What's up with ratings?

[Guest Anonymous]

Hi. I'm new to the world of forum rp. I've been rping on forums for about 3 years now. I've noticed when I check rules and ratings, sometimes I'll see things like 3-3-3, but then stating not to be too sexual. I've also seen some that state not to swear too much. Is there a shame to for sites not to be 3-3-3? Am I wrong to think that 3-3-3 means anything goes? What's the point of ratings?

[NyxDarklore 92]

Broadly speaking, the purpose of an RPG rating is to let potential RPers know what is permitted on the forum (in terms of language, violence, and sexual content).

 

Having a site that is rated 333 means that swearing and mature language is permitted, sexual content may be described in detail, and explicit violence is permitted; this does not necessarily (in my opinion) mean that anything goes, however (though it certainly can). There may be a situation where it is inappropriate to mark a site as '2' for violence, say (which states that violence is permitted, with limitations) because explicit violence is permitted but there is some content that the site administrators are not willing to permit - for example, violence against animals.

 

An RPG rating gives you a ballpark understanding of what is permitted on a site, which may then be modified by the administrators own expectations and the comfort level of the community. 333 allows for a lot more freedom to be explicit, even if there are limitations to that explicitness, that a 222 rating does not permit but it does not necessarily permit a person to do anything in excess (which is where 'do not swear too much' and 'do not be too sexual' come into play). Like most ratings, it is also subject to interpretation and people will often err closer to what they think makes sense.

 

I don't think it's a shame to see a site that is not rated 333, I think it all comes down to the ToS for the host you're on and the comfort level of the community and its staff.

[periphescent 4]

23 hours ago, NyxDarklore said:

I don't think it's a shame to see a site that is not rated 333, I think it all comes down to the ToS for the host you're on and the comfort level of the community and its staff.

 

I think a lot of it has to do with this/the ToS. Some sites mean 3-3-3 in the sense that everything is allowed except for what is explicitly banned by the ToS of their forum host (such as Jcink). Some folks use 3-3-3, then say "explicitly sexual stuff is not allowed", but then have it anyway and hope no one reports them. And some sites, like premium Jcink sites, have full monty, 3-3-3 stuff going on. 

[psychodrow 10]

I think part of it, too, is letting you know what kind of environment or player group you're going to find. A 333 board is certainly going to have a different level of interaction and interpersonal dynamic than a 111 board , which would feel a little more sheltered. Any social stigma attached to people setting boundaries is usually a reflection of the person casting aspersions - since, like most things in life, if it isn't your personal flavor and it does you no harm, there's no reason to spend any time or energy on it that doesn't bring you joy.

[aira 6]

Recently, and especially on Jcink, I've seen more of an "umbrella rating", which Nyx described well in regards the limits on the site as a whole, in addition to "personal ratings", which are just that- one member's personal comfort level, usually listed in their profile.

 

I usually stick to Jcink, so I can't say how this would work on other hosts, but from what I've gathered, the site rating is the overall limit: nobody can exceed what's allowed on the site.  However, members can opt OUT of anything they're not comfortable with, and their personal rating will help other members understand those comfort levels.  (It's important to note that 3-3-3 is really only allowed on Jcink Premium, but like periphescent said, lots of non-premium Jcink forums allow anything, anyway, and just hope they aren't reported.)

 

[Guest Anonymous]

Hey, it's me again. Thank you for your responses. I have seen 3-3-3 and then "no incest" (personal rules), but I've also seen "3-3-3, but we prefer fade to black" or "3-3-3, but don't swear too much." The sites I saw this on were Jcink premium. What concerns me about this is that people aren't always going to see that but in the rules, as well as the fact that it's implying if I maybe punished if I have a character swear too much, which is entirely on the whim of staff. This all could be more clear by making those a 2.

 

When I've seen this, it really feels like their misrepresenting their sites and I'm not sure why. It comes across as "no word count but..." in the rules while advertising their site as having no word count. The sites where I saw this were supernatural and post apocalyptic, genres I don't typically play (I'm interested in expanding my horizons). Seeing a 2 in any category in those genres seems uncommon. Hence why I was wondering if there was a stigma there.

 

I was under the impression 3-3-3 was the equivalent to an NC-17 or unrated movie. Am I wrong and it's more like an R? I was also under the impression that the rating system was meant to apply a universal standard of content. I don't see the point of ratings if site owners are going to state "3-3-3, but don't be too graphic with violence" especially when they can make that a 2. Personal rules like "no rape" are different to me. I'm just quite confused about it all when ratings should make site content more clear, but if anything I'm more confused.

