RSACi ratings dissected
From: charles@fma.com (Charlie Stross)
Newsgroups: uk.net,uk.misc
"Well", thought I, "if we're going to have to succumb to
censorship^W^W^W accept a voluntary rating scheme, I might as well see
what it looks like now rather than cry into my tea later." So I
toddled over to
www.rsac.org
and poked around. As an exercise,
I rated my own personal web pages (http://www.antipope.demon.co.uk/).
Several things became apparent fairly rapidly.
Firstly, the RSAC have spent a LOT of effort in designing an interface
(CGI/form based) to let you self-certify your own site. You can use it
on a per-file, per-directory-tree, or per-website basis. You answer a
series of questions (on different forms) and it finally emits a large
HTML tag to be included in the
section of all your HTML files.
(Then it pesters you by email until the tags appear.)
Leaving aside the technical issue of whether it would be more
convenient to provide an implementation of their rating system as a
JavaScript or Java applet for those of us with industry (sub)standard
browsers and lots of files to certify, I was struck by some puzzling
assumptions about the rating scheme.
Firstly, there's a marked cultural bias towards those pushbutton
panic-items that get the censorious, the religious, or the prudish
uptight -- specifically, the _American_ censorious, religious, and
prudish lobby. There should be no surprise about this; but questions
like 'Does your web site contain profanity?' where Profanity is
defined as 'References to God or Jesus used as swearing: God, Jesus,
God-damned, Jesus Christ' are not exactly going to help the average
Mullah, and I was somewhat bemused by most of their definitions of
strong language and vulgarity.
Although there's a 'country' field on the registration form, no use of
it is made later in the rating system in order to localize or
internationalize the ruleset applied to the site. This is,
fundamentally, an America-only rating system.
Secondly, there's a marked bias towards the visual, combined with a
gross inability to distinguish between documentary and fantasy. This
confusion over the nature of the medium (essentially hypertext with
embedded graphics, _not_ some kind of video-on-demand) and context (is
it a fact? is it an entertaining story?) can lead to all sorts of
weird consequences. It's almost as if they're designing a rating
system for a functionally illiterate audience who can't tell fact from
fiction:
For example, Violence question #1 asks: 'Does the internet content
depict aggressive violence?' where 'aggressive violence' is defined
as:
Aggressive Violence is the existence of a Credible Threat, or the
actual carrying out of a Credible Threat, or outright actions which
directly or indirectly cause, OR IF SUCCESSFUL would cause, physical
harm, Damage, destruction, or injury to a Sentient Being or Realistic
Non-sentient Object.
Aggressive Violence INCLUDES the visual Depiction of the RESULTS of
aggressive violence including, but not limited to dead bodies, Damage,
Audio Distress, etc., even if the violent act itself is not shown.
EXAMPLES of AGGRESSIVE VIOLENCE:
Any use, whether by Sentient Being or Non-sentient Object, of an
item which shoots something potentially harmful or destructive
including, but not limited to rays, objects, projectiles, arrows,
fluids, sound, etc.
Any use of non-shooting objects in a manner which is, or which
would be if successful, harmful or destructive including, but not
limited to fists, feet, elbows, clubs, acid, knives, chairs, whips,
chains, poisons, etc.
Any use of bombs, mines, explosive devices, pungi sticks, etc.
Lex Luther CAUSING an earthquake through the use of Hydrogen Bombs.
|
Arguably this means that 'aggressive violence' refers to either (a)
real-life death threats (note; it's got to be credible!), or (b)
visual depiction of the consequences of such threats. So the News at
Ten gets it in the neck for all those photographs of mass-graves in
Bosnia, but the average schlock horror novel is home and dry.
Thirdly: it's bizarrely easy to hoax the rating system. Far as I can
tell it's entirely voluntary; the only way to get caught is for
someone to complain that the pages don't correspond to their rating.
