I've noticed a number of comments on threads (including other people's) deleted due to inappropriate topic discussion...

Fair enough,but, and I'm endangering my own standing here by raising it, at what point does actual game content cross the line?

I've seen the following subjects 'censored' (for want of a better term):

Drug use (like addiction isn't a factor in the game?!?)

Religion (there's a bloody great cross in the middle of a memorial FFS!)

Genocide (Wiping out a tribe is genocide...duh!)

Psychopaths (why have threads titled 'killing everyone'???)

Censorship and Game Ratings (I actually work in gun control and with my attorney-general's department - if you don't think that we like to see the views of gamers, 'you' are sadly mistaken...it's about the only thing that is keeping games like FNV rated as they are).


There's a range of others, and although I've not been penalised for commenting on these matters, it is a bit ridiculous to block discussion on them when they are actual game content.

I'm not laying an attack on the moderators here, please don't think that I am, I wouldn't do their job for love nor money, but I seriously think there is something genuinely wrong if the forum administrators are too scared to allow discussion on topics that are included in their game...

Fair enough, if you open the door and allow even minor discussion you will likely end up with a mass flame war...but why include it in the game in the first place if that is an issue?

Having been asked to advise on 'video game violence' (due to having studied this as part of my now profession of gun control) I know that what the 'ratings' bodies get told about a game and what is actually in the game are quite often two different things.

Don't get me wrong, as I said, I am not attacking the moderators, nor am I criticising the game...but I am asking where is the line and why is it rubbery?

This is something that the forum administrators need to consider...

You forgot six (which apparently is a half second blackout), and particularly homosixuality, which is a complete non-starter for discussion.

I think its because this is a 'family' forum, whereas FNV is for made for demented elders. Why they can't stick a useless birthday check on the forum like the game page, I know not.

I would think that is because some people can't seem to have a civil discussion, or debate. That in turn turns into an argument, which leads to name calling, and then hurt feelings.
Lets not forget that this is also a 13+ year old forum. Maybe if it was only for 18+ that might be different, but I doubt it since many advlts can't seem to have a civil discussion either.

Personally, I am glad the Admin/Mods have those rules in place. If they didn't I wouldn't keep coming back here.

Some of those are just against policy ~forum wide (regardless of game content).
(also... The game may be rated MA, but the company forums are rated 13+)

You can check out the http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/724862-forum-rules-and-general-information/ for the information you ask about, it is clearly stated what is and what isn't suitable and permitted for discussion. The forums, as stated, are rated 13+ irrespective of the games ratings, and as such the content has to be kept suitable and appropriate for that rating.

The moderators have full authority to determine what is and what is not suitable and appropriate, if a topic is closed or if posts are edited/deleted the reasons are always given and no one gets into trouble for it unless they insist in continuing to bring it up. If anyone has a need to discuss the topics we deem restricted, well there are plenty of other forums out there they can go to.

Also keep in mind that gamesas operates in multiple countries.

In some of those the laws may differ widely from the US law on these matters.

Not to mention discussion of some of the above (IE six, homosixuality, ect) are permitted in some cases (IE there was a thread about the portrayal of homosixuals in video games, and how NV approached it differently), but in general most of them are notorious flame bait topics.

I'd rather they bar some of them entirely and keep the forums civil than err on the side of freedom and have it turn into an open sewer.

To add to what Ro said, you can always send a mod a pm to ask about something.

"Would there be issues if I wanted to post about "subject"?"

"Why did you/a mod lock my topic/delete a post/do whatever it was we did?"

We don't have a problem with anyone doing that. As long as the pm doesn't have "[censored] [censored] [censored] you, you [censored] idiot" type content, we would much rather get a pm with a question than have someone end up with a warning. Contrary to popular belief, we really don't like warning and suspending people.

Some topics such as religion are very personal, and posters take any disagreements with the topic as a personal attack, and they react accordingly which is why "real life" religion isn't open for discussion. Fallout is in a gray area; it is a game, but a lot closer to "real world" than the Nine Divines and the Tribunal are. Whether the discussion would work or not would depend on the subject and the posters involved.

And this discussion has not been locked....

I think a large reason for the ban on what can and cannot be discussed isn't that it is 'taboo', but rather for peace of the village. Alot of those issues can be deemed 'Hot Button' which inevitably will mean the fierce debaters and trolls WILL flood into that thread and rip a chasm into the forum. It's best we left that talk to other places. When I come here, I come here to discuss Fallout and related Fallout world politics, not 'Why is there no six? It's human nature'. I enjoy a stable and peaceful forum, and I am sure others do as well.

The OP asked whether the line on discussions was "rubbery". Yes, on the majority it is and with a civil and sensible discussion the line is stretched, unfortunately all too often it deteriorates into flaming or vulgar language and the line is retracted and the topic closed.



Why should it be? Although it is not strictly about FNV it is hoped that it clears a few things up about the forum and what is expected in posts and topics. Despite what a few of you may think about the moderators, we are here to keep the forums neat and running smoothly and hopefully have them as a place everyone can come to discuss the game - good and bad - without fear of ridicule, being belittled and flamed or having to face a tirade of vulgar language.

I agree, it was a civil, well thought out discussion. I though the op was thinking it would be locked just typing those words.

I admit I was a bit wary, and I'm pleased that the topic wasn't locked out.

They're all valid points that have been brought up, and it's good to see that it didn't degenerate into a slanging match, that potential did worry me.

Part of the reason I posted is that where I come from we are having a debate in our media and government about the issue of game ratings, and there is a possibility that an 'internet filter' may be introduced, but the scope of the filter is that it will also encompass any material that refers to RC (refused classification) material, which would also include such things as these forums, Steam, etc. At the broadest interpretation it would also include Facebook and such if those sites posted RC type pics or written material. I believe the idea is being rethought out (hopefully to define the scope down), but it is a concern for many gamers (our average age is 30'ish).

I find it interesting that the 'bad word' autocensor here detects and obliterates even minor curse words in US English. However you can swear like a trooper in UK English, stuff that would have got me a clip around the ear from my dad, and it's allowed. That indicates to me that wanting to operate in multiple countries - even those with the same basic language - is unlikely to be a major factor, or they'd have done some basic research on language unsuitable for 13 year olds in other major English speaking countries, such as England.

Perhaps but I'm referring more to the discussion of violence and six than language. Not to mention the fact that making the site "rated M" might require various disclaimers and limits and proof of age that would be a nightmare for them to comply with.

I suspect, though, that the real reason is just to keep the level of discourse civil.

In my opinion, what we are really dealing with here is-

they know their biggest consumer is under age 17.

Plain and simple. Giving the young lads a place to converse about their ultra violent tendancies in and out of game.


But that's just my opinion. I wonder if this would be a good story for FOX NEWS?

(we really are looking forward to that patch

That's a bit of an obvious one, and to be honest if I was in this business I'd be doing the same, I find the rating system to be practically useless, at best it's only an advisory "Hey mum, I'm not old enough to buy this game, don't worry son I'll get it for you".

I seem to remember starting a similar discussion to the OPs on these boards a year or so ago, my, how times have not changed B)

It's like I said earlier before my thread got locked:

why would a board about MATURE SUBJECT MATTER be open to thirteen year olds.

I used a title of an advlt film that was not obscene or riske' before as an anology but it got moderated. I said if that advlt film had a messageboard that allowed thirteen year olds to discuss the film, wouldn't there be a problem?

Again I'm not trying to troll/flaimbait/be sarcastic, I would like to discuss this mature rated game in an a mature way.

I do get your point, I was going off at a tangent slightly! The game is rated 18+ in the UK (due to "strong bloody violence, language, and six references"). Yes it is difficult for online forums to confirm the age of users and modify content accordingly. But I bought the game on Steam, and it's equally difficult for them to tell my age, yet I was still able to buy it, and I used someone else's credit card - there was no verifiable check in the way you might get an ID check in a video game or dvd store. (I am actually 40 but Steam can't verify that for certain). Parents of minors should be censoring what their children do online, it shouldn't be that advlts have to be censored by the sites (for advlt rated games) themselves in case there are children present. In my opinion.

This is why I think that access to the different game discussion forums should be restricted based on the rating for those games. Its hypocritical that Bethesda should put advlt things in their games and then refuse to allow us to discuss those things on their own forums. I know of no other gaming company that puts unsavoury things in their games and then takes the moral high ground when they crop up in discussion.

Well the Bethesda Game specific Forums are all on the same overall forum, which means there are forums for games which have milder content right next to forums which games with more 'extreme' content so it's only fair that there is an overall guideline for the entire overall forum given that someone who's signed up to access one of the milder games forums can peruse the more mature games forums as well.

i wonder why cable companies dont do that with their childrens TV and advlt XXX PPV forums, that would make things so much simpler :shakehead: .

But if they're too young to play the games, they shouldn't need to view those forums.

I'm fine with things just the way they are. Unfortunately, if the rules are loosened, there are people who will push things to the furthest extremes just to push buttons. They'll argue religion and politics as if they were in a Crusade or work for a political party. Arguments make people tense up; they are not fun or sport. I personally don't care about cursing but others do. I also don't need to read graphic and often disgusting posts in a video game forum. There are places all over the internet for that...set up specifically for that. The rules are the way they are because of past experiences the Forum Admins and Mods had. That's why each rule was put in place...they've seen it all before.

:fallout:

What do you mean, "as if"?


I prefer to think of argments as an exercise in thought, but I see a lot of people don't see it that way and get all worked up when they are challenged. Not much we can do to change that, and I'm not advocating changing the flaming rules, even if they do force us to walk on eggshells occasionally.

The thing is, yes, there are places for graphic discussion elsewhere. And the rules were set up to stop that. But those rules were put in place at a time when the Fallout series was not up for discussion here, and now it is, we're kind of stuck with inflexible rules.

I'm not saying we should be able to talk about [censored], [censored]s and such in a RL context (no doubt those words have just been censored) but it would be nice if we could talk about the ones ingame, since they are actually in the games, and this is the forum for discussing those games?

Well, a lot of the other Mods have chimed in already (what a coincidence, I agree with everything they already said!) I doubt I have all that much to add, but from my own perspective:

I'm seeing a lot about how our forum, overall, is rated for 13+, when specific games within the Bethesda line-up are rated higher than that. In my experience, that only really has bearing on the sort of language you're allowed to use here. From what I've seen, it's rarely the advlt content itself that causes a topic to be locked - rather, the immature manner in which it gets discussed. I can't think of any event or theme that occurs in Fallout 3 or Fallout: New Vegas that would immediately be inappropriate for this forum.

When I think it crosses the line, when dealing with the topics which we don't allow - is when the discussion shifts from the "mature" topic as it relates to a videogame, and devolves into bickering about that subject matter, itself. (For example, I'd probably - at least initially, and pending a Moderator consensus - allow a topic about religion as it relates to the Fallout universe. I would then subsequently lock it once it became a discussion about whose real-life views and beliefs were more "valid.")