[aira 6]

Your confusion is totally justified, and I think that it is a site-to-site issue, for lack of a better term?  I do agree that, if sites are going to have stipulations to the rating, perhaps the rating would be better off left out altogether.  I also see the issue with staff discretion on how much is too much- clear parameters should be defined in those cases by the staff team, and those parameters should be stuck to, no exceptions.

 

I would definitely say that 3-3-3 is more on the side of R-rated media,"this media is intended only for mature audiences" type.  So, 3-3-3 typically goes in hand with 18+, at least in my experience.  So, your confusion regarding the "3-3-3, but" is definitely valid, and while it's honestly something that I haven't seen, I could see how that would be concerning to a member!

 

RPG Rating is a great tool, but you're right, it does leave a lot to be curious about, especially when it comes to triggering materials.  I tend not to use a rating system on sites, and instead outline clear and detailed expectations for what's okay and what's not.  I also include a possible trigger list to nip those potential issues in the bud before they arise.

 

TL;DR, There's no shame in the rating a site has, and it's typically the "limit" of the site as a whole.  That said, I'd make sure the site you join (or make) doesn't have any double standards or "this, buts", or at least gain clarification on those buts before making any decisions!

 

(I hope this helped a little- if you'd like to talk/ask questions in a more rapid-fire manner, my Discord is listed on my profile!!)

[Morrigan 1,826]

The problem is the stigma behind properly rating your site.

 

First and foremost 3-3-3 does NOT in any way mean FFA (Free for all). It means that it will have less restrictions than other levels. Its not, and has never meant FFA in any way. 333 is misconstrued as being an anything goes rating, which it is not.

 

Now, onto the stigma. It comes from a few different levels. First its a site level and second, and the most important, at the player level. Both are intertwined in the reasoning this happens BUT each are technically unique issues in and of themselves.

 

So the player problem:

 

 

Quote

I want a 333 site because I want to be able to do anything. I normally fade to black but I like the option.

Seems harmless enough, the player wants a site that they are unrestricted despite the fact that they don't utilize that feature of the site. However, in their minds, if you are anything less than 333 you are "stifling their creativity" which isn't truly the case, you're setting up boundaries for your site. The issue is that users are unwavering in their supposed "need" of a site to be 333.

 

Players act like, if you place a barrier of 2, you are killing their ability to do anything of substance on your site when in fact a 222 is just as creatively open as a 333, the difference is in the details you place in it.

 

 

Now reverse that to a site.

 

 

If you're advertising your site to a player that states "I only want 333" but you have a 222 or a 323 or a 322 or similar because the themes that you don't want fall under the 3 but they are excluded from a 2 you are now in a pickle... or a pickle of the players making. You have a site they will likely enjoy but you don't have the right rating. So instead of sticking to your guns about how you want your site rated you waffle and eventually turn to a 333 rating with 222 restrictions.

 

Now I have the rating that the player wants but I have the restrictions that I want so I'm not doing anything wrong right?

 

Wrong.

 

Culturally, the RP community needs to change and see that they are perpetuating this misrepresentation, both of sites being presented but of what users are looking for. Everyone wants to be in the cool kids club.

 

 

A site with a rating lower than 333 isn't a death sentence for your site. In fact I recommend that you ask the user or preface an advertisement over changing your sites rating to fit an unrealistic expectation of what you want it to be.

 

I also think that end users need to ignore filling out or even expressly putting in what rating you want a site to be. It sets sites up to fail and it sets up unrealistic expectations that the only good sites are the sites with few or no restrictions which isn't the case.

 

In the end, you need to be more honest with your members and rate your site how it should be rated. If you limit language you need to limit yourself to a 1 or 2 in language. If you want fade to black where kissing is the last bit that anyone should see or no sex at all then you should set yourself as a 2 or a 1. If you don't want explicit gore scenes or discussions of gruesome blood gushing out of juggulars then you should probably set your rating to a 1 or a 2.

 

While the RPG Rating system tells you to self rate you shouldn't self define on things that belong in other rating levels. As I said above, it only:
Rating your site incorrectly not only sets your site up to fail and it sets up unrealistic expectations that the only good sites are the sites with few or no restrictions which isn't the case.

[Drew 18]

Big agree that deliberately choosing an inaccurate rating for your site is trying to aim you toward disappointment and conflict. You wouldn't, say, set a rule that animated face claims are allowed on your site, then actually go around telling everyone who tries to use one "Actttuallly, we don't do that here!"

 

Just seems like a bad feels way to frustrate both your members and your staff. Who the heck wants to do a staff tap when you don't need to? I'm not sure who it helps. I wonder if it's a case of Hanlon's razor, as harsh as that sounds. Someone just not quite understanding the rating system, maybe seeing so much 3-3-3 that they kind of assumed it's a given for RP sites.