Fourthly: I was extremely disappointed that, after having built
this wonderfully complex and useful filter mechanism, the only thing
RSAC could think of to do with it was to turn it into a V-chip for the
web. For example, one would think that a decision tree based on the
Dewey Decimal Catalog (or similar) would be a really cool addition to
the system; you could identify _precisely_ what section of the library
shelf your web pages belong on, on a per-page basis, and the various
web search engines could subsequently be used to filter out content
based on a rigorous library catalog definition, rather than a
semi-random keyword search. The PICS system is good for a lot more
than rating the tit count on a web site, and it's a shame to see the
first major deployment of it being so badly implemented.
However. That's as may be. My conclusion (after having played with the
RSACi system for a while) is that it's fundamentally broken. It
doesn't take into account national preferences and/or variation, is
biased towards a view of the web as television-on-demand or
computer-game- distribution rather than hypertext, can't distinguish
between factual and fictional content (for which very different
criteria may apply), and despite having lots of promise as a
general-purpose library index for the web doesn't really add anything
except a 'DANGER: IMPURE THOUGHTS!' sign for people who can't read the
word 'God' without shouting 'hallelujah'!
Enclosed below, for your edification, are ALL the questions (with
their definitions of terms) from the RSACi rating scheme. The
categories are volence, nudity, sex, and language. Note that they're
presented as a decision tree, by way of a non-bayesian expert system
(I believe a forward-chaining one). What do you think?
Violence
In order to determine the level and type of violence in your content,
you will be asked to answer from two to 16 very specific questions
about whether and how violence or its consequences are depicted.
Definitions and examples are provided for all terms which you need to
understand in order to make the determinations necessary to answer the
questions. The definitions are highly specific, and the objectivity of
the system depends on using them carefuly and correctly. You are urged
to review the Definitions link underneath the question before
submitting your answer.
Definitions
Aggressive Violence
Aggressive Violence is the existence of a Credible Threat, or the
actual carrying out of a Credible Threat, or outright actions which
directly or indirectly cause, OR IF SUCCESSFUL would cause, physical
harm, Damage, destruction, or injury to a Sentient Being or Realistic
Non-sentient Object.
Aggressive Violence INCLUDES the visual Depiction of the RESULTS of
aggressive violence including, but not limited to dead bodies, Damage,
Audio Distress, etc., even if the violent act itself is not shown.
Aggressive Violence DOES NOT INCLUDE psychological attacks. It is
limited to physical harm, damage, destruction, and injury.
Aggressive Violence DOES NOT INCLUDE Acts of Nature/Accidental
Violence.
Examples OF aggressive violence
Any use, whether by Sentient Being or Non-sentient Object, of an
item which shoots something potentially harmful or destructive
including, but not limited to rays, objects, projectiles, arrows,
fluids, sound, etc.
Any use of non-shooting objects in a manner which is, or which
would be if successful, harmful or destructive including, but not
limited to fists, feet, elbows, clubs, acid, knives, chairs, whips,
chains, poisons, etc.
Any use of bombs, mines, explosive devices, pungi sticks, etc.
Lex Luther CAUSING an earthquake through the use of Hydrogen Bombs.
A fight in a hockey game.
A boxing or karate game.
EXAMPLES of what AGGRESSIVE VIOLENCE is NOT
An earthquake, while violent, is not Aggressive Violence.
A football, or hockey, or soccer game is not Aggressive Violence.
A dam breaking, flooding the valley below, sweeping away Sentient
Beings is not Aggressive Violence, HOWEVER the program will still
receive a violence rating of some kind because Sentient Beings die or
are Damaged. See the section on Manifestations (Types) of Damage.
Acts of God and Natural/Accidental Violence
Acts of God and Nature are defined as what a reasonable person would
consider normal "acts of nature" or "acts of God" such as flood,
earthquake, tornado, hurricane, etc., unless the act is CAUSED by
Sentient Beings or Non-sentient Objects in the game or where the game
includes a character playing the role of "God" or "nature" and the
character caused the act.
Accidental Violence Aggressive Violence is violence that a reasonable
person would consider as unintentional and not purposeful, but,
rather, as accident. Violence as the result of the carrying out or
mistaken carrying out of a Credible Threat is not accidental.
EXAMPLES Of Acts of God and Nature/Accidental Violence
The Depiction of a hurricane or the results of a hurricane.
The Depiction of an unintentional automobile accident or the
results of an automobile accident.
EXAMPLES Of What Acts of God and Nature/Accidental Violence are NOT
A gun going off during a robbery (a Credible Threat) regardless of
whether it was accidental or not.
An earthquake CAUSED by one of the characters in the game.
Sentient Beings
Anything (being or object) Depicted in the program as FEELING and/or
THINKING and/or SELF-AWARE.
EXAMPLES of SENTIENT BEINGS
Animals or objects Depicted as animals
Space aliens.
Cartoon characters: Bugs Bunny, Wyle E. Coyote, Elmer Fudd.
Rocks that speak or show feelings.
A blob from space that speaks, shoots, and dies.
ANY form of intelligent life.
R2/D2 (Star Wars).
Realistic Objects
A Non-Sentient Object Depicted in the context of the program exactly
as its true-life counterpart or what a reasonable person would
consider as true-to-life. A building, airplane, car, truck, ship,
street, road, tree, forest, mountain, river, ocean, island, alien
space ship from mars, etc. showing proper proportions, details and
features which a reasonable person would consider as a realistic
Depiction of the object. Items of detail are depicted and shown in
proper proportion so as to make a reasonable person think that the
object is realistic.
EXAMPLES of REALISTIC OBJECTS
An airplane or missile-bombing game that shows, or zooms in on,
realistic Depictions of bombed-out buildings and/or streets and/or
vehicles, is Depicting Realistic Objects.
The buildings and vehicles in the cartoon version of "Batman."
The houses in the cartoon, "The Three Little Pigs."
A toy truck Depicted as a toy truck.
Blood and Gore
To differentiate in quality and quantity minor visual depictions of
blood from the depiction of Blood and Gore as defined below. To define
the difference between a Human being shot and displaying a trickle of
blood around the wound and a Human being shot resulting in an
exploding chest and spraying the room with blood.
DEFINITION: Visual Depiction of a great quantity of a Sentient Being's
blood or what a reasonable person would consider as vital body fluids,
OR a visual
Depiction of innards, and/or dismembered body parts showing tendons,
veins, bones, muscles, etc., and/or organs, and/or detailed insides,
and/or fractured bones and skulls.
The Depiction of blood or vital body fluids must be shown as what a
reasonable person would classify as flowing, spurting, flying,
collecting or having collected in large amounts or in pools, or the
results of what a reasonable person would consider as a large loss of
the fluid such a body covered in blood or a floor smeared with the
fluid.
To be classified as Blood and Gore, there must be MORE than just a
small amount of blood. It must be more than the depiction of very
small quantities and what a reasonable person would classify as a
trickle or droplets.
To be classified as Blood and Gore, there must be MORE than just
simple dismemberment; the dismemberment would have to be accompanied
by tendons, veins, bones, muscles, etc.
EXAMPLES of BLOOD AND GORE
A Sentient Being is thrown in a tree-chopper and is spewed out as
hamburger.
A Sentient Being is shot with a bazooka and explodes in pieces
showing pools of blood, innards, etc.
A Sentient Being looses an arm showing parts of the bone, oozing
fluids, tendons and veins.
A Sentient Being has its heart ripped from its chest and shown to
it.
A Human is shot in the head and blood and brains fly in all
directions.
EXAMPLES of what is NOT BLOOD AND GORE
Wyle E. Coyote is flattened or singed all over after an explosion.
Dismemberment if all that is shown is the dismembered part without
blood, bones, veins, etc.
John Wayne is shot in the shoulder and a trickle of blood is shown,
but not flowing or spurting.
A skinned knee with a trickle of blood.
A head bandage with a spot of blood.
Damage; Shows Damage: Sentient Beings
Sentient Beings Show Damage via a change in normal and expected
appearance in response to Aggressive Violence such as showing holes,
dismemberment, showing a lump on the head, showing cracking and
crumbling apart, showing disfigurement of any kind, including (but not
limited to) showing a Sentient Being, burned to a crisp, flattened,
twisted into a pretzel shape, etc.
Sentient Beings which have several normal and expected appearances are
deemed to NOT SHOW DAMAGE when they change from one normal appearance
to another regardless of the circumstances as in the Game "Super Mario
Brothers" when characters have both a big and a little size and
experience no other indications of Showing Damage when transforming
from one size to the next.
Sentient Beings, alive or dead, that would usually be encountered in
the normal and ordinary course of daily human affairs, whose condition
is NOT the result of game play, and that would be of little note or
concern to a reasonable person are NOT deemed to show damage. This
includes, but is not limited to, animal trophies on walls, stuffed
animals, covered bodies in a hospital morgue, patients in a hospital,
a Human in a wheelchair or walking with crutches, the herding of
cattle, etc.
EXAMPLES of DAMAGE SHOWN to Sentient Beings
A Sentient Being looses an arm in a fight WITHOUT Blood and Gore as
defined below.
A sentient Being shows a hole when shot.
Wyle E. Coyote is singed and blackened all over as a result of
dynamite exploding in his hands.
A Sentient Being is consumed in fire.
A Human gets a black eye upon being hit.
Uncle Harry's head mounted on a wall.
The eating of Uncle Harry.
Pictures of the slaughtering of animals in a packing house.
Scenes where Sentient Beings have been impaled on spikes on the
walls of a castle.
EXAMPLES of NO DAMAGE SHOWN to Sentient Beings:
A Sentient Being simply disappears from the screen when shot.
A Sentient Being falls to the ground when show with no signs of
Damage as defined here.
A deer head on a wall.
An amputee seen on the street.
The eating of a steak.
Death
Death refers to an explicit, reasonable indication of cessation
of Sentience, regardless of whether the Sentient Being is Human or
Non-Human. Death does not imply damage and there can be death without
damage.
Examples of Death
- A human is shot, falls to the floor, and ceases movement. It MUST
be assumed that death has occurred.
- A being is vaporized, disappears, goes up in smoke, etc. It MUST be
assumed that death has occurred.
- A Sentient Being is blown apart with head severed from the body
REGARDLESS of whether the head still talks and the body still walks.
EXAMPLE of what is NOT DEATH
- Use of transporters, cloaking devices, invisibility techniques,
etc. where it is clear to a reasonable person that in the context of
the game these techniques are being used to avoid death or harm.
- A Human being badly burned in a fire or explosion showing great
damage yet which a reasonable person would assume that it is still
possible for the being to still be alive and in which the human shows
signs of Sentience.
Questions
-
Violence: Question 01
-
Your content must be categorized as either depicting or not depicting
aggressive violence. Rape and gratuitous violence are specific types
of aggressive violence. Does the internet content depict aggressive
violence?
-
Violence: Question 02
-
Although there is no aggressive violence, your content must be
further categorized as either depicting or not depicting results of
natural/accidental violence, including "acts of god", on sentient
beings or realistic objects. Natural/accidental violence itself need
not be depicted.
Does your content depict any of the following as a result of
natural/accidental violence: blood and gore, damage or death to
sentient beings, or damage to realistic objects?
-
Violence: Question 03
-
As a result of natural/accidental violence, does your content depict
blood and gore, damage, or death, to sentient beings?
-
Violence: Question 04
-
Does your content depict blood and gore of sentient beings?
-
Violence: Question 05
-
Does your content depict the death of human beings resulting from
natural/accidental violence?
-
Violence: Question 06
-
Does your content depict death of non-human beings resulting from
natural/accidental violence?
-
Violence: Question 07
-
Your content depicts aggressive violence. It has not been determined
if natural/accidental violence is also depicted. The targets of
aggressive violence must now be categorized as to the following:
sentient beings or realistic objects.
Is ANY of the aggressive violence in your content directed toward
sentient beings?
-
Violence: Question 08
-
Content that depicts aggressive violence against sentient beings will
receive the highest violence rating if either of the following is
depicted: gratuitous violence (including when a player is rewarded for
the intentional destruction of non-threatening human beings) or rape.
Does the aggression against realistic objects result in disappearance
without damage?
-
Violence: Question 09
-
Is there an implied social presence associated with the realistic
object that has been depicted as disappearing without destruction?
-
Violence: Question 10
-
Does your content depict gratuitous violence OR portray rape?
-
Violence: Question 11
-
Does your content depict gratuitous violence AND portray rape ?
-
Violence: Question 12
-
Does your content depict gratuitous violence?
-
Violence: Question 13
-
Does your content portray rape?
-
Violence: Question 14
-
It must be determined whether there are depictions of blood and gore
that result from aggressive violence. small amounts of blood may not
qualify as blood and gore (see definitions). Depictions of blood and
gore resulting only from natural/accidental violence should not
generate a yes answer to this question.
Does your content depict blood and gore resulting from aggressive
violence?
-
Violence: Question 15
-
Content with aggressive violence that depict no blood and gore must be
further categorized as to whether the player is rewarded for
inflicting certain types of damage against victims of a particular
stance.
Is the player rewarded for causing or inflicting damage to
non-threatening human beings?
-
Violence: Question 16
-
Is the player rewarded for causing or inflicting death (with or
without damage) to non-threatening non-human beings?
-
Violence: Question 17
-
It must be determined whether there is a depiction in your content of
the death or damage of threatening human beings resulting from
aggressive violence. Such a death could be inflicted by either the
player or another character in your content.
Does your content depict the death of threatening human beings?
-
Violence: Question 18
-
It must be determined if there may be aggression against
non-threatening human beings for which the player is not rewarded.
Aggression by the player that is not rewarded is considered
unintentional (i.e., No points awarded, or no gain towards
accomplishing a goal within the internet content). Aggression by a
character other than the player is also considered a depiction for
which the player is not rewarded.
Are there, or could there be, depictions of damage or death to
non-threatening human beings, for which the player is not rewarded,
including damage inflicted by a character other than the player?
-
Violence: Question 19
-
Is the player rewarded for causing or inflicting damage to
non-threatening non-human beings?
-
Violence: Question 20
-
Does your content depict aggression by the player, or another
character, against threatening human beings that results in no
apparent damage or death?
Nudity
In order to determine the level of nudity, if any, in your content,
you will be asked to answer from 1 to 5 very specific questions about
how nudity is portrayed. Definitions are provided for all terms that
must be understood to make the determinations necessary to answer the
questions. The definitions are highly specific and the objectivity of
the labeling system depends on using them correctly.
Definitions
Revealing Attire
Any Portrayal of a Human/Humanoid that does not Portray Nudity, yet
Portrays outlines through tight clothing, or clothing that otherwise
emphasizes male or female genitalia, female nipples or breasts
(including the display of cleavage that is more than one half of the
possible length of such cleavage), or clothing on a male or female
which a reasonable person would consider to be sexually suggestive and
alluring.
Nudity
Any Portrayal of a Human's buttocks (other than the exception below),
genitalia, or female breasts, or of Humanoid genitalia or female
breast(s), including such Portrayals as 'see-through' blouses, the
'pasties' of a topless dancer, or other types of clothing which do not
prevent exposure of those parts of the body.
An EXCEPTION is made for Portrayals of the buttocks of characters
which a reasonable person would consider as BOTH (a) something OTHER
THAN a true human being or representation thereof, AND (b) a character
that normally is expected to be unclothed and whose natural state is
'undressed.' If the Portrayal is such that it would not cause a
reasonable person to comment upon or take notice of the exposed
buttocks, then, for this one exception, the characters require no
rating for Nudity.
This definition also includes Nudity in widely recognized works of art
and nudity in documentary context.
Examples of Nudity:
Exposed buttocks of zombies or Frankenstein's monster
Exposed buttocks of Bart Simpson or Elmer Fudd
Exposed buttocks of early cave men
Exposed buttocks of Klingon's or Romulins (Star Trek)
Exposed buttocks of Data (Star Trek)
Exposed buttocks of male or female Human Beings
Exposed breast or breasts of any of the above who are female
Exposed genitalia of any of the above.
Examples of what Nudity is NOT:
Exposed buttocks of Chewbacca (Star Wars)
Exposed buttocks of C3P0 (Star Wars)
Exposed buttocks of ape-like, alien creatures when it is clear that
their normal appearance is unclothed
Questions
-
Nudity: Question 01
-
Does your content portray revealing attire and/or nudity?
