I think that Audio should have parental ratings too shouldn't they?
Like if there's cursing in it.

At 4/19/16 01:26 PM, VenomationsTV wrote: I think that Audio should have parental ratings too shouldn't they?
Like if there's cursing in it.

Everyone on Newgrounds should be at least 13, but even if they aren't, the fact that they're here means they can handle it.

That's the general reasoning, anyway.

At 4/19/16 01:26 PM, VenomationsTV wrote: I think that Audio should have parental ratings too shouldn't they?
Like if there's cursing in it.

Or maybe we should send all the kids in concentration camps, in order to make Newgrounds great again !
And maybe concentration camps should have parental ratings ! :3
Kids should have parental rating too !
And parental rating should have parental rating !

At 4/19/16 01:52 PM, MysteriousPresence wrote:

At 4/19/16 01:26 PM, VenomationsTV wrote: I think that Audio should have parental ratings too shouldn't they?
Like if there's cursing in it.

Or maybe we should send all the kids in concentration camps, in order to make Newgrounds great again !
And maybe concentration camps should have parental ratings ! :3
Kids should have parental rating too !
And parental rating should have parental rating !

Trumpgrounds is over, but I agree. Let's call the concentration camps "school."

At 4/19/16 02:18 PM, Anarkat wrote: umm what?

EXACTLY ! Oh my thank you so much, I didn't know how to finish my theory ! <3

Well I guess the great Sorbet Oasis Pêche Pomme Cassis was on my side ! :3

That's actually not a bad idea.

At 4/19/16 02:40 PM, Rahmemhotep wrote: That's actually not a bad idea.

I know right, always wanted to be President of the world.

It would certainly help people like myself who would prefer not to hear profanity.

At 4/19/16 02:58 PM, Rahmemhotep wrote: It would certainly help people like myself who would prefer not to hear profanity.

Oh you just gave me an idea ! I'm gonna make a song about Kids in Concentration Camps ! And Parental Advisories ! We'll never know how Parental Advisories are scary !

At 4/19/16 01:52 PM, MysteriousPresence wrote: Or maybe we should send all the kids in concentration camps, in order to make Newgrounds great again !
And maybe concentration camps should have parental ratings ! :3
Kids should have parental rating too !
And parental rating should have parental rating !

Da fuq?

At 4/19/16 02:39 PM, MysteriousPresence wrote: Well I guess the great Sorbet Oasis Pêche Pomme Cassis was on my side ! :3

I don't understand

At 4/19/16 02:58 PM, Rahmemhotep wrote: It would certainly help people like myself who would prefer not to hear profanity.

Perhaps a "Christian Jams" website would be more up your alley than Newgrounds then...

At 4/19/16 05:49 PM, Migashi wrote:

At 4/19/16 02:58 PM, Rahmemhotep wrote: It would certainly help people like myself who would prefer not to hear profanity.

Perhaps a "Christian Jams" website would be more up your alley than Newgrounds then...

It's not just the Christians who don't want to hear profanity; a good number of secular people find it disturbing.

The thing about ratings, though, is that it'll have to be retrospective and set by the authors themselves. I remember back in the day when we were brainstorming ideas for the 20th anniversary celebration last year, I did a blitz through the first 1,000 submissions that were still up on NG. There were many missing ID numbers but some of the earliest came from users who aren't active anymore, and some of them were not only profane, but would be what we consider now to be "ear rape."

Over submissions like these (of which there are just too many, what with people going inactive over the years), the rating system cannot truly be enforced. It's understandable as to why there'd be requests for such a rating -- but the way I see it, it seems to be something likely to be used by, say, the few of us who are active now. As it stands, those of us who are decent enough to know we attract a younger listener base also make sure to put in [Parental Advisory] or [NSFW] into our audio if it fits those tags; take @Phyrnna for example.

EDIT: A further thought on this matter considering I'm working on a pretty dark entry already --

Parental ratings don't just cover profanity. The general parental rating system on NG covers violence, language and suggestive and adult themes. Even references to all these things will be taken pretty seriously. Bear in mind, too, that NG's parental advisory system would be harsher than say, ESRB or PEGI in parts.

So a song about the North Korean kocchebi will likely land an M if it features graphic violence and desolation in its lyrics, despite not having profanity. You get my point. How, tell me, how on earth would we enforce it for the many, many songs on here that have maybe even the slightest references to these things...

At 4/19/16 06:02 PM, Troisnyx wrote:
A bunch of stuff

Well; I don't think it would need to be quite that detailed. Something like "[CGC]" for "Contains Graphic Content" if it contains graphic content or notably profane language. Like the RIAA institutes on it's artists. What an amazing organization; the RIAA.

But my original statement is that this websites target audience does not consist of children. Parental ratings would be going rather far for content that doesn't also include a video. I wouldn't mind a heads up in case I decide to play a song with graphic content at work or something.

At 4/19/16 07:53 PM, TheDukeofJuke wrote:

At 4/19/16 05:49 PM, Migashi wrote:

At 4/19/16 02:58 PM, Rahmemhotep wrote: It would certainly help people like myself who would prefer not to hear profanity.

Perhaps a "Christian Jams" website would be more up your alley than Newgrounds then...

I am a Christian and actually cringed at hearing that.

lol; like when you stumble upon that really obscure Christian radio channel in the car.

At 4/19/16 08:42 PM, TheDukeofJuke wrote:

At 4/19/16 08:10 PM, Migashi wrote:

At 4/19/16 07:53 PM, TheDukeofJuke wrote:

At 4/19/16 05:49 PM, Migashi wrote:

At 4/19/16 02:58 PM, Rahmemhotep wrote: It would certainly help people like myself who would prefer not to hear profanity.

Perhaps a "Christian Jams" website would be more up your alley than Newgrounds then...

You can't evangelize to people who are already saved, so no it wouldn't be.

lol; like when you stumble upon that really obscure Christian radio channel in the car.

You mean the one that I'd listen to.

I will actually admit that most of our music sucks if not all. Gospel knows what they are doing though.

I would go much further and say that most of all music in the world sucks. That stuff that we listen to within our personal tastes is very small and limited compared to the gross amount of music out there. Also, mandatory Southern Gospel

I'm not saying we NEED to have that kind of system and even if we implemented an optional rating system that was based on a guideline, it would only be able to be implemented to new tracks or active users would go through their own work and rate it.

I never said it was a practical idea, yeah? Just a good one.

In light of what @Troisnyx has said, I think it probably would have only worked if we had had the system in place at the birth of the AP. Of course, that isn't to say that I couldn't be proved wrong.

At 4/19/16 06:02 PM, Troisnyx wrote: How, tell me, how on earth would we enforce it for the many, many songs on here that have maybe even the slightest references to these things...

The same way it was introduced into art and animation. It's a simple checkbox when submitting. If it's a previous audio track then the creator can edit it, or give it a "NYR" which could stand for not yet rated. Pretty simple to implement this, imo.

At 4/20/16 03:43 AM, PeterSatera wrote:

At 4/19/16 06:02 PM, Troisnyx wrote: How, tell me, how on earth would we enforce it for the many, many songs on here that have maybe even the slightest references to these things...

The same way it was introduced into art and animation. It's a simple checkbox when submitting. If it's a previous audio track then the creator can edit it, or give it a "NYR" which could stand for not yet rated. Pretty simple to implement this, imo.

It is simple to implement, but the practical reason I was bringing up was that a lot of creators of past material will not fall under the ambit of this thing because they are inactive. It is up to the creators themselves to edit this sort of thing -- and when they are away from NG and don't know anything about the parental advisory system being brought in, that'd mean a big gap where a lot of the early material just goes clear -- "passing crap through the radar," so to speak.

This is what I'd like to address, if we are serious about putting this sort of system in place.

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1307411

Reminds me that I dont like accordions, i think they are offensive, we should apply parental rating to accordions, i want the system to protect me and my children from accordions.
If you don't agree with me you are Hitler and a child abuser.

@whoeverisincharge I demand checkbox and instaban for songs containing accordion.

At 4/20/16 04:53 AM, Troisnyx wrote: It is simple to implement, but the practical reason I was bringing up was that a lot of creators of past material will not fall under the ambit of this thing because they are inactive. It is up to the creators themselves to edit this sort of thing -- and when they are away from NG and don't know anything about the parental advisory system being brought in, that'd mean a big gap where a lot of the early material just goes clear -- "passing crap through the radar," so to speak.

