Re: games unsuitable for children
- To: email@example.com
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: games unsuitable for children
- From: Ben Armstrong <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:48:51 -0400
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <20061224163947.GA7802@viaza>
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20061224163947.GA7802@viaza>
Thanks for your comments, Enrico.
This is one of those threads I really meant to follow up on, but put off forever ... I have decided I procrastinated this because I really don't feel strongly enough about it to champion it. However, I do understand some parents might find this of value, so I've CC'd the jr list in case someone else wants to pick up where we left off and do the tagging work to make something like Enrico proposed happen.
On Mon, 25 Dec 2006 00:39:47 +0800
Enrico Zini <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 03:20:36AM +0100, Miriam Ruiz wrote:
> For the debtags list that joins us only now, the full thread reference
> can be found at http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-games-devel/2006-December/002801.html
> > > I believe TIGRS rating categories meet these criteria. There's no reason we
> > > should seek to place the trademarked TIGRS rating box on Debian games, but
> > > the categories could form a template for debtags:
> > I like that classification. It's clear and parents has still the last
> > decision. Should we write to enrico so he can make suggestions about such a
> > debtag category?
> Here are my thoughts.
> If there is an objective scale (like Kandinski suggests), I'm very happy
> to have it in Debtags.
> If there is a subjective scale, I prefer it to be distributed as an
> add-on that people can turn on or off as they please (like ratings, as
> we did with Iterating.org: http://www.enricozini.org/2006/debtags/iterating-org.html).
> In the list at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-games/2006/12/msg00015.html I
> think that MILD/STRONG is subjective, while a scale as suggested at
> could be made objective.
> A set of categories like the one at http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-games-devel/2006-December/002811.html
> is probably too much: I don't know if we need such granularity at the
> moment, and I wouldn't want to end up with more tags than we have
> packages to tag.
> A suggestion I could give is to have a facet for highlighting these
> 'features' (which is what Debtags does). I can't think of a good name
> and probably finding the name of the facet could be the most difficult
> part. For the sake of discussion I'll name it 'foo'.
> Then we can put tags in foo according to the 'features' we have in
> Debian. We normally want to see a list of packages for every tag that
> is proposed:
> foo:nudity (what packages do we have in Debian?)
> foo:sex (what packages do we have in Debian?)
> foo:violence (the various dooms, brutalchess, xevil, dopewars...)
> foo:religion (no as much the bible text itself, but things like 'verse')
> foo:swearwords (dopewars, linux-source-2.6.18)
> foo:drugs (dopewars, the chemical screen saver in xscreensaver, what else?)
> Nontrivial problems arise, however, when we consider
> Ben Armstrong mentions Xpenguins and jumpnbump, but xscreensaver has the
> really nice molecule view screen saver enabled by default that will
> however by default show molecules for a wide range of narcotics. I
> *LIKE* it on my desktop, but it causes me problems when I install it in
> a high school.
> This last issue of software that can be configured to be ok is not
> solvable by debtags, and calls for an approach like a standard,
> cross-package preference file in /etc and home directories.
,-. nSLUG http://www.nslug.ns.ca firstname.lastname@example.org
\`' Debian http://www.debian.org email@example.com
` [ gpg 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ]
[ pgp 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0 1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ]