't suitable for a 6 year old.... in a game that is rated for 6 year olds? Doesn't that say something about you if you purposely try to share material with children that isn't appropriate for them?

2011-04-05 13:32:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430

---

... why would you WANT to push the bounderies and publish material that isn't suitable for a 6 year old.... in a game that is rated for 6 year olds? Doesn't that say something about you if you purposely try to share material with children that isn't appropriate for them? It might be correct, but it is not. What if 20 - 30 (or more) friends agreed that clicks GG for some level just for a joke, even if there is nothing inappropriate ?

2011-04-05 14:51:00 Author: goranilic Posts: 332

---

It might be correct, but it is not. What if 20 - 30 (or more) friends agreed that clicks GG for some level just for a joke, even if there is nothing inappropriate ? Totally separate issue. This happened last year - a group was going around purposely good-griefing levels. When it was found out they were doing this, they got in trouble with Sony. The levels were restored once it was determined there was nothing wrong with them. This is strictly against the EULA and can result in getting banned. But in general this hasn't been an issue. Of course, if you include material that's inappropriate in your level you can become a target, and you won't be able to complain when your level gets moderated.

2011-04-05 15:25:00 Author: CCubbage Posts: 4430

---

The levels were restored once it was determined there was nothing wrong with them. Thus, the damage is already done. Of course, if you include material that's inappropriate in your level you can become a target, and you won't be able to complain when your level gets moderated. Let me be clear - I do not represent an anarchy, where anything can be shown; LBP is not the place for it. Just point to the unfair system where one is punished, and other is awarded for the same. And I'm looking for a change that would be of benefit to everyone, where E would really be protected, and the creators satisfied. None of this is fulfilled now .

2011-04-05 15:57:00 Author: goranilic Posts: 332

---

bit late on the show.. The game is rated E / 7+, so it's up to you to make levels that are suitable for those ages. If a scary level would probably be classified as 15+, then to be honest it shouldn't exist in the first place.7+ also means 15+ though. not age 7 to 15. (I know pegi doesnt work like that but still). KK, adult related material should be left out of lbp, but a little horror/semi-gore should be possible if done in a respectable way. look at how many "kill your sackboy, kill justin bieber" levels are out there. Wasnt little big dead space not level of the year or something like that.. and that game is 18+... So in theory that game should never have been made in lbp... so i detect lots of fail... Ooh spagetti.. /runs off for dinner.

2011-04-05 16:06:00 Author: Luos_83 Posts: 2136

---

Thus, the damage is already done. What damage was done? That the levels were made unavailable for a while? Personally, I'd rather this than risk shockingly offensive content go unmoderated while waiting for the audit team to "get around to it". If 30 people spontaneously grieve a level, maybe it's an organized group of LBP terrorists or maybe it's got racist or pornographic material. Having a level inaccessible is a lot less damaging to everyone than accidentally exposing sensitive audiences to objectionable content.

2011-04-05 16:23:00 Author: Thegide Posts: 1465

---

Having a level inaccessible is a lot less damaging to everyone than accidentally exposing sensitive audiences to objectionable content. On the contrary - everyone are exposed to that levels, and lots of kids had seen them before removing. Also, everyone can undisturbedly play levels that contains inappropriate/objectionable material that is not reported.

2011-04-05 17:17:00 Author: goranilic Posts: 332

---

On the contrary - everyone are exposed to that levels, and lots of kids had seen them before removing. Also, everyone can undisturbedly play levels that contains inappropriate/objectionable material that is not reported. I don't think anyone's going to disagree that the griefing system is imperfect, but as there's no way to automatically moderate levels there's really no way to make it better without changing the game's rating. (and alienating a huge base of users) I think that as a parent you are responsible for moderating what your kids see online until you feel that they're responsible enough to do it themselves and mature enough to handle what they're seeing. That's why online games - at least in the USA - have the added warning that "online interactions are not rated by the ESRB."

2011-04-05 17:25:00 Author: Chazprime Posts: 587

---

I think that as a parent you are responsible for moderating what your kids see online until you feel that they're responsible enough to do it themselves and mature enough to handle what they're seeing. This says it all.

2011-04-05 17:48:00 Author: Luos_83 Posts: 2136

---

people need to stop complaining about their level being modded and just Man up (even if their a woman) and Recreate/Edit the level with less gore ETC until the rating is not higher then PG, it's rare when one can even get away with a almost PG13 rated level. no matter how much one may not like it the game is rated E and that's not going to change. this game while made for everyone to play is made with a young mind set and is made for so that even a kid is able to play any level uploaded by anyone. and yes about 70% of the people who play this game are under 18. so levels have to be modded so anyone no matter what age can play every level. *mew

2011-04-05 17:59:00 Author: Lord-Dreamerz Posts: 4261

---

but as there's no way to automatically moderate levels there's really no way to make it better without changing the game's rating. (and alienating a huge base of users) There is a way, but not for automatically control. That way implies greater involvement of Sony / MM, and not just automatics wich does not bring satisfying kids protection. I think that as a parent you are responsible for moderating what your kids see online until you feel that they're responsible enough to do it themselves and mature enough to handle what they're seeing. I totally agree.

2011-04-05 18:02:00 Author: goranilic Posts: 332

---

I'd like to think of it like this. Parents are often edgy enough about their kids playing games online - especially when they are young, such as around the age of 7 or 8 - so a game like this doesn't come around very often, where on the PS3, a young child can play a game online and not have their parents worried, because it's declared to be monitored. Think of it like a nursery - you drop your kids off, and are (hopefully) confident that the nursery staff won't show your kids any horror movies, or unsuitable content in your absence. If this is not the case, then please don't recommend that nursery to me. But then, on the other hand, people find different things offensive - my idea to unsuitable might be totally different to your idea of unsuitable. You also have culture coming in here - what we find suitable here in the UK/US, might be seen as offensive in Japan or China (for example), and vice versa. That means these things are very hard to regulate. I'm just saying, that you need to be aware of what other people are like. I've never had a level moderated, so I don't know how it works, but would it be possible to send a message to the moderators, and ask what was wrong with a level in particular? I like different types of levels, whether violent or not. I do think that with violence and horror, sometimes less is more. If you don't show the actual creepy/violent activity, but gesture towards it, then people can see it as they please. A child, (with a hopefully happy mind), will see the vacuum cleaner from the Tellytubbies (a childhood fear of mine), whereas older audiences will see a killer. Don't show all the gore, but leave what happens open to interpretation. That way, people can think what they want to think, and you will hopefully not offend anyone. But, everything will always offend someone. The Justin Bieber killing levels have been mentioned. I haven't played then, but I'm guessing they probably aren't exactly on the top rated pages - so their a bit harder to moderate, because the moderation team would have to search out each and every one of them. Also, I'm guessing that although they are explicit, they probably aren't totally realistic or well made - because it's probably just kids having a little fun, and declaring their frustration that someone has it a little better than they do. I suppose that it's a little different making a smiley face head falling off a body, and actively showing a very realistic character being totally mutilated. I mean, something I've done on my level (which is just published as a DEMO so far), is made some of the parts slightly more complicated than others. So, because of difficulty levels, and just because of what my level is about, younger kids are less likely to understand it, and so are therefore less likely to perform certain tasks to move on to the next level - so therefore, am seperating the keen and eager people from the people who are more likely to be scared. Also, by simply suggesting that something might scare someone else (like slowly increasing the horror levels), you'll be more likely to deter those who really don't want to play that kind of thing from those who do. So, if it's a 15+ game you want to make, then make obstacles and the storyline only really logical to someone of that age. If a younger person plays, and does not understand the storyline, then they'll probably leave before anything that could be offensive to that age starts. I don't have an opinion, these are just my two cents (or pence - seeing as I'm British)

2011-04-05 18:21:00 Author: standby250 Posts: 1113

---

There is a way, but not for automatically control. That way implies greater involvement of Sony / MM, and not just automatics wich does not bring satisfying kids protection. Greater involvement from Sony/Mm... you mean like have a team of real people immediately jump on every grief report that is submitted? That's a pretty good solution, but the problem is that someone has to pay these people to do this job. There are five to ten thousand new levels every day and four million existing levels that could potentially be grieved. They would need to hire a GM team for 24/7 support to handle this work, something you can find in any paid-subscription MMO, but this game would fall flat on its face if they implemented subscription fees. The reason why we have auto-moderation as a basic first level filter against questionable content is to keep the workload of the audit team manageable, while keeping this game free to play. The system is quite effective, and when the occasional false positive slips through, real people are there to reverse the decision.

