<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_14_0534223</id>
	<title>Modern Games and Technology Challenging ESRB's Effectiveness</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1255507320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>The Entertainment Software Rating Board has been around for 15 years now, overcoming an ineffective start and a host of controversial events to become a fairly well-respected ratings agency. However, as this article at The Escapist points out, the world of video games is changing, and <a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue\_223/6647-Obsolescence-Pending-Rating-the-ESRB">the ESRB does not seem to be adapting along with it</a>.
<i>"The most pressing problem is the ESRB's reluctance to address online interactions. Seeing as we're moving more and more toward online and internet-enabled games, this inevitably limits the ESRB's authority as a ratings board. Although the ESRB rates the submitted developer content within online games, these ratings are always qualified by an important disclaimer: 'Online Interactions Not Rated by the ESRB.' To date, this has meant that the rating given to the designed game content doesn't cover chat and other forms of player-to-player communication. That's unfortunate, because the ESRB's intimate relationship with the game industry could provide it with a unique vantage point from which to evaluate aspects of online games that are beyond the purview of other would-be raters, including the quality of the game's moderation system, programmed restrictions on chat and known player demographics."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Entertainment Software Rating Board has been around for 15 years now , overcoming an ineffective start and a host of controversial events to become a fairly well-respected ratings agency .
However , as this article at The Escapist points out , the world of video games is changing , and the ESRB does not seem to be adapting along with it .
" The most pressing problem is the ESRB 's reluctance to address online interactions .
Seeing as we 're moving more and more toward online and internet-enabled games , this inevitably limits the ESRB 's authority as a ratings board .
Although the ESRB rates the submitted developer content within online games , these ratings are always qualified by an important disclaimer : 'Online Interactions Not Rated by the ESRB .
' To date , this has meant that the rating given to the designed game content does n't cover chat and other forms of player-to-player communication .
That 's unfortunate , because the ESRB 's intimate relationship with the game industry could provide it with a unique vantage point from which to evaluate aspects of online games that are beyond the purview of other would-be raters , including the quality of the game 's moderation system , programmed restrictions on chat and known player demographics .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Entertainment Software Rating Board has been around for 15 years now, overcoming an ineffective start and a host of controversial events to become a fairly well-respected ratings agency.
However, as this article at The Escapist points out, the world of video games is changing, and the ESRB does not seem to be adapting along with it.
"The most pressing problem is the ESRB's reluctance to address online interactions.
Seeing as we're moving more and more toward online and internet-enabled games, this inevitably limits the ESRB's authority as a ratings board.
Although the ESRB rates the submitted developer content within online games, these ratings are always qualified by an important disclaimer: 'Online Interactions Not Rated by the ESRB.
' To date, this has meant that the rating given to the designed game content doesn't cover chat and other forms of player-to-player communication.
That's unfortunate, because the ESRB's intimate relationship with the game industry could provide it with a unique vantage point from which to evaluate aspects of online games that are beyond the purview of other would-be raters, including the quality of the game's moderation system, programmed restrictions on chat and known player demographics.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742285</id>
	<title>Why is that "unfortunate"?</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1255514760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most gamers have come to consider ESRB as "the enemy", given the degree to which they disagree (which at times tends to be rather extreme).
<br> <br>
Why, then, should gamers (and by extension, game companies) welcome their expansion into intra-game communications? They're not the bloody FCC, and ORPG companies have been doing a pretty good job of limiting what can be sent (via text) to other players. And trying to limit spoken words in a game would do no good, because they would just bypass it with Ventrilo or some such program.
<br> <br>
Bye-bye, ESRB.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most gamers have come to consider ESRB as " the enemy " , given the degree to which they disagree ( which at times tends to be rather extreme ) .
Why , then , should gamers ( and by extension , game companies ) welcome their expansion into intra-game communications ?
They 're not the bloody FCC , and ORPG companies have been doing a pretty good job of limiting what can be sent ( via text ) to other players .
And trying to limit spoken words in a game would do no good , because they would just bypass it with Ventrilo or some such program .
Bye-bye , ESRB .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most gamers have come to consider ESRB as "the enemy", given the degree to which they disagree (which at times tends to be rather extreme).
Why, then, should gamers (and by extension, game companies) welcome their expansion into intra-game communications?
They're not the bloody FCC, and ORPG companies have been doing a pretty good job of limiting what can be sent (via text) to other players.
And trying to limit spoken words in a game would do no good, because they would just bypass it with Ventrilo or some such program.
Bye-bye, ESRB.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29744091</id>
	<title>Re:Parental Involvement</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1255532520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I have found that no rating or ruling agency (whether Government or Private) can replace the effects of parents who get involved with their children and actually attempt to understand what their kids are doing and who they're interacting with.</p></div></blockquote><p>However, on the other hand, they can help. For one, it gives you a rough idea of the kind of entertainment your child enjoys right off the bat.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have found that no rating or ruling agency ( whether Government or Private ) can replace the effects of parents who get involved with their children and actually attempt to understand what their kids are doing and who they 're interacting with.However , on the other hand , they can help .
For one , it gives you a rough idea of the kind of entertainment your child enjoys right off the bat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have found that no rating or ruling agency (whether Government or Private) can replace the effects of parents who get involved with their children and actually attempt to understand what their kids are doing and who they're interacting with.However, on the other hand, they can help.
For one, it gives you a rough idea of the kind of entertainment your child enjoys right off the bat.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29750491</id>
	<title>playstation network actually teaches profanity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255517400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When you go online the Playstation Network (PSN) you can create a text chatroom and invite your friends.  If during a game with them you get disconnected you might try to say "I just got disconnected" to explain your absence.  This will appear as, "I just got dis***nected."  Why?  Because "con" is a curse word in french.  The only thing the PSN has done here is teach me foreign profanity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When you go online the Playstation Network ( PSN ) you can create a text chatroom and invite your friends .
If during a game with them you get disconnected you might try to say " I just got disconnected " to explain your absence .
This will appear as , " I just got dis * * * nected .
" Why ?
Because " con " is a curse word in french .
The only thing the PSN has done here is teach me foreign profanity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When you go online the Playstation Network (PSN) you can create a text chatroom and invite your friends.
If during a game with them you get disconnected you might try to say "I just got disconnected" to explain your absence.
This will appear as, "I just got dis***nected.
"  Why?
Because "con" is a curse word in french.
The only thing the PSN has done here is teach me foreign profanity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29755969</id>
	<title>Re:I can't see how</title>
	<author>DiEx-15</author>
	<datestamp>1255615680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree wholeheartedly on what you say. That is the rub of rating an online game: The second you let humans take control, you as a game designer LOSE control. Therefore, unless these "Think of the children!" groups decides to use the Constitution as toilet paper, I cannot see how the ESRB can accurately rate a game.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree wholeheartedly on what you say .
That is the rub of rating an online game : The second you let humans take control , you as a game designer LOSE control .
Therefore , unless these " Think of the children !
" groups decides to use the Constitution as toilet paper , I can not see how the ESRB can accurately rate a game .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree wholeheartedly on what you say.
That is the rub of rating an online game: The second you let humans take control, you as a game designer LOSE control.
Therefore, unless these "Think of the children!
" groups decides to use the Constitution as toilet paper, I cannot see how the ESRB can accurately rate a game.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742335</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't read the article</title>
	<author>malkir</author>
	<datestamp>1255515720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This video is fucking godly. AC is twat.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This video is fucking godly .
AC is twat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This video is fucking godly.
AC is twat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742499</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't read the article</title>
	<author>sopssa</author>
	<datestamp>1255517940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/unskippable" title="escapistmagazine.com">Unskippable</a> [escapistmagazine.com] is also quite good; not so fast-paced, but theres some fun moments. One good one is <a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/unskippable/758-Alone-in-the-Dark" title="escapistmagazine.com">Alone in the Dark</a> [escapistmagazine.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unskippable [ escapistmagazine.com ] is also quite good ; not so fast-paced , but theres some fun moments .
One good one is Alone in the Dark [ escapistmagazine.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unskippable [escapistmagazine.com] is also quite good; not so fast-paced, but theres some fun moments.
One good one is Alone in the Dark [escapistmagazine.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741989</id>
	<title>Good</title>
	<author>Urd.Yggdrasil</author>
	<datestamp>1255511460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I for one am glad they aren't policing internet interactions in gaming, the last thing I want is game companies being forced to attempt to censor every bad word to kowtow to the ESRB for an M rating. As for all the companies that already attempt to do it, good luck with your stupid useless endeavor.
<br> <br>
Fu(K!ng n0o85!!1</htmltext>
<tokenext>I for one am glad they are n't policing internet interactions in gaming , the last thing I want is game companies being forced to attempt to censor every bad word to kowtow to the ESRB for an M rating .
As for all the companies that already attempt to do it , good luck with your stupid useless endeavor .
Fu ( K ! ng n0o85 !
! 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I for one am glad they aren't policing internet interactions in gaming, the last thing I want is game companies being forced to attempt to censor every bad word to kowtow to the ESRB for an M rating.
As for all the companies that already attempt to do it, good luck with your stupid useless endeavor.
Fu(K!ng n0o85!
!1</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742041</id>
	<title>You have it easy</title>
	<author>AdamInParadise</author>
	<datestamp>1255512000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) The South Korea's Games Rating Board is supposed to certify <b>every</b> game.<br>2) The Jesus Phone is finally about to be launched in South Korea and it will be <b>widely</b> popular for lots of reasons (you can trust me on this one).</p><p>But because of 1), the <a href="http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2009/10/133\_52644.html" title="koreatimes.co.kr">South Korean AppStore will not include games...</a> [koreatimes.co.kr] Now that's not keeping up with the times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) The South Korea 's Games Rating Board is supposed to certify every game.2 ) The Jesus Phone is finally about to be launched in South Korea and it will be widely popular for lots of reasons ( you can trust me on this one ) .But because of 1 ) , the South Korean AppStore will not include games... [ koreatimes.co.kr ] Now that 's not keeping up with the times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) The South Korea's Games Rating Board is supposed to certify every game.2) The Jesus Phone is finally about to be launched in South Korea and it will be widely popular for lots of reasons (you can trust me on this one).But because of 1), the South Korean AppStore will not include games... [koreatimes.co.kr] Now that's not keeping up with the times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742693</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see why this is a problem</title>
	<author>Inda</author>
	<datestamp>1255520700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looking at this from the side on console games. TAKE THE FRAGGIN' MICROPHONES OFF YOUR KIDS!<br><br>90\% of the time I get abuse it is from the high-pitched young. I don't even know how to respond to some of the things they say. I cannot be witty, agression doesn't work and swearing is pointless because they know more than I do, even if I'm more streetwise than the average 30-something.<br><br>What is the teabagging thing too? I'm a man, they're young boys. What the hell are they doing to me after a frag? They're the quick ones to shout fag and gay. The mind boggles.<br><br>The other 10\% are drunk adults or meth-heads and I enjoy the banter with them. This should be promoted.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking at this from the side on console games .