-
Nudity: Question 02
-
Does your content portray revealing attire and/or nudity. Does your
content portray frontal nudity that qualifies as a provocative display
of nudity?
Sex
In order to determine the level of sexual activity, if any, in your
content, you will be asked to answer from 1 to 7 very specific
questions about how sex is portrayed. Definitions are provided for
all terms that must be understood to make the determinations necessary
to answer the questions. The definitions are highly specific and the
objectivity of the labeling system depends on using them correctly.
Definitions
Passionate Kissing
Any Portrayal of Sentient Beings kissing that a reasonable person
would consider MORE than just innocent kissing. This includes any
kissing during which tongues touch (or mouths are obviously open), and
any kissing on, but not limited to, the neck, torso, breasts,
buttocks, legs.
Clothed Sexual Touching
Any Portrayal of any activity or touching between or among Sentient
Beings, other than Innocent Kissing and Passionate Kissing, that FALLS
SHORT of intercourse (sexual, oral, or otherwise) or masturbation, and
that DOES NOT show bare buttocks, female breasts, or genitalia, but
that any reasonable adult would perceive as sexual in nature. This
includes but is not limited to such things as groping, petting,
licking, rubbing. Non-Explicit Sexual Touching does NOT include
Non-Explicit or Explicit Sexual Acts as defined below and DOES NOT
include masturbation.
Non-Explicit Sexual Touching
Any Portrayal of any touching between or among Sentient Beings, that a
reasonable person would consider MORE than just Passionate Kissing,
including but not limited to such things as groping, petting, licking,
and rubbing, that falls short of intercourse (sexual, oral, or
otherwise), and that DOES show bare buttocks or female breasts, but
DOES NOT show genitalia. Non-Explicit Sexual Touching does NOT include
Non-Explicit or Explicit Sexual Acts as defined below and DOES NOT
include masturbation.
Explicit Sexual Acts
Any Portrayal of sexual activity that a reasonable person would
consider as more than JUST Non-Explicit Sexual Activity because it
DOES show genitalia.
This includes any Portrayal of sexual activity by one Sentient Being,
or among multiple Sentient Beings, including, but not limited to
masturbation and sexual intercourse of any kind (oral, anal vaginal),
that DOES show genitalia.
Non-Explicit Sexual Acts
Any Portrayal of sexual activity that a reasonable person would
consider as more than JUST Clothed Sexual Touching or Non-Explicit
Sexual Touching, either by one Sentient Being or among multiple
Sentient Beings, including, but not limited to masturbation and sexual
intercourse of any kind (oral, anal, vaginal), that MAY show Nudity,
but DOES NOT show genitalia. Non-Explicit Sexual Activity INCLUDES
sound on an audio track, such as the kinds of groans, moans, and other
sounds that to a reasonable person would imply sexual activity was
taking place.
Sex Crimes
Any Portrayal of unwanted, unauthorized, or otherwise non-consensual
sexual acts forced upon one sentient being by another sentient being
(Rape). Any Portrayal of Explicit or Non-Explicit Sexual Acts,
consensual or not, between a Sentient Being that a reasonable person
would consider as being under the age of 18, and a Sentient Being a
reasonable person would consider over the age of 18. Any Portrayal of
sex, consensual or not, between an animal and a Human/Humanoid
(Bestiality).
Questions
-
Sex: Question 01
-
Does your content portray any passionate kissing, clothed sexual
touching, non-explicit sexual touching, explicit or non-explicit
sexual acts, or sex crimes?
-
Sex: Question 02
-
Your content portrays revealing attire and/or nudity, and the nudity
score has been assigned. it has also been determined that your content
includes sexual content, which will be categorized in this section.
Does your content portray sex crimes?
-
Sex: Question 03
-
Does your content portray explicit sexual acts?
-
Sex: Question 04
-
Does your content portray non-explicit sex acts?
-
Sex: Question 05
-
Does your content portray non-explicit sexual touching?
-
Sex: Question 06
-
Does your content portray clothed sexual touching?
-
Sex: Question 07
-
Your content portrays revealing attire and/or nudity, and the nudity
score has been assigned. it has also been determined that your content
includes sexual content, which will be categorized in this section.