2011-04-05 18:22:00 Author: Thegide Posts: 1465

---

The system is quite effective, and when the occasional false positive slips through, real people are there to reverse the decision. Since I do not know, if somebody can tell which way someone can make a complaint (and where) for deleted level ? Talking about kids protection in LBPs, don't know how anyone can convince himself/herself that what we have now is enough ?

2011-04-05 18:55:00 Author: goranilic Posts: 332

---

@ Standby: Your level is a bit of a given. I think the main thing that'll make the younger ones get out your level is because of the game-play. As we are older, we have an older taste for these games. I'm not saying all older people like these kind of games, but we get it. ALSO. http://suburbane.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/nunu.jpg The kill Justin Beiber levels really shouldn't be a problem for the mods. You just type "Kill Justin Beiber" and [WALL OF GRIEF!!!]. Greater involvement from Sony/Mm... you mean like have a team of real people immediately jump on every grief report that is submitted? That's a pretty good solution, but the problem is that someone has to pay these people to do this job. I don't think a big team would be necessary. Maybe. But I have to ask, just how many levels are grieved everyday? (this is not a rhetorical question. I actually would like to know) And if that number is bigger than what some of us would expect (Us as in mainly the parents, I'm not a parent mind you), do you still think this game is for E. E is that it's for everyone, but if there are so many grief reports, then perhaps that rating is wrong. And if it's not so high of a number, I'm sure a small team of people, or people that already work there, could do the job. Like someone said before way up there. Someone had to have seen it first to it to have been grieved. The system necessarily doesn't work. Because someone has already seen it. Now depending on who has seen it, some things might occur: 1. They automatically grief it once they see it. 2. It makes them think... this is allowed? I'm going to do this too. 3. Or they're going to be like; this wasn't bad, but because I'm not too sure if someone might get offended by it, I might grief it. There is a pretty high chance that there are more than just these responses, but these are quite possible in the real world, less likely for #2. There are five to ten thousand new levels every day and four million existing levels that could potentially be grieved. They would need to hire a GM team for 24/7 support to handle this work, something you can find in any paid-subscription MMO, but this game would fall flat on its face if they implemented subscription fees. Just because there are 4 million potential levels to be grieved, doesn't mean that there's even a chance that that many levels would get grieved all at once. I don't know if it was intentional, but saying 4 million potential grieved levels is trying to create false fear. And based on that, even if someone were to fall into that fear, doesn't that mean more of a reason for the E rating to not be there? The reason why we have auto-moderation as a basic first level filter against questionable content is to keep the workload of the audit team manageable, while keeping this game free to play. The system is quite effective, and when the occasional false positive slips through, real people are there to reverse the decision. Occasional? That makes the system sound really broken. Which I believe it kind of is. But anyways, it does keep the workload of the team lighter. I wouldn't say "quite effective", because shooting a robber that only stole a bag of chips is "quite effective", but that doesn't mean it works.