TAKE THE FRAGGIN ' MICROPHONES OFF YOUR KIDS ! 90 \ % of the time I get abuse it is from the high-pitched young .
I do n't even know how to respond to some of the things they say .
I can not be witty , agression does n't work and swearing is pointless because they know more than I do , even if I 'm more streetwise than the average 30-something.What is the teabagging thing too ?
I 'm a man , they 're young boys .
What the hell are they doing to me after a frag ?
They 're the quick ones to shout fag and gay .
The mind boggles.The other 10 \ % are drunk adults or meth-heads and I enjoy the banter with them .
This should be promoted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking at this from the side on console games.
TAKE THE FRAGGIN' MICROPHONES OFF YOUR KIDS!90\% of the time I get abuse it is from the high-pitched young.
I don't even know how to respond to some of the things they say.
I cannot be witty, agression doesn't work and swearing is pointless because they know more than I do, even if I'm more streetwise than the average 30-something.What is the teabagging thing too?
I'm a man, they're young boys.
What the hell are they doing to me after a frag?
They're the quick ones to shout fag and gay.
The mind boggles.The other 10\% are drunk adults or meth-heads and I enjoy the banter with them.
This should be promoted.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742741</id>
	<title>Lazy parents...</title>
	<author>LichtVonWahrheit</author>
	<datestamp>1255521960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any responsible parent explores the games content on their own. Ratings are unreliable for any game where addons, mods, or online interaction are concerned.</p><p>I still find it disturbing that little Billy's parents would go batshit crazy if he saw a female nipple, but couldn't care less if he was playing a game where the goal was to murder police officers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any responsible parent explores the games content on their own .
Ratings are unreliable for any game where addons , mods , or online interaction are concerned.I still find it disturbing that little Billy 's parents would go batshit crazy if he saw a female nipple , but could n't care less if he was playing a game where the goal was to murder police officers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any responsible parent explores the games content on their own.
Ratings are unreliable for any game where addons, mods, or online interaction are concerned.I still find it disturbing that little Billy's parents would go batshit crazy if he saw a female nipple, but couldn't care less if he was playing a game where the goal was to murder police officers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29743991</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see why this is a problem</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255532040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Every time someone takes their kids outside they run the risk of those kids being exposed to god knows what, I don't see how online experiences are any different</i></p><p>You mean, like people shooting hookers, people shooting scary monsters, people stealing cars and recklessly running over pedestrians, etc? Not even in the worst parts of town, unless your town is somewhere in Iraq or another war-torn country. Games are seldom anything like real life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time someone takes their kids outside they run the risk of those kids being exposed to god knows what , I do n't see how online experiences are any differentYou mean , like people shooting hookers , people shooting scary monsters , people stealing cars and recklessly running over pedestrians , etc ?
Not even in the worst parts of town , unless your town is somewhere in Iraq or another war-torn country .
Games are seldom anything like real life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time someone takes their kids outside they run the risk of those kids being exposed to god knows what, I don't see how online experiences are any differentYou mean, like people shooting hookers, people shooting scary monsters, people stealing cars and recklessly running over pedestrians, etc?
Not even in the worst parts of town, unless your town is somewhere in Iraq or another war-torn country.
Games are seldom anything like real life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742301</id>
	<title>Parental Involvement</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255515240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have found that no rating or ruling agency (whether Government or Private) can replace the effects of parents who get involved with their children and actually attempt to understand what their kids are doing and who they're interacting with. I don't care what stamp or rating is put on the outside of the box, if I haven't researched whatever my children are doing, then I'd consider myself a failure as a parent, which is really what the underlying problem is here... not the fact that the ESRB doesn't rate online content / social interaction.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have found that no rating or ruling agency ( whether Government or Private ) can replace the effects of parents who get involved with their children and actually attempt to understand what their kids are doing and who they 're interacting with .
I do n't care what stamp or rating is put on the outside of the box , if I have n't researched whatever my children are doing , then I 'd consider myself a failure as a parent , which is really what the underlying problem is here... not the fact that the ESRB does n't rate online content / social interaction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have found that no rating or ruling agency (whether Government or Private) can replace the effects of parents who get involved with their children and actually attempt to understand what their kids are doing and who they're interacting with.
I don't care what stamp or rating is put on the outside of the box, if I haven't researched whatever my children are doing, then I'd consider myself a failure as a parent, which is really what the underlying problem is here... not the fact that the ESRB doesn't rate online content / social interaction.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29751883</id>
	<title>iPhone popularity in South Korea?</title>
	<author>KingAlanI</author>
	<datestamp>1255527240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>42-hour Starcraft marathons while your PC is broken? There's an app for that!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>42-hour Starcraft marathons while your PC is broken ?
There 's an app for that !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>42-hour Starcraft marathons while your PC is broken?
There's an app for that!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742041</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29743181</id>
	<title>It's very simple</title>
	<author>Random2</author>
	<datestamp>1255527420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ESRB doesn't want to be forced into rating everything 17+ because some kid said fuck a few times.  By not rating online interactions, they actually maintain some integrity to their ratings, whether people agree or disagree with them.</p><p>As for parents wanting to know the 'online climate' of a game, that's bullshit.  If you buy your kid an online FPS, you can expect there's going to be at least one guy who wants to cuss his head off at everyone. If you don't want your kids to experience that, then don't buy the game, or take it from them if they buy it.  (Not like the kid isn't going to be exposed to profanity anyways, but this would be a parent obstinate about controlling their home environment).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ESRB does n't want to be forced into rating everything 17 + because some kid said fuck a few times .
By not rating online interactions , they actually maintain some integrity to their ratings , whether people agree or disagree with them.As for parents wanting to know the 'online climate ' of a game , that 's bullshit .
If you buy your kid an online FPS , you can expect there 's going to be at least one guy who wants to cuss his head off at everyone .
If you do n't want your kids to experience that , then do n't buy the game , or take it from them if they buy it .
( Not like the kid is n't going to be exposed to profanity anyways , but this would be a parent obstinate about controlling their home environment ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ESRB doesn't want to be forced into rating everything 17+ because some kid said fuck a few times.
By not rating online interactions, they actually maintain some integrity to their ratings, whether people agree or disagree with them.As for parents wanting to know the 'online climate' of a game, that's bullshit.
If you buy your kid an online FPS, you can expect there's going to be at least one guy who wants to cuss his head off at everyone.
If you don't want your kids to experience that, then don't buy the game, or take it from them if they buy it.
(Not like the kid isn't going to be exposed to profanity anyways, but this would be a parent obstinate about controlling their home environment).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742553</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't read the article</title>
	<author>JohnnyBGod</author>
	<datestamp>1255518540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget Unskippable!</p><p><a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/unskippable/512-Dirge-of-Cerberus" title="escapistmagazine.com">http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/unskippable/512-Dirge-of-Cerberus</a> [escapistmagazine.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget Unskippable ! http : //www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/unskippable/512-Dirge-of-Cerberus [ escapistmagazine.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget Unskippable!http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/unskippable/512-Dirge-of-Cerberus [escapistmagazine.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741961</id>
	<title>Didn't read the article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255511100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only good thing about Escapist Magazine is Zero Punctuation:</p><p><a href="http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/916-Wolfenstein" title="escapistmagazine.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/916-Wolfenstein</a> [escapistmagazine.com]</p><p>Yeah, he's that good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only good thing about Escapist Magazine is Zero Punctuation : http : //www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/916-Wolfenstein [ escapistmagazine.com ] Yeah , he 's that good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only good thing about Escapist Magazine is Zero Punctuation:http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/916-Wolfenstein [escapistmagazine.com]Yeah, he's that good.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29746177</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see why this is a problem</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1255541040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think so. But then again, I'm not a WASP, and I don't want to control what everyone else does and thinks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think so .
But then again , I 'm not a WASP , and I do n't want to control what everyone else does and thinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think so.
But then again, I'm not a WASP, and I don't want to control what everyone else does and thinks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742787</id>
	<title>What a pointless article</title>
	<author>PhotoBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1255522740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article talks about rating online games based on their demographics and moderation systems, but I believe even that is pointless. Just look at Nintendo, I lost count of the number of hairy dicks people had drawn on the front of their karts in Mario Kart DS, and that game has no text or voice chat and no webcam features. No matter how many people you ban for inappropriate behaviour, there will always be someone new on the game ready to mis-behave.</p><p>The ESRB can't rate online interactions and they're right not to try to do so. The only thing they should be doing is educating parents about the risks of playing games online and recommending that parents monitor who their kids are talking to in those games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article talks about rating online games based on their demographics and moderation systems , but I believe even that is pointless .
Just look at Nintendo , I lost count of the number of hairy dicks people had drawn on the front of their karts in Mario Kart DS , and that game has no text or voice chat and no webcam features .
No matter how many people you ban for inappropriate behaviour , there will always be someone new on the game ready to mis-behave.The ESRB ca n't rate online interactions and they 're right not to try to do so .
The only thing they should be doing is educating parents about the risks of playing games online and recommending that parents monitor who their kids are talking to in those games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article talks about rating online games based on their demographics and moderation systems, but I believe even that is pointless.
Just look at Nintendo, I lost count of the number of hairy dicks people had drawn on the front of their karts in Mario Kart DS, and that game has no text or voice chat and no webcam features.
No matter how many people you ban for inappropriate behaviour, there will always be someone new on the game ready to mis-behave.The ESRB can't rate online interactions and they're right not to try to do so.
The only thing they should be doing is educating parents about the risks of playing games online and recommending that parents monitor who their kids are talking to in those games.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29743817</id>
	<title>Rating Interactions...</title>
	<author>SnT2k</author>
	<datestamp>1255531200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So they want games to end <a href="http://i34.tinypic.com/agqw.png" title="tinypic.com" rel="nofollow">like this</a> [tinypic.com]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So they want games to end like this [ tinypic.com ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So they want games to end like this [tinypic.com]?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29743443</id>
	<title>Scrabble... for adults only.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255529220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Come on, one of the most notoriously funny quotes on bash.org is about someone caught cybering on a Scrabble website.</p><p><a href="http://www.bash.org/?829281" title="bash.org">NSFW</a> [bash.org]</p><p>SCRABBLE: Rated AO for sexual content! And that's not even counting a triple word score for "epididymis".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Come on , one of the most notoriously funny quotes on bash.org is about someone caught cybering on a Scrabble website.NSFW [ bash.org ] SCRABBLE : Rated AO for sexual content !
And that 's not even counting a triple word score for " epididymis " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Come on, one of the most notoriously funny quotes on bash.org is about someone caught cybering on a Scrabble website.NSFW [bash.org]SCRABBLE: Rated AO for sexual content!
And that's not even counting a triple word score for "epididymis".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29752391</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see why this is a problem</title>
	<author>Talgrath</author>
	<datestamp>1255530720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but it's pretty much impossible to know what that environment will be like BEFORE the game is released (which is when the ESRB rating is given).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but it 's pretty much impossible to know what that environment will be like BEFORE the game is released ( which is when the ESRB rating is given ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but it's pretty much impossible to know what that environment will be like BEFORE the game is released (which is when the ESRB rating is given).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29750027</id>
	<title>Re:I can't see how</title>
	<author>bigngamer92</author>
	<datestamp>1255514880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I could see them rating how many restrictions or methods to communicate.  For example the game may or may not have voice chat, text chat, language filter, leaderboards...  Just compare the interactivity between characters in Halo 3 and Super Smash Bros Brawl.
<p>Of course when you look at the comparison I know which online mode I'd rather have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could see them rating how many restrictions or methods to communicate .
For example the game may or may not have voice chat , text chat , language filter , leaderboards... Just compare the interactivity between characters in Halo 3 and Super Smash Bros Brawl .
Of course when you look at the comparison I know which online mode I 'd rather have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could see them rating how many restrictions or methods to communicate.
For example the game may or may not have voice chat, text chat, language filter, leaderboards...  Just compare the interactivity between characters in Halo 3 and Super Smash Bros Brawl.
Of course when you look at the comparison I know which online mode I'd rather have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742407</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see why this is a problem</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1255516800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a friend who listens to death metal music, and frequently wears t-shirts with some truly profane slogans. Worst one I've seen is "Jesus is a c*nt."<br> <br>The issue isn't about children being exposed to objectionable material, it's teaching them why it's objectionable and that they should learn to ignore it, but accept that everyone has an opinion to express. They don't need to agree, and they're free to walk away, not socialise, and ignore that person.<br> <br>Is it really so fucking hard?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a friend who listens to death metal music , and frequently wears t-shirts with some truly profane slogans .
Worst one I 've seen is " Jesus is a c * nt .
" The issue is n't about children being exposed to objectionable material , it 's teaching them why it 's objectionable and that they should learn to ignore it , but accept that everyone has an opinion to express .
They do n't need to agree , and they 're free to walk away , not socialise , and ignore that person .
Is it really so fucking hard ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a friend who listens to death metal music, and frequently wears t-shirts with some truly profane slogans.
Worst one I've seen is "Jesus is a c*nt.
" The issue isn't about children being exposed to objectionable material, it's teaching them why it's objectionable and that they should learn to ignore it, but accept that everyone has an opinion to express.
They don't need to agree, and they're free to walk away, not socialise, and ignore that person.
Is it really so fucking hard?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29745145</id>
	<title>Re:You know why?</title>
	<author>space\_jake</author>
	<datestamp>1255536840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>[1. General] Me: I hate g**** flavored cough medicine.

Seriously what is wrong with grapes?</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ 1 .
General ] Me : I hate g * * * * flavored cough medicine .
Seriously what is wrong with grapes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[1.
General] Me: I hate g**** flavored cough medicine.
Seriously what is wrong with grapes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29746021</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see why this is a problem</title>
	<author>deafNewt</author>
	<datestamp>1255540320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yup. This is exactly why I quit playing any FPS online after Halo2 (and, I get p0wned).

My two sons play on Xbox live quite a bit, but neither one engages in much of that bullsh*t behavior.  It might be because they're mature enough to know it's stupid, but it also might be because I play games with them and will often kick back in the recliner to "veg out" and watch them play.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup .
This is exactly why I quit playing any FPS online after Halo2 ( and , I get p0wned ) .
My two sons play on Xbox live quite a bit , but neither one engages in much of that bullsh * t behavior .
It might be because they 're mature enough to know it 's stupid , but it also might be because I play games with them and will often kick back in the recliner to " veg out " and watch them play .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup.
This is exactly why I quit playing any FPS online after Halo2 (and, I get p0wned).
My two sons play on Xbox live quite a bit, but neither one engages in much of that bullsh*t behavior.
It might be because they're mature enough to know it's stupid, but it also might be because I play games with them and will often kick back in the recliner to "veg out" and watch them play.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742295</id>
	<title>Re:I can't see how</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255515180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>For example, make a NPC standing behind a cow and moving in a certain way, making it look like he is fornicating with said cow.</p></div></blockquote><p>And what's even worse with the idea of rating the online content is that a) it could be entirely perspective (i.e. from another angle there's nothing wrong with a cow over there and a man 'dancing' nearby) and b) everyone has their own little dirty imagination that can corrupt some fairly simple things.</p><p>$deity help them if they ever did English Literature - from what my wife said then everything (like swords) seems to get drawn back to some phallic symbology, which completely messes up low ratings on fantasy games.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For example , make a NPC standing behind a cow and moving in a certain way , making it look like he is fornicating with said cow.And what 's even worse with the idea of rating the online content is that a ) it could be entirely perspective ( i.e .
from another angle there 's nothing wrong with a cow over there and a man 'dancing ' nearby ) and b ) everyone has their own little dirty imagination that can corrupt some fairly simple things. $ deity help them if they ever did English Literature - from what my wife said then everything ( like swords ) seems to get drawn back to some phallic symbology , which completely messes up low ratings on fantasy games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For example, make a NPC standing behind a cow and moving in a certain way, making it look like he is fornicating with said cow.And what's even worse with the idea of rating the online content is that a) it could be entirely perspective (i.e.
from another angle there's nothing wrong with a cow over there and a man 'dancing' nearby) and b) everyone has their own little dirty imagination that can corrupt some fairly simple things.$deity help them if they ever did English Literature - from what my wife said then everything (like swords) seems to get drawn back to some phallic symbology, which completely messes up low ratings on fantasy games.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29743255</id>
	<title>Why not just clarify "online interactions"?</title>
	<author>TimTucker</author>
	<datestamp>1255527960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems like the current "online interactions not rated" could at least be split into 3 different classifications:

<ul>
<li>Online interactions may contain unrated visible content (i.e.: Second Life)</li><li>Online interactions may contain unrated audible content (i.e.: voice chat)</li><li>Online interactions may contain unrated textual content (i.e.: text chat)</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like the current " online interactions not rated " could at least be split into 3 different classifications : Online interactions may contain unrated visible content ( i.e .
: Second Life ) Online interactions may contain unrated audible content ( i.e .
: voice chat ) Online interactions may contain unrated textual content ( i.e .
: text chat )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like the current "online interactions not rated" could at least be split into 3 different classifications:


Online interactions may contain unrated visible content (i.e.
: Second Life)Online interactions may contain unrated audible content (i.e.
: voice chat)Online interactions may contain unrated textual content (i.e.
: text chat)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29745867</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see why this is a problem</title>
	<author>BakaHoushi</author>
	<datestamp>1255539720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm in total agreement. If anything, we need more warnings about kids playing the game for the adults. I play Team-Fortress 2 (PC version) regularly and rarely hear swearing or cursing from other players. But sometimes, a little kid gets on and is worse than every other chatter combined. It's annoying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in total agreement .
If anything , we need more warnings about kids playing the game for the adults .
I play Team-Fortress 2 ( PC version ) regularly and rarely hear swearing or cursing from other players .
But sometimes , a little kid gets on and is worse than every other chatter combined .
It 's annoying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in total agreement.
If anything, we need more warnings about kids playing the game for the adults.
I play Team-Fortress 2 (PC version) regularly and rarely hear swearing or cursing from other players.
But sometimes, a little kid gets on and is worse than every other chatter combined.
It's annoying.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29744575</id>
	<title>Re:Why is that "unfortunate"?</title>
	<author>BaronHethorSamedi</author>
	<datestamp>1255534500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most gamers have come to consider ESRB as "the enemy", given the degree to which they disagree (which at times tends to be rather extreme).</p></div><p>"Most gamers" consider the ESRB as "the enemy?" How so, and why?  I'm a gamer over thirty years of age, and I have a child.  I <i>like</i> the ESRB.  I certainly don't think it's on its way out.  I suspect the gamers who view the ESRB as "the enemy" are under twelve, and have conscientious parents.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most gamers have come to consider ESRB as " the enemy " , given the degree to which they disagree ( which at times tends to be rather extreme ) .
" Most gamers " consider the ESRB as " the enemy ?
" How so , and why ?
I 'm a gamer over thirty years of age , and I have a child .
I like the ESRB .
I certainly do n't think it 's on its way out .
I suspect the gamers who view the ESRB as " the enemy " are under twelve , and have conscientious parents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most gamers have come to consider ESRB as "the enemy", given the degree to which they disagree (which at times tends to be rather extreme).
"Most gamers" consider the ESRB as "the enemy?
" How so, and why?
I'm a gamer over thirty years of age, and I have a child.
I like the ESRB.
I certainly don't think it's on its way out.
I suspect the gamers who view the ESRB as "the enemy" are under twelve, and have conscientious parents.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742285</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29749499</id>
	<title>Re:Why is that "unfortunate"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255512420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or those of us who are adults who don't like the idea of a company pulling punches on their own game's art, storytelling, and visuals just to fit a certain rating niche.<br><br>But hey, at least since children are invincible in Fallout 3, it's perfectly OK to use them as soldiers!  Right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or those of us who are adults who do n't like the idea of a company pulling punches on their own game 's art , storytelling , and visuals just to fit a certain rating niche.But hey , at least since children are invincible in Fallout 3 , it 's perfectly OK to use them as soldiers !
Right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or those of us who are adults who don't like the idea of a company pulling punches on their own game's art, storytelling, and visuals just to fit a certain rating niche.But hey, at least since children are invincible in Fallout 3, it's perfectly OK to use them as soldiers!
Right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29744575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742125</id>
	<title>Anything is better than nothing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255512720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should just design a few tier labels to classify online interaction types.</p><p>Controlled - Anonymous multiplay only. All user content must be approved. Chat limited to preset phrases.</p><p>Friends only - Unfiltered user content and open chat from Friends Only.</p><p>Unfiltered - Open online community. Supervision recommended under 17.</p><p>That would at least let parents know what's going on in the game. It's a lot more informative than a simple: "Online interactions not Rated"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should just design a few tier labels to classify online interaction types.Controlled - Anonymous multiplay only .
All user content must be approved .
Chat limited to preset phrases.Friends only - Unfiltered user content and open chat from Friends Only.Unfiltered - Open online community .
Supervision recommended under 17.That would at least let parents know what 's going on in the game .
