This is NOT a "PG rated" board.

Ed wonderers...Is this really something to get that upset about?

 

Of course not. Who's getting upset?

 

"It's a scary world where the Simpson?s are an important moral guide."

I'd just like to point out that the Simpsons is often praised as being one of the most moral shows on TV.

Amazing.

 

I believe the definition I have heard most recently was "If a person feels the need to minimize a thread when their parents walk in the room, we've gone too far." Or something like that.

that's even worse. now you're talking about a definition that is entirely subjective.

Let's use game ratings. This board would fall under a "T" for teen.

you're going backwards. that would be the same as saying the board is "PG-13 rated."

the rule I used to like was "If you would hear or see it on the Simpsons, it's ok here..."

that rule of thumb would be just as problematic as the PG rule of thumb.

The fact of the matter is that we have 13 year olds (at least, that's supposed to be the minimum age ) up to "old geezers" like me. I can look in community and there are threads in there that are pretty risque for a 13 year old. However, it's really about common sense. Those of us that are older should take into consideration the audience that may be here.

I believe that swearing and sexual content should be kept appropriate for a public board. With the amount of users here, not everyone is going to be happy with what is or isn't allowed here. If the owners of the boards feel something is inappropriate, ultimately, they have the final say.

i'm not sure what that has to do with this thread. this thread is about calling the board "PG rated" when they prohibit things allowed in PG rated movies. as i said in the original post, this isn't about what should or shouldn't be allowed. it's about making sense and not contradicting yourself.

I've always thought that the JC was considered "PG" because the SW films are all PG, and something people can easily relate to when they're typing up posts. In other words, for those who have dirty thoughts and want to post something, if they don't say it or do it (no pun intended) in the SW universe, then don't bother posting it.

i fail to see the logic in this too. the language used in SW is not supposed to be from our culture. there are things said in SW that have absolutely no actual meaning in the real world. how do you use a movie about a fantasy world away as a guideline for the real world? as the canonists would say, you don't know what chewie is really saying when he says "hrrgjslktjilvnmaslkdjflksd jvjfisdhgsdlkahvslaskghjal." so how can you base what's acceptable on a fantasy world? but i really don't want to get into that.

I don't agree with that, myself, since I'm not easily offended, but since the main goal of the JC is to ensure as many people can have an enjoyable experience as possible, the line has to be drawn somewhere, no matter how much I agree or disagree with it.

again, i'm not questioning what is and isn't acceptable.

I think Gandolf is not to blame. Society in general has a code of morals today. You can blame them instead of the mods.

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

I think the boards are more PG-13 than PG.

you're going backwards.



as i said, saying that things that are allowed in PG rated movies are not allowed here because this place is "PG rated" is completely illogical and stupid. there are a lot of things that are acceptable for a PG rated movie, but not acceptable for the board. so, if you said this place was "PG-13 rated" then there would be even more things that are prohibited here yet still allowed in the movies with that rating.

 

Wait...so what do you want?

If you just want us to stop calling the board PG rated, I'm sure you can be easily accomidated. I'll never call it that again.

 

and I am sure we will all sleep easier, secure in that knowledge..

 

Okay... what exactly do you want? Do you want people to say "family-friendly" rather than PG? If so, everyone can work on that. If not, what exactly do you want?

 

and I am sure we will all sleep easier, secure in that knowledge..

Good. I know I will.

 

Yes, I am wondering that, too, now. What is the goal of this thread?

 

The goal was to bring to our attention how wrong "PG Boards" is, and how we should stop using it.

Mission Accomplished!

 

I agree. The board is 'family friendly' in the sense of what the owner defines as that, rather than being strictly PG. Enough said.

 

am i on trial here, kids? what do i want? i want people to use their brains, to be blunt. i want people to recognize that calling this place "PG rated" is a contradiction. and it is a contradiction to say that certain things which are allowed in PG rated movies are not allowed here because the board is "PG rated."

 

Did that really warrant a whole thread though? I mean, I think we got your general idea across.

 

Um, yes it did, youngling. It's called a discussion starter. Is it necessary for you to post after every single person and explain how swell you think the mods are even though the points being made are flying right over your head?

 

What is left to discuss? PiaS thinks that the term "PG rated" shouldn't be used to describe the boards. Some have agreed, some have disagreed. We'll try to use the term "family-friendly" more often in the future.

 

well, jeff, in that case what's left to discuss in ANY comms thread? an issue is brought up, some people agree and some people don't. trying to shut someone up is not very nice.

 

A "fault" was pointed out, it was acknowledged, and we'll work on using a different term in the future. I'm not trying to shut anyone up, but it seems pointless to me to point out the same fault for multiple pages.

 

well, the last time this subject was raised, think it was established the owners want a "G" board.....but G+ is ok.

 

actually, jeff, it's nice when people post and show that they understand the point. who the hell cares how many pages that makes it? the thread has been open for what, 6 hours? is it some sort of detriment to the jc to let people express their agreement/acknowledgement? as long as the thread isn't breaking any rules then what is the big deal? pointing out the same fault over and over again? um, no. i think that it is obvious that some people may not fully grasp the point, which is why an attempt was made to explain it further and reiterate things.

don't try and make it sound like there's some "evil" brewing here.

 

Um, yes it did, youngling. It's called a discussion starter. Is it necessary for you to post after every single person and explain how swell you think the mods are even though the points being made are flying right over your head?

I don't post everytime talking about how "swell" I think the mods are, I post in support of them because of people who feel they constantly need to show animosity towards them. The points are not flying over my head, I am receiveing each and every one of them.

 

My entertainment perusing this thread has grown manifold reading the many people whose brains failed to make that important synapse and said "You're right, its more like PG-13".

In the words of Alexsh Trebek "Are you Norwegian, or..."

 

Perhaps the phrasiology is more apt if we try and depart from the conventionally held definitions of "PG" and "PG-13" in terms of their position on any nations given censorship act.

Simply view it as "Family Friendly" or, "Parental Guidance reccommended". (read as: most parents wouldn't crack the almighty's if they say their son/daughter aged 13 or up viewing the material on screen.)

Quite simply really. As for our contradictions, leave us with our errors in peace: Military Intelligence and American Democracy to use the old adage, are both oxymorons, but you'll sure as summer see both splashed over all manner of publications and programing in day to day life.

Our commonly defined version of "PG-13" may not be the classical definition of PG-13 used in movies (which in Hollywood terms are rather lenient to accomodate the debauched viewing habits of the western world) to a more "user-defined" definition that the owners of TF.N have deigned to use here.

 

Hey, what do you want? There are millions of films labeled as PG. The rules change everyday in terms of the boundaries of acceptable limits. Now there's topless women on NYPD Blue. When I was a kid, that would have never happened.

Just as the boundaries of PG are expanding, so too will our understanding of those limits. But please be patient instead of trying to call us on every single inconsistency. Talk about feeling like what you do never really matters. I moderate towards PG in the movie forums with the films as my guide. Really, what is so wrong about that?

All 5 films have been PG, this is a message board about Star Wars, and I'm using the PG-rated Star Wars films and their dialogue as my guide. Tell me where my logic is so flawed. It's better than using the Simpsons cartoon as my guide.

At least I'm using the films as my guide. So yeah, I moderate the movie forums as if this were a PG-rated site with the movies as my reference. So sue me. Don't you think it's sillier to use a totally unrelated cartoon as our guide of acceptability?

 

This is all a question of semantics, obviously, so this thread is no different from the "Spam vs. Fluff" thread in its 'purpose' or 'intent'.

PiaS is simply trying to point out the apparent logical flaw in referring to these boards as "PG rated".

Aside from the already mentioned inconsistancies between the content of the two, you're also talking about two different mediums - film vs. the internet. While they do bear some similarities, the rating system was never intended to be applied to web-sites, so I'm quite sure that whoever first referred to this board as "PG rated" only did so as a point of reference, not as an absolute.

These boards are "similar" to what you might see in PG movies. That doesn't mean they're exactly the same, in terms of allowable content.

I don't believe that anyone was intending to fully and completely define what is and isn't acceptable here when they used the phrase "PG rated", and I am having trouble believing that anyone could really think so, although perhaps the phrase has been used so long, people simply started to believe that it was the absolute point of reference as opposed to just a simple, general, analogous, referential guideline.

What's the right terminology for what is and isn't allowed here? PG rated? Family friendly? Child friendly? Safe for work? Safe for all audiences?

Maybe it can't be qualified with a simple phrase, unless that phrase is "whatever Josh and Philip decide they want". Their motivations may be founded in a desire to have a place where parents don't have to really 'worry' about their kids being here, but it ultimately boils down to what Josh and Philip want. If they decided to change that tomorrow, that's their prerogative.

Right now, it seems they want to play it safe and simply keep the place "child-safe", just because.

They have a website that children and people of all moral-sensitivity can visit. They are taking precautions to simply account for the 'lowest common denominator', if you will. Just like if someone 'child-proofed' an apartment where children might visit. Yes, these measures might inconvenience and annoy non-children ("I have to undo a bunch of locks to get into the fridge!"), but that's preferable (For the owners) to a child hurting themselves.

I drifted from my point. Sorry.

Bottom line: no, this place isn't "PG rated", but I'm not sure it's necessary to verbally crucify anyone who refers to it as such, simply as a point of reference or a 'general' idea. They may not be exactly the same, but they're at least similar.

Vertical

 

It's funny to me because the family-friendly, PG-rating principle I have never found limiting in any way, shape, or form in nearly two years here. It is so clear-cut for me. Moderate the movie forums to the level of the films, moderate fan fic to the level of fiction approved on the market already existing, moderate saga and SWC to the films, moderate the EU and Lit to the accepted level of books and comics, etc...

Why does everyone think the JCC is so restrictive? It's interesting to me that the JCC, the forum with the loosest rules and guidelines, is the one that people feel are the most restrictive. I never once received a complaint from the movie forums about creativity being stifled by not being allowed to cuss a little bit.

What I see again and again are the same few members making lots of lengthy posts. They're loud and direct. But I don't see lots of different members saying the same thing again and again. And therein lies the difference.

You have thousands of users who accept the rules whether or not they agree and post happily, creatively, and without problems. But the handful of users who want to talk with some pretty and lovely explatives thrown in are the one's consistently crying breach of the First Amendment. I find that **** amazing.