2011-04-05 18:57:00 Author: Devious_Oatmeal Posts: 1799

---

I don't think a big team would be necessary. Maybe. But I have to ask, just how many levels are grieved everyday? (this is not a rhetorical question. I actually would like to know) And if that number is bigger than what some of us would expect (Us as in mainly the parents, I'm not a parent mind you), do you still think this game is for E. E is that it's for everyone, but if there are so many grief reports, then perhaps that rating is wrong. And if it's not so high of a number, I'm sure a small team of people, or people that already work there, could do the job. Just because there are 4 million potential levels to be grieved, doesn't mean that there's even a chance that that many levels would get grieved all at once. I don't know if it was intentional, but saying 4 million potential grieved levels is trying to create false fear. We've all seen "online interactions not rated by the ESRB" which means that it's impossible to prevent objectionable content from making it's way onto the server... even if only very temporarily. That doesn't mean the game shouldn't be rated E. If that were the case, then every online game would require a mandatory 13+ rating. LBP has tried to implement a community-driven report system, but because we have zero control over how these users use/abuse this system, we see that grief reports can happen on any level for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. Then again, getting a grief report doesn't automatically cause moderation, but due to the inexperience of the community as a whole in proper GG practices, we can probably assume that the frequency of a report is static (for safe content), and that the number of false grievances is proportional to the number of plays on the level. The auto-moderation feature might take this into account, or it might be threshold-based and examine a moving average. We don't know, as it's always been transparent to us. I don't think the vast majority of those four million levels are played more than very rarely, but I do think the number of grief reports received on a daily basis would surprise the pants off most of us. And for a human moderator, it's a lot of work to go into a level and investigate a grief report. Probably at least 15 minutes on the clock on average when there is a legit reason for moderation... more if it was a bogus or unsubstantiated report. Yes, the system is somewhat broken, since it can be abused AND it misses content that should be moderated (since it requires a complaint to be noticed). However, short of having every level played by Mm, I don't see how we can hope for a perfect system. I don't think your analogy to shooting a robber for stealing a bag of chips is a very accurate though. As far as I know, there's nothing stopping any author from editing a moderated level for content and republishing. If anything, it's like being stopped for speeding and being given a slap on the wrist and having 15 minutes of your time wasted. Also, moderated levels that were unjustly moderated are returned as normal, as far as I know, so short of missing out on some exposure, I can't see this as being that bad. The only thing that I would appreciate added to the system is a notice explaining why a moderated level was considered appropriately moderated. Leaving us guessing is plain frustrating.

2011-04-05 19:31:00 Author: Thegide Posts: 1465

---

Lol @ The hoover. God he was so scary. Something I don't understand is this "Online not rated by the ESRB" thing. I've not seen it on LBP - perhaps this is because I'm British. But besides that, isn't lbp rated as PEGI Online? Or was that just LBP1? Oh, and that wasn't a rhetorical question either. It's actually a genuine query! EDIT: Found one of those Justin Bieber levels, and thought the description was a little funny: kill him!!!! heart if you hate him..... or really dont like him no offence to jb fans I'm not sure that putting "No offence" at the end will change anything. I do, however, think that it is actually pretty amazing that a LBP1 level managed to get on the cool pages, despite LBP2 being out. Despite the level's intentions.

2011-04-05 19:50:00 Author: standby250 Posts: 1113

---

The only thing that I would appreciate added to the system is a notice explaining why a moderated level was considered appropriately moderated. Leaving us guessing is plain frustrating. I'm all for this. But it doesn't really get rid of the problem, but will help a lot.

2011-04-05 21:01:00 Author: Devious_Oatmeal Posts: 1799

---

Lol @ The hoover. God he was so scary. Something I don't understand is this "Online not rated by the ESRB" thing. I've not seen it on LBP - perhaps this is because I'm British. But besides that, isn't lbp rated as PEGI Online? Or was that just LBP1? It's an addendum to the ratings system in the US for online games; basically it says that if you play online, you might be exposed to explicit language or user generated content...anything that the ratings board can't take into consideration. There is a way, but not for automatically control. That way implies greater involvement of Sony / MM, and not just automatics wich does not bring satisfying kids protection. I'm not sure how Sony/MM would go about implementing something like that, or whether it would even be worth the effort. From my experience in these matters, publishers will almost always err on the side of over-protective when dealing with the safety of minors in online games (as they should).

2011-04-05 23:46:00 Author: Chazprime Posts: 587

---

You guys might be interested in fact that LBP2 got PEGI Scary symbol :>

2011-04-06 05:12:00 Author: Shadowriver Posts: 3991

---

You guys might be interested in fact that LBP2 got PEGI Scary symbol :> I noticed that as well.

2011-04-06 07:43:00 Author: sackruler905 Posts: 103

Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.