It 's a lot more informative than a simple : " Online interactions not Rated "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should just design a few tier labels to classify online interaction types.Controlled - Anonymous multiplay only.
All user content must be approved.
Chat limited to preset phrases.Friends only - Unfiltered user content and open chat from Friends Only.Unfiltered - Open online community.
Supervision recommended under 17.That would at least let parents know what's going on in the game.
It's a lot more informative than a simple: "Online interactions not Rated"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29746483</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see why this is a problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255542480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No kidding. It was only when I started playing Call of Duty on XBOX Live that I realized that the US was undergoing an invasion... an epidemic, really. Apparently, the US is flooded with "nigger faggots". Countless young boys (with voice profiles similar to young girls) will scream or sing or just natter on incessantly about how EVERYONE that they don't like in the game (anyone other than their immediate friends... and sometimes them too) is a "nigger", "faggot", or most impressively "nigger faggot". This is the youth of today... they will have the vote just as Obama is coming out of office.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No kidding .
It was only when I started playing Call of Duty on XBOX Live that I realized that the US was undergoing an invasion... an epidemic , really .
Apparently , the US is flooded with " nigger faggots " .
Countless young boys ( with voice profiles similar to young girls ) will scream or sing or just natter on incessantly about how EVERYONE that they do n't like in the game ( anyone other than their immediate friends... and sometimes them too ) is a " nigger " , " faggot " , or most impressively " nigger faggot " .
This is the youth of today... they will have the vote just as Obama is coming out of office .
: (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No kidding.
It was only when I started playing Call of Duty on XBOX Live that I realized that the US was undergoing an invasion... an epidemic, really.
Apparently, the US is flooded with "nigger faggots".
Countless young boys (with voice profiles similar to young girls) will scream or sing or just natter on incessantly about how EVERYONE that they don't like in the game (anyone other than their immediate friends... and sometimes them too) is a "nigger", "faggot", or most impressively "nigger faggot".
This is the youth of today... they will have the vote just as Obama is coming out of office.
:(</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742069</id>
	<title>I can't see how</title>
	<author>Tukz</author>
	<datestamp>1255512240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't see how they would be able to rate online games.<br>The fact of the matter is, they can only rate the underlying content of the game, not the interactions in the game.</p><p>In a lot of games you can manipulate environment, and create scenarios which isn't covered in the rating.<br>For example, make a NPC standing behind a cow and moving in a certain way, making it look like he is fornicating with said cow.</p><p>There is no way they can rate against things like this. The above example may be harmless as it's only insinuating something sexual, however, it wasn't intentional in the game.<br>Same thing can be said of online play.</p><p>The moment you introduce human interaction, anything can (and will) happen.<br>Spore got entire solar systems inhabited by several "races" of penis' for crying out loud.</p><p>That's a pretty innocent rated game.</p><p>So alternatively, all online interactions should be rated "M+: Enter at own risk".</p><p>tl;dr: They can rate the underlying game, but cannot rate human interaction, and thus can't accurately rate online play, imo.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't see how they would be able to rate online games.The fact of the matter is , they can only rate the underlying content of the game , not the interactions in the game.In a lot of games you can manipulate environment , and create scenarios which is n't covered in the rating.For example , make a NPC standing behind a cow and moving in a certain way , making it look like he is fornicating with said cow.There is no way they can rate against things like this .
The above example may be harmless as it 's only insinuating something sexual , however , it was n't intentional in the game.Same thing can be said of online play.The moment you introduce human interaction , anything can ( and will ) happen.Spore got entire solar systems inhabited by several " races " of penis ' for crying out loud.That 's a pretty innocent rated game.So alternatively , all online interactions should be rated " M + : Enter at own risk " .tl ; dr : They can rate the underlying game , but can not rate human interaction , and thus ca n't accurately rate online play , imo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't see how they would be able to rate online games.The fact of the matter is, they can only rate the underlying content of the game, not the interactions in the game.In a lot of games you can manipulate environment, and create scenarios which isn't covered in the rating.For example, make a NPC standing behind a cow and moving in a certain way, making it look like he is fornicating with said cow.There is no way they can rate against things like this.
The above example may be harmless as it's only insinuating something sexual, however, it wasn't intentional in the game.Same thing can be said of online play.The moment you introduce human interaction, anything can (and will) happen.Spore got entire solar systems inhabited by several "races" of penis' for crying out loud.That's a pretty innocent rated game.So alternatively, all online interactions should be rated "M+: Enter at own risk".tl;dr: They can rate the underlying game, but cannot rate human interaction, and thus can't accurately rate online play, imo.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741971</id>
	<title>I don't see why this is a problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255511220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every time someone takes their kids outside they run the risk of those kids being exposed to god knows what, I don't see how online experiences are any different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time someone takes their kids outside they run the risk of those kids being exposed to god knows what , I do n't see how online experiences are any different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time someone takes their kids outside they run the risk of those kids being exposed to god knows what, I don't see how online experiences are any different.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742101</id>
	<title>You know why?</title>
	<author>pHus10n</author>
	<datestamp>1255512540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know why they don't/can't rate online experiences?  Here's an example of World of Warcraft Trade chat when in a city:<br>
<br>
[2. Trade] Deringer: ANAL [Attack]<br>
[2. Trade] Arrtthhaass: ANAL [Corpse Explosion]<br>
[2. Trade] Treqir: ANAL [Injection]<br>
[2. Trade] Arrtthhaass: lol<br>
[2. Trade] Yosim: STFU an stay out of trade<br>
[2. Trade] Deringer: lol u have downs</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know why they do n't/ca n't rate online experiences ?
Here 's an example of World of Warcraft Trade chat when in a city : [ 2 .
Trade ] Deringer : ANAL [ Attack ] [ 2 .
Trade ] Arrtthhaass : ANAL [ Corpse Explosion ] [ 2 .
Trade ] Treqir : ANAL [ Injection ] [ 2 .
Trade ] Arrtthhaass : lol [ 2 .
Trade ] Yosim : STFU an stay out of trade [ 2 .
Trade ] Deringer : lol u have downs</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know why they don't/can't rate online experiences?
Here's an example of World of Warcraft Trade chat when in a city:

[2.
Trade] Deringer: ANAL [Attack]
[2.
Trade] Arrtthhaass: ANAL [Corpse Explosion]
[2.
Trade] Treqir: ANAL [Injection]
[2.
Trade] Arrtthhaass: lol
[2.
Trade] Yosim: STFU an stay out of trade
[2.
Trade] Deringer: lol u have downs</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29746105</id>
	<title>This one's easy!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255540620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You want to know how to rate multiplayer interactions? It's simple. You just systematically stereotype everyone who plays a game genre and then write that down for the rating. You could even be more specific, and craft game-specific stereotypes. For instance, "Halo 3 is rated 'M' for gore and violence. Online interactions are rated 'A' because when playing on XBox Live you have a high probability of coming into contact with an asshat."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You want to know how to rate multiplayer interactions ?
It 's simple .
You just systematically stereotype everyone who plays a game genre and then write that down for the rating .
You could even be more specific , and craft game-specific stereotypes .
For instance , " Halo 3 is rated 'M ' for gore and violence .
Online interactions are rated 'A ' because when playing on XBox Live you have a high probability of coming into contact with an asshat .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You want to know how to rate multiplayer interactions?
It's simple.
You just systematically stereotype everyone who plays a game genre and then write that down for the rating.
You could even be more specific, and craft game-specific stereotypes.
For instance, "Halo 3 is rated 'M' for gore and violence.
Online interactions are rated 'A' because when playing on XBox Live you have a high probability of coming into contact with an asshat.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742465</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see why this is a problem</title>
	<author>MozzleyOne</author>
	<datestamp>1255517520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because, when they're outside the kids are under direct supervision of said parent. Not necessarily the same for online experiences.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because , when they 're outside the kids are under direct supervision of said parent .
Not necessarily the same for online experiences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because, when they're outside the kids are under direct supervision of said parent.
Not necessarily the same for online experiences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29749789</id>
	<title>Re:Good</title>
	<author>Machtyn</author>
	<datestamp>1255513860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think a good solution, if they want to rate online interaction is as follows:
<br> <br>
<b>Open:</b>  This defines an unmoderated forum.  The user you may be playing with/against could be anybody from a 7 year-old girl to a 68 year-old pedophile.  It could be some 13 year-old twerp with a "sailor's" mouth or a stuck-up nut-job. <br>
<b>Moderated:</b>  There happens to be a moderator.  All of the weird people may be kicked off the server if they show signs of societal deviance.<br>
<b>Closed:</b>  Connection to multiplayer servers are by invite only.<br>
<b>None:</b> There is no multiplayer aspect to the game.<br>
<br> <br>
What do you think?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think a good solution , if they want to rate online interaction is as follows : Open : This defines an unmoderated forum .
The user you may be playing with/against could be anybody from a 7 year-old girl to a 68 year-old pedophile .
It could be some 13 year-old twerp with a " sailor 's " mouth or a stuck-up nut-job .
Moderated : There happens to be a moderator .
All of the weird people may be kicked off the server if they show signs of societal deviance .
Closed : Connection to multiplayer servers are by invite only .
None : There is no multiplayer aspect to the game .
What do you think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think a good solution, if they want to rate online interaction is as follows:
 
Open:  This defines an unmoderated forum.
The user you may be playing with/against could be anybody from a 7 year-old girl to a 68 year-old pedophile.
It could be some 13 year-old twerp with a "sailor's" mouth or a stuck-up nut-job.
Moderated:  There happens to be a moderator.
All of the weird people may be kicked off the server if they show signs of societal deviance.
Closed:  Connection to multiplayer servers are by invite only.
None: There is no multiplayer aspect to the game.
What do you think?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741989</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29746227</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see why this is a problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255541160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That almost perfectly described my relationship with my husband...</htmltext>
<tokenext>That almost perfectly described my relationship with my husband.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That almost perfectly described my relationship with my husband...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742591</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see why this is a problem</title>
	<author>BikeHelmet</author>
	<datestamp>1255519320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, but some games are like walking into a strip bar, rather than going outside.</p><p>Left 4 Dead.<br>-Odds of encountering at least 1 hacker per day: 100\%<br>-Odds of someone calling you a homo cheating faggot fuckhead: 50\%<br>-Odds of people ragequitting if you beat them just one round: 25\%<br>-Odds of someone joining mid-game and unloading bullets into you until you kick them: 12.5\%</p><p>Okay, I made those percentages up, but it's still a pretty hostile environment.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P Quite different from say... an MMO like Champions Online.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , but some games are like walking into a strip bar , rather than going outside.Left 4 Dead.-Odds of encountering at least 1 hacker per day : 100 \ % -Odds of someone calling you a homo cheating faggot fuckhead : 50 \ % -Odds of people ragequitting if you beat them just one round : 25 \ % -Odds of someone joining mid-game and unloading bullets into you until you kick them : 12.5 \ % Okay , I made those percentages up , but it 's still a pretty hostile environment .