Does your content portray passionate kissing?
Language
In order to determine the appropriate advisory level for language, you
will be asked to answer from 1 - 10 specific questions that ask
whether or not your content contains language, expressions, images,
portrayals, etc., which some viewers might potentially consider
objectionable. Our advisories address two kinds of speech; 'hate
speech' and 'objectionable speech', the latter term serving as a
convenient shorthand for language ranging from mild expletives,
through profanity, to crude, vulgar, and/or obscene statements and
gestures.
Definitions
Crude Language; Explicit Sexual References
Crude references, direct or indirect to intercourse: Fuck, bugger,
mother-fucker, cock-sucker, penis-breath, etc.
Crude references to genitalia: prick, cock, pussy, twat, cunt, etc.
Explicit street slang for intercourse or genitalia.
Strong, Vulgar Language
Strong, but not crude, language for genitalia: asshole, butthole,
dork, dong, pecker, schlong, dick, etc.
Strong language for bodily functions or elimination: Shit, piss, cum,
asswipe, buttwipe, etc.
Strong language for sexual functions or intercourse: jerk-off, balling,
shtupping, screwing, boffing, cumming, etc.
References to genitalia used in a sexual setting including the use
of penis, vagina, rectum, semen, etc.
Obscene Gestures
Any visual or described gestures, body movements, such as flipping the
bird, mooning, non-verbal indications of sexual insult, etc., indicating
any of the above.
Any visual or described innuendo, euphemisms, street slang,
double-entendre for any of the above.
Profanity
References to God or Jesus used as swearing: God, Jesus, God-damned,
Jesus Christ.
Non-Sexual Anatomical References
Penis, vagina, rectum, semen used in a non-sexual context.
Moderate Expletives
The words bastard, son-of-a-bitch, bitch, turd, crap.
Mild Terms for Body Functions
Piss and poop not used in a sexual context
Mild Expletives
The words hell and damn,
Ass and horse's ass, BUT NOT Asshole, Assface, Asswipe, etc.
Butthead and buttface BUT NOT butthole and buttwipe.
Inoffensive Slang
No profanity, expletives, vulgar gestures, innuendo, double-entendre,
vulgar street slang other than listed below.
Inoffensive slang: darn, drat, golly, gosh, dang, rats, sheesh, geeze,
gee wiz.
Screw to indicate cheated or harmed, BUT NOT screw in any sexual
context such as "We screwed until the sun came up."
Butt to indicate one's rear end as in "Get your butt out of here,
'or "I'm going to paddle your butt," or "He fell on his butt.," BUT NOT
Butthead, Butthole, Buttface, Buttwipe, etc.
Ass when referring to the animal, but not "Horse's ass."
Dork used in a non-sexual context as in, "He's a dork."
Sucks used in a non-sexual contest as in, "That sucks," or "He sucks."
Questions
-
Language: Question 01
-
Does your content contain any of the following: crude language or explicit
sexual references; strong, vulgar language; obscene gestures; profanity;
non-sexual anatomical references; moderate expletives; mild terms for
body functions; mild expletives or slang?
-
Language: Question 02
-
Does your content contain any extreme hate speech, and epithets that
advocates violence or harm against a person or group?
-
Language: Question 03
-
Does your content contain any hate speech or strong epithets against
any person or group?
-
Language: Question 04
-
Does your content contain crude language or explicit sexual references?
-
Language: Question 05
-
Does your content contain strong language?
-
Language: Question 06
-
Does your content contain obscene gestures?
-
Language: Question 07
-
Does your content contain profanity?
-
Language: Question 08
-
Does your content contain moderate expletives?
-
Language: Question 09
-
Does your content contain non-sexual anatomical references?
-
Language: Question 10
-
Does your content contain mild expletives, or mild terms for body
functions?
This list is copyright of RSAC, but is provided by them to
the internet community for guidance in use of their rating scheme. It is
reproduced here as a linear document rather than a decision tree, to provide
web authors with a perspective on the rating system's overall effectiveness.
[ Main Index ] [ Nonfiction Index ] [ Rant
Index ]