: P Quite different from say... an MMO like Champions Online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, but some games are like walking into a strip bar, rather than going outside.Left 4 Dead.-Odds of encountering at least 1 hacker per day: 100\%-Odds of someone calling you a homo cheating faggot fuckhead: 50\%-Odds of people ragequitting if you beat them just one round: 25\%-Odds of someone joining mid-game and unloading bullets into you until you kick them: 12.5\%Okay, I made those percentages up, but it's still a pretty hostile environment.
:P Quite different from say... an MMO like Champions Online.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742095</id>
	<title>I have my doubts</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255512540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>including the quality of the game's moderation system, programmed restrictions on chat and known player demographics.</p></div><p>As someone who works on a large website targeted towards children which has both chat and UGC with various systems around who you can communicate with, whitelists, moderation, etc. this seems very unlikely to prove useful. Our weekly lists of banned phrases show just how creative people can be with regular, every day words and their ability to use them in ways which while using no established slang still very clearly come across as harassing/derogatory/sexual, etc - and as noted, the demographics here are young children (hence I don't think there's much value in "known player demographics"). I think the only way they could truly rate a game with real-time interaction with other players is based on what types of interactions you can have (which could still be tricky).
</p><p>For instance - an online game of chess with no communication system, just the ability to make moves... probably pretty safe (though I'm sure someone will find a way to get creative with a horse and a queen). Whereas a game where you can run around and have the ability to duck - well, someone's gonna get tea bagged. But it all seems of limited usefulness, because very quickly you get to the point with your interactions where all bets are off - you'll end up with a very small segment of "safe" games with everything else being "at your own risk." Parents, et al are probably better off considering any game with online play "at your own risk."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>including the quality of the game 's moderation system , programmed restrictions on chat and known player demographics.As someone who works on a large website targeted towards children which has both chat and UGC with various systems around who you can communicate with , whitelists , moderation , etc .
this seems very unlikely to prove useful .
Our weekly lists of banned phrases show just how creative people can be with regular , every day words and their ability to use them in ways which while using no established slang still very clearly come across as harassing/derogatory/sexual , etc - and as noted , the demographics here are young children ( hence I do n't think there 's much value in " known player demographics " ) .
I think the only way they could truly rate a game with real-time interaction with other players is based on what types of interactions you can have ( which could still be tricky ) .
For instance - an online game of chess with no communication system , just the ability to make moves... probably pretty safe ( though I 'm sure someone will find a way to get creative with a horse and a queen ) .
Whereas a game where you can run around and have the ability to duck - well , someone 's gon na get tea bagged .
But it all seems of limited usefulness , because very quickly you get to the point with your interactions where all bets are off - you 'll end up with a very small segment of " safe " games with everything else being " at your own risk .
" Parents , et al are probably better off considering any game with online play " at your own risk .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>including the quality of the game's moderation system, programmed restrictions on chat and known player demographics.As someone who works on a large website targeted towards children which has both chat and UGC with various systems around who you can communicate with, whitelists, moderation, etc.
this seems very unlikely to prove useful.
Our weekly lists of banned phrases show just how creative people can be with regular, every day words and their ability to use them in ways which while using no established slang still very clearly come across as harassing/derogatory/sexual, etc - and as noted, the demographics here are young children (hence I don't think there's much value in "known player demographics").
I think the only way they could truly rate a game with real-time interaction with other players is based on what types of interactions you can have (which could still be tricky).
For instance - an online game of chess with no communication system, just the ability to make moves... probably pretty safe (though I'm sure someone will find a way to get creative with a horse and a queen).
Whereas a game where you can run around and have the ability to duck - well, someone's gonna get tea bagged.
But it all seems of limited usefulness, because very quickly you get to the point with your interactions where all bets are off - you'll end up with a very small segment of "safe" games with everything else being "at your own risk.
" Parents, et al are probably better off considering any game with online play "at your own risk.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742289</id>
	<title>Rating for the sake of it?</title>
	<author>war4peace</author>
	<datestamp>1255514820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Rephrasing ESRB's notice: "The Internet can be a dangerous place". Rating online gaming experience equals them attempting to rate my ability to understand this statement. Which they can't do.<br>
They're not lagging behind modern times, they're just flat-out telling us the truth: online interactions can't be rated.<br>
One would laughingly dismiss the statement saying "Accessing Internet via Opera is always safe" or "Yahoo Messenger rating: TEEN". It would be careless, stupid and would take away all trust in the company making those statements. So they wisely stay away of moving sands.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Rephrasing ESRB 's notice : " The Internet can be a dangerous place " .
Rating online gaming experience equals them attempting to rate my ability to understand this statement .
Which they ca n't do .
They 're not lagging behind modern times , they 're just flat-out telling us the truth : online interactions ca n't be rated .
One would laughingly dismiss the statement saying " Accessing Internet via Opera is always safe " or " Yahoo Messenger rating : TEEN " .
It would be careless , stupid and would take away all trust in the company making those statements .
So they wisely stay away of moving sands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rephrasing ESRB's notice: "The Internet can be a dangerous place".
Rating online gaming experience equals them attempting to rate my ability to understand this statement.
Which they can't do.
They're not lagging behind modern times, they're just flat-out telling us the truth: online interactions can't be rated.
One would laughingly dismiss the statement saying "Accessing Internet via Opera is always safe" or "Yahoo Messenger rating: TEEN".
It would be careless, stupid and would take away all trust in the company making those statements.
So they wisely stay away of moving sands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742703</id>
	<title>No.</title>
	<author>Legion303</author>
	<datestamp>1255521180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is the most thoroughly stupid article I've ever seen. Is the ESRB supposed to consult its crystal ball to determine whether or not someone will spam a link to lemonparty in an otherwise "E"-rated game?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the most thoroughly stupid article I 've ever seen .
Is the ESRB supposed to consult its crystal ball to determine whether or not someone will spam a link to lemonparty in an otherwise " E " -rated game ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the most thoroughly stupid article I've ever seen.
Is the ESRB supposed to consult its crystal ball to determine whether or not someone will spam a link to lemonparty in an otherwise "E"-rated game?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742955</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see why this is a problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255524780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that I believe EVE-Online has a teen rating. However despite this teen rating there is no chat filter for content or language, the other day I cussed someone out in local for being a griefer using language most likely not appropriate for teenagers.</p><p>Now the step the ESRB has taken is that they say "Online Content Not Rated" or "Content Interactions May Change During Online Play" and as we know people are stupid. They need to be told "This game is probably not appropriate for a 12 year old" directly. Also you cannot depend on the player base to maintain a healthy content level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that I believe EVE-Online has a teen rating .
However despite this teen rating there is no chat filter for content or language , the other day I cussed someone out in local for being a griefer using language most likely not appropriate for teenagers.Now the step the ESRB has taken is that they say " Online Content Not Rated " or " Content Interactions May Change During Online Play " and as we know people are stupid .
They need to be told " This game is probably not appropriate for a 12 year old " directly .
Also you can not depend on the player base to maintain a healthy content level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that I believe EVE-Online has a teen rating.
However despite this teen rating there is no chat filter for content or language, the other day I cussed someone out in local for being a griefer using language most likely not appropriate for teenagers.Now the step the ESRB has taken is that they say "Online Content Not Rated" or "Content Interactions May Change During Online Play" and as we know people are stupid.
They need to be told "This game is probably not appropriate for a 12 year old" directly.
Also you cannot depend on the player base to maintain a healthy content level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29747227</id>
	<title>Attempting to put an ESRB rating on the human race</title>
	<author>Notmare</author>
	<datestamp>1255545780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good luck.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29750089</id>
	<title>Re:Why is that "unfortunate"?</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1255515180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do you like the ESRB? Do you think their ratings are honest and fair? Do you think they really do any good? Most people I know would answer "No" to both. And yes, most people I know who play games think ESRB is a joke. They always know friends who have games they are not allowed to buy in the store.
<br> <br>
But that isn't really what this is all about. It is about expansion of the ESRB's authority into <b>internal discussions</b> going on between players in online games. Well, (1) that is censorship, although it would probably not be illegal censorship unless ESRB = government-imposed. (2) Major ORPG games (WoW, EQII, etc.) already censor typed conversations between players, and do it rather well. There is no need for further intervention. (3) It is impossible to censor spoken conversations between players, because (A) there is not enough processing power in the world to do it automatically, (B) it would cost a fortune to hire enough humans to do it, and (C) even if A and B were not true, if it were done, then as I mentioned before people would just bypass game chat altogether and use a 3rd party tool like Ventrilo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you like the ESRB ?
Do you think their ratings are honest and fair ?
Do you think they really do any good ?
Most people I know would answer " No " to both .
And yes , most people I know who play games think ESRB is a joke .
They always know friends who have games they are not allowed to buy in the store .
But that is n't really what this is all about .
It is about expansion of the ESRB 's authority into internal discussions going on between players in online games .
Well , ( 1 ) that is censorship , although it would probably not be illegal censorship unless ESRB = government-imposed .
( 2 ) Major ORPG games ( WoW , EQII , etc .
) already censor typed conversations between players , and do it rather well .
There is no need for further intervention .
( 3 ) It is impossible to censor spoken conversations between players , because ( A ) there is not enough processing power in the world to do it automatically , ( B ) it would cost a fortune to hire enough humans to do it , and ( C ) even if A and B were not true , if it were done , then as I mentioned before people would just bypass game chat altogether and use a 3rd party tool like Ventrilo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you like the ESRB?
Do you think their ratings are honest and fair?
Do you think they really do any good?
Most people I know would answer "No" to both.
And yes, most people I know who play games think ESRB is a joke.
They always know friends who have games they are not allowed to buy in the store.
But that isn't really what this is all about.
It is about expansion of the ESRB's authority into internal discussions going on between players in online games.
Well, (1) that is censorship, although it would probably not be illegal censorship unless ESRB = government-imposed.
(2) Major ORPG games (WoW, EQII, etc.
) already censor typed conversations between players, and do it rather well.
There is no need for further intervention.
(3) It is impossible to censor spoken conversations between players, because (A) there is not enough processing power in the world to do it automatically, (B) it would cost a fortune to hire enough humans to do it, and (C) even if A and B were not true, if it were done, then as I mentioned before people would just bypass game chat altogether and use a 3rd party tool like Ventrilo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29744575</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29743069</id>
	<title>The new ESRB Online Ratings System</title>
	<author>BillCable</author>
	<datestamp>1255525920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every online game with voice chat is rated M for mature.  Every online xbox360 game with voice chat is rated RPWK for racist pre-pubescent white kids.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every online game with voice chat is rated M for mature .
Every online xbox360 game with voice chat is rated RPWK for racist pre-pubescent white kids .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every online game with voice chat is rated M for mature.
Every online xbox360 game with voice chat is rated RPWK for racist pre-pubescent white kids.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29749219</id>
	<title>This is purposeful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255511220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think people aren't thinking about why the ESRB doesn't rate interactions.  It simply is that the game companies do not want this sort of rating.  And they don't want this because it will increase their costs.  Putting in a moderation system may be easy, but lets say the ESRB goes to town with it.  And if they uncover things it should filter, but doesn't.  So fixing it to get the desired rating will cost.  And in the ESRB's defense its probable that they could not stop bad interactions even with the best moderation system.  So either its no chat, etc or an AO rating.  Also, you could make a case that if they "allow" people to use vent or teamspeak to communicate, they need to moderate that.  After all the player's only using vent or teamspeak because he/she is playing the game.  So then to avoid the old AO rating they need to make sure no external communication device is running.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think people are n't thinking about why the ESRB does n't rate interactions .
It simply is that the game companies do not want this sort of rating .
And they do n't want this because it will increase their costs .
Putting in a moderation system may be easy , but lets say the ESRB goes to town with it .
And if they uncover things it should filter , but does n't .
So fixing it to get the desired rating will cost .
And in the ESRB 's defense its probable that they could not stop bad interactions even with the best moderation system .
So either its no chat , etc or an AO rating .
Also , you could make a case that if they " allow " people to use vent or teamspeak to communicate , they need to moderate that .
After all the player 's only using vent or teamspeak because he/she is playing the game .
So then to avoid the old AO rating they need to make sure no external communication device is running .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think people aren't thinking about why the ESRB doesn't rate interactions.
It simply is that the game companies do not want this sort of rating.
And they don't want this because it will increase their costs.
Putting in a moderation system may be easy, but lets say the ESRB goes to town with it.
And if they uncover things it should filter, but doesn't.
So fixing it to get the desired rating will cost.
And in the ESRB's defense its probable that they could not stop bad interactions even with the best moderation system.
So either its no chat, etc or an AO rating.
Also, you could make a case that if they "allow" people to use vent or teamspeak to communicate, they need to moderate that.
After all the player's only using vent or teamspeak because he/she is playing the game.
So then to avoid the old AO rating they need to make sure no external communication device is running.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742259</id>
	<title>Re:I can't see how</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255514460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No doubt.</p><p>"That's unfortunate, because the ESRB's intimate relationship with the game industry could provide it with a unique vantage point from which to evaluate aspects of online games that are beyond the purview of other would-be raters, including the quality of the game's moderation system, programmed restrictions on chat and known player demographics."</p><p>Moderation system: potentially constantly changing to respond to new chat behavior &amp; cost controls. As new things become trendy, the negative aspects of chat changes, and either the moderation system adapts to address the new negative aspects or doesn't. Programmed restrictions on chat: Near pointless. Censor shit and people will write sh!t. Known player demographics: The most obvious aspect that can't be rated. I mean how are you going to know this before the game is released in order to get that initial rating, and once the game has been released the demographic is going to change no question. Take World of Warcraft for example - there's an entirely different demographic represented for a few months following each expansion. There's a different demographic over school summer vacations. And as other games are released, certain demographics dump WOW for other games.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No doubt .
" That 's unfortunate , because the ESRB 's intimate relationship with the game industry could provide it with a unique vantage point from which to evaluate aspects of online games that are beyond the purview of other would-be raters , including the quality of the game 's moderation system , programmed restrictions on chat and known player demographics .
" Moderation system : potentially constantly changing to respond to new chat behavior &amp; cost controls .
As new things become trendy , the negative aspects of chat changes , and either the moderation system adapts to address the new negative aspects or does n't .
Programmed restrictions on chat : Near pointless .
Censor shit and people will write sh ! t .
Known player demographics : The most obvious aspect that ca n't be rated .
I mean how are you going to know this before the game is released in order to get that initial rating , and once the game has been released the demographic is going to change no question .
Take World of Warcraft for example - there 's an entirely different demographic represented for a few months following each expansion .
There 's a different demographic over school summer vacations .
And as other games are released , certain demographics dump WOW for other games .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No doubt.
"That's unfortunate, because the ESRB's intimate relationship with the game industry could provide it with a unique vantage point from which to evaluate aspects of online games that are beyond the purview of other would-be raters, including the quality of the game's moderation system, programmed restrictions on chat and known player demographics.
"Moderation system: potentially constantly changing to respond to new chat behavior &amp; cost controls.
As new things become trendy, the negative aspects of chat changes, and either the moderation system adapts to address the new negative aspects or doesn't.
Programmed restrictions on chat: Near pointless.
Censor shit and people will write sh!t.
Known player demographics: The most obvious aspect that can't be rated.
I mean how are you going to know this before the game is released in order to get that initial rating, and once the game has been released the demographic is going to change no question.
Take World of Warcraft for example - there's an entirely different demographic represented for a few months following each expansion.
There's a different demographic over school summer vacations.
And as other games are released, certain demographics dump WOW for other games.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742781</id>
	<title>Are you telling me...</title>
	<author>thisnamestoolong</author>
	<datestamp>1255522680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>...that children are able to have real human contact in games?! Oh, the horror!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>...that children are able to have real human contact in games ? !
Oh , the horror ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...that children are able to have real human contact in games?!
Oh, the horror!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29744665</id>
	<title>Re:Anything is better than nothing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255534920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would be reasonable, I don't see how they could do any more than this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would be reasonable , I do n't see how they could do any more than this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would be reasonable, I don't see how they could do any more than this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29743379</id>
	<title>Re:Anything is better than nothing.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255528800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree that some form of online rating is needed - but the suggestions you give here are just too broad.  The problem with a lot of these online games is that filter settings and restrictions can change from server to server... especially those games that don't tie the player down to servers only hosted by the publisher.</p><p>More reasonable might be:<br>Preset Phrases Only<br>Text Communication Only<br>Text And Voice Communication.<br>Text, Voice, and Video Communication.<br>etc...</p><p>At the end of the day - any rating system depends on the informed consumer to know what's best for them/their child.  I'd be comfortable letting a 14 year old play games with preset phrases and text communication, for instance, but now with voice or video communication.</p><p>Also - developers need to be more aware of this problem as well... offering options like turning off text communication entirely (something that seems to be done often for voice and video).  Of course - this raises another question... if a game can be filtered down from the "unfiltered" status to a level that is really relatively innocuous by even single player standards, then what rating should be given to that game?  Should there be a "filterable" flag appended to the rating in this case?  So, the ESRB would rate the "worst case scenario" and then flag the content as filterable.  Of course - how do you define a good filter?  It is a complicated issue indeed!</p><p>I imagine the folks at the ESRB have wrestled with these issues in the past and that is their reasoning for not rating online content to this day.  Basically any solution will oversimplify the content being rated and therefore be rather ineffective and inaccurate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree that some form of online rating is needed - but the suggestions you give here are just too broad .
The problem with a lot of these online games is that filter settings and restrictions can change from server to server... especially those games that do n't tie the player down to servers only hosted by the publisher.More reasonable might be : Preset Phrases OnlyText Communication OnlyText And Voice Communication.Text , Voice , and Video Communication.etc...At the end of the day - any rating system depends on the informed consumer to know what 's best for them/their child .
I 'd be comfortable letting a 14 year old play games with preset phrases and text communication , for instance , but now with voice or video communication.Also - developers need to be more aware of this problem as well... offering options like turning off text communication entirely ( something that seems to be done often for voice and video ) .
Of course - this raises another question... if a game can be filtered down from the " unfiltered " status to a level that is really relatively innocuous by even single player standards , then what rating should be given to that game ?
Should there be a " filterable " flag appended to the rating in this case ?
So , the ESRB would rate the " worst case scenario " and then flag the content as filterable .
Of course - how do you define a good filter ?
It is a complicated issue indeed ! I imagine the folks at the ESRB have wrestled with these issues in the past and that is their reasoning for not rating online content to this day .
Basically any solution will oversimplify the content being rated and therefore be rather ineffective and inaccurate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree that some form of online rating is needed - but the suggestions you give here are just too broad.
The problem with a lot of these online games is that filter settings and restrictions can change from server to server... especially those games that don't tie the player down to servers only hosted by the publisher.More reasonable might be:Preset Phrases OnlyText Communication OnlyText And Voice Communication.Text, Voice, and Video Communication.etc...At the end of the day - any rating system depends on the informed consumer to know what's best for them/their child.
I'd be comfortable letting a 14 year old play games with preset phrases and text communication, for instance, but now with voice or video communication.Also - developers need to be more aware of this problem as well... offering options like turning off text communication entirely (something that seems to be done often for voice and video).
Of course - this raises another question... if a game can be filtered down from the "unfiltered" status to a level that is really relatively innocuous by even single player standards, then what rating should be given to that game?
Should there be a "filterable" flag appended to the rating in this case?
So, the ESRB would rate the "worst case scenario" and then flag the content as filterable.
Of course - how do you define a good filter?
It is a complicated issue indeed!I imagine the folks at the ESRB have wrestled with these issues in the past and that is their reasoning for not rating online content to this day.
Basically any solution will oversimplify the content being rated and therefore be rather ineffective and inaccurate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29743199</id>
	<title>you cannot rate...</title>
	<author>wisnoskij</author>
	<datestamp>1255527540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You cannot rate what other people will do. yes you can out in a bad word filter, but they will get around it. you are interacting with people the ESRB cannot be responsible for what they say/do, therefore they do not put a rating on it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You can not rate what other people will do .
yes you can out in a bad word filter , but they will get around it .
you are interacting with people the ESRB can not be responsible for what they say/do , therefore they do not put a rating on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You cannot rate what other people will do.
yes you can out in a bad word filter, but they will get around it.
you are interacting with people the ESRB cannot be responsible for what they say/do, therefore they do not put a rating on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29745685</id>
	<title>Re:Didn't read the article</title>
	<author>cromar</author>
	<datestamp>1255539060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow... the Escapist must really suck then!  *ducks*</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow... the Escapist must really suck then !
* ducks *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow... the Escapist must really suck then!
*ducks*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741961</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742647</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see why this is a problem</title>
	<author>DreamsAreOkToo</author>
	<datestamp>1255520040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except for Gabriel's Law of Internet Fuckwad.</p><p><a href="http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/" title="penny-arcade.com">http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/</a> [penny-arcade.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for Gabriel 's Law of Internet Fuckwad.http : //www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/ [ penny-arcade.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for Gabriel's Law of Internet Fuckwad.http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/ [penny-arcade.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29743453</id>
	<title>How can you evaluate something you can't evaluate?</title>
	<author>Chas</author>
	<datestamp>1255529280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <b>That's unfortunate, because the ESRB's intimate relationship with the game industry could provide it with a unique vantage point from which to evaluate aspects of online games that are beyond the purview of other would-be raters</b>

</p><p>What?  Essentially you're going to do...WHAT?  Be a complete asshat in a game you're evaluating, testing the censor list, being rude to people, trying to get around the censor list using 'leetspeak, try to break the game, and generally engage in any and every behavior that could possibly get you kicked offline.

</p><p> <b> <i>DURING THE GAME'S EVALUATION PERIOD</i><nobr> <wbr></nobr></b>...when it's tightly controlled as to what is in the game and who makes up the population?

</p><p>Seriously.  How can these people claim to actually be thinking?  Their heads are shoved someplace dark and poopy-smelling on this.

</p><p>This is like people who claim they can idiot-proof something their developing.  Too late!  One is already in charge of the project!

</p><p>You simply CANNOT, EVER, make reasonable assumptions about how the entirety of a player-base is going to utilize a product.

</p><p>If someone claims they can, check their hands for the telltale of a manure shovel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's unfortunate , because the ESRB 's intimate relationship with the game industry could provide it with a unique vantage point from which to evaluate aspects of online games that are beyond the purview of other would-be raters What ?
Essentially you 're going to do...WHAT ?
Be a complete asshat in a game you 're evaluating , testing the censor list , being rude to people , trying to get around the censor list using 'leetspeak , try to break the game , and generally engage in any and every behavior that could possibly get you kicked offline .
DURING THE GAME 'S EVALUATION PERIOD ...when it 's tightly controlled as to what is in the game and who makes up the population ?
Seriously. How can these people claim to actually be thinking ?
Their heads are shoved someplace dark and poopy-smelling on this .
This is like people who claim they can idiot-proof something their developing .
Too late !
One is already in charge of the project !
You simply CAN NOT , EVER , make reasonable assumptions about how the entirety of a player-base is going to utilize a product .
If someone claims they can , check their hands for the telltale of a manure shovel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> That's unfortunate, because the ESRB's intimate relationship with the game industry could provide it with a unique vantage point from which to evaluate aspects of online games that are beyond the purview of other would-be raters

What?
Essentially you're going to do...WHAT?
Be a complete asshat in a game you're evaluating, testing the censor list, being rude to people, trying to get around the censor list using 'leetspeak, try to break the game, and generally engage in any and every behavior that could possibly get you kicked offline.
DURING THE GAME'S EVALUATION PERIOD ...when it's tightly controlled as to what is in the game and who makes up the population?
Seriously.  How can these people claim to actually be thinking?
Their heads are shoved someplace dark and poopy-smelling on this.
This is like people who claim they can idiot-proof something their developing.
Too late!
One is already in charge of the project!
You simply CANNOT, EVER, make reasonable assumptions about how the entirety of a player-base is going to utilize a product.
If someone claims they can, check their hands for the telltale of a manure shovel.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29744431</id>
	<title>Rated Adult Only for racism.</title>
	<author>Yaos</author>
	<datestamp>1255533960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every multiplayer game would be rated Adult Only just because of chat and VOIP. The number of mothers being violated in these games is ridiculous and somebody needs to put a stop to it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every multiplayer game would be rated Adult Only just because of chat and VOIP .
The number of mothers being violated in these games is ridiculous and somebody needs to put a stop to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every multiplayer game would be rated Adult Only just because of chat and VOIP.
The number of mothers being violated in these games is ridiculous and somebody needs to put a stop to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29748743</id>
	<title>to hell with the ESRB, keep them as it at most</title>
	<author>justdrew</author>
	<datestamp>1255552260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't want those idiots claiming some MMO has a rude player base and then companies trying to control peoples chat. get a clue</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want those idiots claiming some MMO has a rude player base and then companies trying to control peoples chat .
get a clue</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want those idiots claiming some MMO has a rude player base and then companies trying to control peoples chat.
get a clue</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742813</id>
	<title>They rate these things before the game comes out?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255523100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do they do that?  Time travel?  They know how good the GM staff will be and how bad the player base will be before the GMs are hired or the game is sold and has players?  Awesome.  Can the Escapist talk to those scientists who think the Higgs boson is holding up the LHC by traveling back in time, and tell them that they've already proven the theory?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do they do that ?
Time travel ?
They know how good the GM staff will be and how bad the player base will be before the GMs are hired or the game is sold and has players ?
Awesome. Can the Escapist talk to those scientists who think the Higgs boson is holding up the LHC by traveling back in time , and tell them that they 've already proven the theory ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do they do that?
Time travel?
They know how good the GM staff will be and how bad the player base will be before the GMs are hired or the game is sold and has players?
Awesome.  Can the Escapist talk to those scientists who think the Higgs boson is holding up the LHC by traveling back in time, and tell them that they've already proven the theory?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742637</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see why this is a problem</title>
	<author>peragrin</author>
	<datestamp>1255519980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>REally? Since when?  The kids who play MMO's tend to be 14 and above and routinely walk around malls, and their neighborhoods without parents even in the same square mile let alone with supervision.</p><p>Parents stop keeping an eye on the travels of their kids as they reach 10-12 years old.  Yet they make sure they don't watch scary movies, or play games with the wrong stuff in them, yet they are free to go do that stuff on their own.</p><p>Remember parents and kids love double standards that only apply in certain situations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>REally ?
Since when ?
The kids who play MMO 's tend to be 14 and above and routinely walk around malls , and their neighborhoods without parents even in the same square mile let alone with supervision.Parents stop keeping an eye on the travels of their kids as they reach 10-12 years old .
Yet they make sure they do n't watch scary movies , or play games with the wrong stuff in them , yet they are free to go do that stuff on their own.Remember parents and kids love double standards that only apply in certain situations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>REally?
Since when?
The kids who play MMO's tend to be 14 and above and routinely walk around malls, and their neighborhoods without parents even in the same square mile let alone with supervision.Parents stop keeping an eye on the travels of their kids as they reach 10-12 years old.
Yet they make sure they don't watch scary movies, or play games with the wrong stuff in them, yet they are free to go do that stuff on their own.Remember parents and kids love double standards that only apply in certain situations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742465</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29743615</id>
	<title>Re:Anything is better than nothing.</title>
	<author>Radtoo</author>
	<datestamp>1255530300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No ESRB rating is needed.

Do a test on the kids, rate the parents. If they're not able to calmly deal with the sort of interaction you might have online (people's bad side shows at times, but no real physical harm can be done) by the time they're about ten to twelve years old, consider putting them in a special social education class, or even a different home.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No ESRB rating is needed .
Do a test on the kids , rate the parents .
If they 're not able to calmly deal with the sort of interaction you might have online ( people 's bad side shows at times , but no real physical harm can be done ) by the time they 're about ten to twelve years old , consider putting them in a special social education class , or even a different home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No ESRB rating is needed.
Do a test on the kids, rate the parents.
If they're not able to calmly deal with the sort of interaction you might have online (people's bad side shows at times, but no real physical harm can be done) by the time they're about ten to twelve years old, consider putting them in a special social education class, or even a different home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29746345</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see why this is a problem</title>
	<author>Alerius</author>
	<datestamp>1255541640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Every time someone takes their kids outside they run the risk of those kids being exposed to god knows what, I don't see how online experiences are any different</i> </p><p>You mean, like people shooting hookers, people shooting scary monsters, people stealing cars and recklessly running over pedestrians, etc? Not even in the worst parts of town, unless your town is somewhere in Iraq or another war-torn country. Games are seldom anything like real life.</p></div><p>I think you've missed the point. The programmed portions of the game are rated by the ESRB, it's the interaction with other people that are left out and so being discussed here.</p><p>The things you mention are reflected in the ratings with specific mention made of violence, drug use, sex, nudity, etc. In fact, consulting the ESRB website, the Grand Theft Auto games have been rated M for Mature or AO for Adult Only and their rating notes "Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Nudity, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs". World of Warcraft is rated T for Teen, again with specific mention of "Blood and Gore, Suggestive Themes, Use of Alcohol, Violence". <b>Neither of these is rated as appropriate for a 7 year old</b> </p><p>What the GP was talking about was the online experience of dealing with other PEOPLE that are playing the game. There is no effective way that I can think of to predetermine who else is playing the game and rate how they will behave. There is the potential to run into abusive people, drug users, criminals, sociopaths and just plain idiots. Speaking as a parent and a gamer, I don't see how this is any different from real life. I would not let a 7 year old play a game rated M; I would not let that 7 year old play WOW without supervision and I would not allow that 7 year old to roam the streets of a major city alone. A parent should work to teach their children a value system and try to instill in them the ability to determine their own opinions of right and wrong as they grow to be adults. </p><p>The ESRB rating system is certainly not without its flaws, but I don't think their choosing to not rate the interaction with other players <b>and specifically say so</b> is one of them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time someone takes their kids outside they run the risk of those kids being exposed to god knows what , I do n't see how online experiences are any different You mean , like people shooting hookers , people shooting scary monsters , people stealing cars and recklessly running over pedestrians , etc ?
Not even in the worst parts of town , unless your town is somewhere in Iraq or another war-torn country .
Games are seldom anything like real life.I think you 've missed the point .
The programmed portions of the game are rated by the ESRB , it 's the interaction with other people that are left out and so being discussed here.The things you mention are reflected in the ratings with specific mention made of violence , drug use , sex , nudity , etc .
In fact , consulting the ESRB website , the Grand Theft Auto games have been rated M for Mature or AO for Adult Only and their rating notes " Blood and Gore , Intense Violence , Nudity , Strong Language , Strong Sexual Content , Use of Drugs " .
World of Warcraft is rated T for Teen , again with specific mention of " Blood and Gore , Suggestive Themes , Use of Alcohol , Violence " .
Neither of these is rated as appropriate for a 7 year old What the GP was talking about was the online experience of dealing with other PEOPLE that are playing the game .
There is no effective way that I can think of to predetermine who else is playing the game and rate how they will behave .
There is the potential to run into abusive people , drug users , criminals , sociopaths and just plain idiots .
Speaking as a parent and a gamer , I do n't see how this is any different from real life .
I would not let a 7 year old play a game rated M ; I would not let that 7 year old play WOW without supervision and I would not allow that 7 year old to roam the streets of a major city alone .
A parent should work to teach their children a value system and try to instill in them the ability to determine their own opinions of right and wrong as they grow to be adults .
The ESRB rating system is certainly not without its flaws , but I do n't think their choosing to not rate the interaction with other players and specifically say so is one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Every time someone takes their kids outside they run the risk of those kids being exposed to god knows what, I don't see how online experiences are any different You mean, like people shooting hookers, people shooting scary monsters, people stealing cars and recklessly running over pedestrians, etc?
Not even in the worst parts of town, unless your town is somewhere in Iraq or another war-torn country.
Games are seldom anything like real life.I think you've missed the point.
The programmed portions of the game are rated by the ESRB, it's the interaction with other people that are left out and so being discussed here.The things you mention are reflected in the ratings with specific mention made of violence, drug use, sex, nudity, etc.
In fact, consulting the ESRB website, the Grand Theft Auto games have been rated M for Mature or AO for Adult Only and their rating notes "Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Nudity, Strong Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs".
World of Warcraft is rated T for Teen, again with specific mention of "Blood and Gore, Suggestive Themes, Use of Alcohol, Violence".
Neither of these is rated as appropriate for a 7 year old What the GP was talking about was the online experience of dealing with other PEOPLE that are playing the game.
There is no effective way that I can think of to predetermine who else is playing the game and rate how they will behave.
There is the potential to run into abusive people, drug users, criminals, sociopaths and just plain idiots.
Speaking as a parent and a gamer, I don't see how this is any different from real life.
I would not let a 7 year old play a game rated M; I would not let that 7 year old play WOW without supervision and I would not allow that 7 year old to roam the streets of a major city alone.
A parent should work to teach their children a value system and try to instill in them the ability to determine their own opinions of right and wrong as they grow to be adults.
The ESRB rating system is certainly not without its flaws, but I don't think their choosing to not rate the interaction with other players and specifically say so is one of them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29743991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742449</id>
	<title>The danger is chatting with persons unknown</title>
	<author>ScaledLizard</author>
	<datestamp>1255517280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Online chat may expose may be exposed to all kinds of thoughts, and many of those thoughts may be beyond a kid's limited grasp of reality. As such, any online game is dangerous as the players playing it, and a warning like that should be printed on every box sold for parents who think "I want my kid to know everything about computas".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Online chat may expose may be exposed to all kinds of thoughts , and many of those thoughts may be beyond a kid 's limited grasp of reality .
As such , any online game is dangerous as the players playing it , and a warning like that should be printed on every box sold for parents who think " I want my kid to know everything about computas " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Online chat may expose may be exposed to all kinds of thoughts, and many of those thoughts may be beyond a kid's limited grasp of reality.
As such, any online game is dangerous as the players playing it, and a warning like that should be printed on every box sold for parents who think "I want my kid to know everything about computas".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29743641</id>
	<title>This is impossible.</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1255530480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The game has an excellent moderation system.  It filters "Shit" "fuck" Pussy" and "Cum."  But people are smart and still manage to slip in "I wanna l*ikc yur pu$$y" to a 12 year old.  In front of her mom.  And kids can read that shit too.  Hell kids can read "wanna suck my djck" as "wanna suck my dick" I'm sure... does your filter block that?  What about voice chat when i star talking dirty over the thing to cyb0rz... teenager-to-teenager voice sex is probably pretty popular on XBL, I know I had a friend that always talked about textsexing on WoW or FF11 or whatever the hell he was playing.
</p><p>
Any interaction with physical real people cannot be rated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The game has an excellent moderation system .
It filters " Shit " " fuck " Pussy " and " Cum .
" But people are smart and still manage to slip in " I wan na l * ikc yur pu $ $ y " to a 12 year old .
In front of her mom .
And kids can read that shit too .
Hell kids can read " wan na suck my djck " as " wan na suck my dick " I 'm sure... does your filter block that ?
What about voice chat when i star talking dirty over the thing to cyb0rz... teenager-to-teenager voice sex is probably pretty popular on XBL , I know I had a friend that always talked about textsexing on WoW or FF11 or whatever the hell he was playing .
Any interaction with physical real people can not be rated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The game has an excellent moderation system.
It filters "Shit" "fuck" Pussy" and "Cum.
"  But people are smart and still manage to slip in "I wanna l*ikc yur pu$$y" to a 12 year old.
In front of her mom.
And kids can read that shit too.
Hell kids can read "wanna suck my djck" as "wanna suck my dick" I'm sure... does your filter block that?
What about voice chat when i star talking dirty over the thing to cyb0rz... teenager-to-teenager voice sex is probably pretty popular on XBL, I know I had a friend that always talked about textsexing on WoW or FF11 or whatever the hell he was playing.
Any interaction with physical real people cannot be rated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29748739</id>
	<title>Productive comments</title>
	<author>Veggiesama</author>
	<datestamp>1255552260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not seeing very many productive comments. Yeah, we get that the Internet is the Wild Wild West. Now what can be done to ensure that parents know what they're getting their kids into? You can't use the TEEN / MATURE / etc. labels for player-to-player communication, because that can vary so much. So why doesn't the ESRB include labels for the method of P2P communication? That way parents at least know what degrees of separation exist between their child and the greater population.</p><p>Voice Chat (Unmoderated) - Players cannot turn off voice chat, or voice chat can be turned on even when a parental lock is in place.</p><p>Voice Chat (Parental Lock) - Players cannot hear or transmit voice if the parental lock is turned on.</p><p>Text Chat (Heavily Moderated) - A dedicated moderator exists in every chat location to ban people who don't comply with the rules.</p><p>Text Chat (Profanity Filter) - No moderators exist, but the game includes a profanity filter for unregulated communication.</p><p>Text Chat (Unmoderated) - Anything goes.</p><p>Home Page - Players can create a home page where strangers can read information about the player or leave messages.</p><p>Friends List - Players can pick friends in the game and see when their friends are online or what their friends are playing.</p><p>No Communication - Players can play together, but cannot exchange any information (except maybe a name and dev-written text strings, like "Your turn!").</p><p>These categories could be mixed and matched, and of course there could be more than just these categories. Obviously they should be written simply so that one or two sentences can convey what each category means to a parent unfamiliar with online gaming.</p><p>Regardless, the ESRB needs to evolve or it will cease to matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not seeing very many productive comments .
Yeah , we get that the Internet is the Wild Wild West .
Now what can be done to ensure that parents know what they 're getting their kids into ?
You ca n't use the TEEN / MATURE / etc .
labels for player-to-player communication , because that can vary so much .
So why does n't the ESRB include labels for the method of P2P communication ?
That way parents at least know what degrees of separation exist between their child and the greater population.Voice Chat ( Unmoderated ) - Players can not turn off voice chat , or voice chat can be turned on even when a parental lock is in place.Voice Chat ( Parental Lock ) - Players can not hear or transmit voice if the parental lock is turned on.Text Chat ( Heavily Moderated ) - A dedicated moderator exists in every chat location to ban people who do n't comply with the rules.Text Chat ( Profanity Filter ) - No moderators exist , but the game includes a profanity filter for unregulated communication.Text Chat ( Unmoderated ) - Anything goes.Home Page - Players can create a home page where strangers can read information about the player or leave messages.Friends List - Players can pick friends in the game and see when their friends are online or what their friends are playing.No Communication - Players can play together , but can not exchange any information ( except maybe a name and dev-written text strings , like " Your turn !
" ) .These categories could be mixed and matched , and of course there could be more than just these categories .
Obviously they should be written simply so that one or two sentences can convey what each category means to a parent unfamiliar with online gaming.Regardless , the ESRB needs to evolve or it will cease to matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not seeing very many productive comments.
Yeah, we get that the Internet is the Wild Wild West.
Now what can be done to ensure that parents know what they're getting their kids into?
You can't use the TEEN / MATURE / etc.
labels for player-to-player communication, because that can vary so much.
So why doesn't the ESRB include labels for the method of P2P communication?
That way parents at least know what degrees of separation exist between their child and the greater population.Voice Chat (Unmoderated) - Players cannot turn off voice chat, or voice chat can be turned on even when a parental lock is in place.Voice Chat (Parental Lock) - Players cannot hear or transmit voice if the parental lock is turned on.Text Chat (Heavily Moderated) - A dedicated moderator exists in every chat location to ban people who don't comply with the rules.Text Chat (Profanity Filter) - No moderators exist, but the game includes a profanity filter for unregulated communication.Text Chat (Unmoderated) - Anything goes.Home Page - Players can create a home page where strangers can read information about the player or leave messages.Friends List - Players can pick friends in the game and see when their friends are online or what their friends are playing.No Communication - Players can play together, but cannot exchange any information (except maybe a name and dev-written text strings, like "Your turn!
").These categories could be mixed and matched, and of course there could be more than just these categories.
Obviously they should be written simply so that one or two sentences can convey what each category means to a parent unfamiliar with online gaming.Regardless, the ESRB needs to evolve or it will cease to matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742533</id>
	<title>Cute Kittens</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1255518240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rated E for everyone</p><p>Then Being raped by tentacles.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rated E for everyoneThen Being raped by tentacles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rated E for everyoneThen Being raped by tentacles.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29743959</id>
	<title>Re:I can't see how</title>
	<author>tuxedobob</author>
	<datestamp>1255531920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want to know what horny bastard decided that everything shaped like a stick had to be phallic. Have you seen how many penises are on a tree?</p><p>I forget what comic first said it, but "you can make missles shaped like vaginas; they just won't fly very well."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to know what horny bastard decided that everything shaped like a stick had to be phallic .
Have you seen how many penises are on a tree ? I forget what comic first said it , but " you can make missles shaped like vaginas ; they just wo n't fly very well .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to know what horny bastard decided that everything shaped like a stick had to be phallic.
Have you seen how many penises are on a tree?I forget what comic first said it, but "you can make missles shaped like vaginas; they just won't fly very well.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742295</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29744091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29743959
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742259
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29746021
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29744665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29745145
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742101
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29752391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29746483
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29745867
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742465
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29750089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29744575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29743615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29746227
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29749499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29744575
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29751883
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742041
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742499
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29743379
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29746177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742407
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29749789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29745685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29746345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29743991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29750491
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741989
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29750027
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29755969
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742955
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_14_0534223_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0534223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741961
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742553
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742499
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29745685
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0534223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742285
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29744575
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29749499
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29750089
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0534223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741989
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29750491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29749789
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0534223.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742289
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0534223.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742095
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0534223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0534223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742041
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29751883
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0534223.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29745145
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0534223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29741971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742693
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29746483
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29746021
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29745867
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742591
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29752391
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29746227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742407
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29746177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742647
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742465
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742637
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29743991
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29746345
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0534223.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29743379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29743615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29744665
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0534223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29744091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0534223.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29743443
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0534223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742787
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0534223.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742703
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_14_0534223.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29750027
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29755969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742295
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29743959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_14_0534223.29742259
</commentlist>
</conversation>