Apologies if this sounds too abrupt but that's not a practical way of thinking, like previously, those that don't change it, dont' change it. The world wont fall apart, and im not sure how this some how allows crap to pass through a radar. It's not like a bypass for a scouting system, it's whether if the material content is adult orientated or not. We never used to have the adult rating system for art, anim or games and it eventually came in. This is no different. You can't decided that nothing new should be implemented because it effects changes to past users. Then nothing would ever be implemented.

Reading the comments, it's amazing that so many people make such a big thing out of a small implementation which has proved to work in Art. Games and Animation in Newgrounds already. There's no reason why audio should be treated like it can't have it too.

At 4/20/16 12:09 PM, PeterSatera wrote:

At 4/20/16 04:53 AM, Troisnyx wrote: It is simple to implement, but the practical reason I was bringing up was that a lot of creators of past material will not fall under the ambit of this thing because they are inactive. It is up to the creators themselves to edit this sort of thing -- and when they are away from NG and don't know anything about the parental advisory system being brought in, that'd mean a big gap where a lot of the early material just goes clear -- "passing crap through the radar," so to speak.

Apologies if this sounds too abrupt but that's not a practical way of thinking, like previously, those that don't change it, dont' change it. The world wont fall apart, and im not sure how this some how allows crap to pass through a radar. It's not like a bypass for a scouting system, it's whether if the material content is adult orientated or not. We never used to have the adult rating system for art, anim or games and it eventually came in. This is no different. You can't decided that nothing new should be implemented because it effects changes to past users. Then nothing would ever be implemented.

Reading the comments, it's amazing that so many people make such a big thing out of a small implementation which has proved to work in Art. Games and Animation in Newgrounds already. There's no reason why audio should be treated like it can't have it too.

A "small" implementation would imply, like the block button, that the functionality would not be drastically changed. Here it won't be drastically changed, but the change would be noticeable. I'm not saying "don't put this system up," which is what you're implying. I only asked you to consider what would happen when earlier songs which are supposed to be rated M are rated E because these earlier users didn't or couldn't do a thing. What then? Also consider Lich's question from earlier. If someone doesn't rate his own work, what happens then?

I only don't want there to be a massive outcry when this system is put in place and suddenly, songs disappear because people flag them for being rated E when they shouldn't be. If we implement it, we might as well implement it properly and make sure we can account for the inactive ones.

Audio really shouldn't require the same kind of ratings system as games, movies, and art. There are certainly people who would appreciate forewarning before being exposed to a plethora of expletives in the music that they listen to, so to that end I can get behind labeling applicable content as [Explicit], but that's a standard industry practice already.

Some artists also put out censored versions of their more explicit tracks and label them as 'Clean'. I could see either of these options being put into effect here on Newgrounds, but trying to incorporate the usual E-, T-, M-, and A-ratings kind of feels like a stretch to me.

At 4/20/16 12:20 PM, Troisnyx wrote:
A "small" implementation would imply, like the block button, that the functionality would not be drastically changed. Here it won't be drastically changed, but the change would be noticeable. I'm not saying "don't put this system up," which is what you're implying. I only asked you to consider what would happen when earlier songs which are supposed to be rated M are rated E because these earlier users didn't or couldn't do a thing. What then? Also consider Lich's question from earlier. If someone doesn't rate his own work, what happens then?

I only don't want there to be a massive outcry when this system is put in place and suddenly, songs disappear because people flag them for being rated E when they shouldn't be. If we implement it, we might as well implement it properly and make sure we can account for the inactive ones.

Block button? What. The implementation is simple as so is the theory. If you submit audio from the change you will have to select mature or everyone. No go between. All other songs previously can be edited by the user, or leave it. And it will be flagged everyone. Nobody flags art for being inappropriately categorized, or animation. People are rarely offended by material here already. You're making out there's millions of abusive tracks that need deep categorizating attention. It's a few here and there, most don't even have lyrics.

Youre blowing everything way out of proportion. It's not as complex as its 'everyone or mature'. That's it. If they don't change the flag nobody will care. Implying people should be possibly blocked/banned for such is outrageous.

@BrenTheMan What do you think about something like this being implemented?

At 4/20/16 07:53 PM, Anarkat wrote: this shit came to NG cuz some idiots got offended for simple reason?

It's not like it's a problem. As PeterSatera said, it wouldn't be too difficult for the staff to implement. And it's only one more thing for you to press when you upload.

I don't really think the OP is even offended. He was making a valid suggestion.

I would be fine with voluntarily rating my work, but all of it is instrumentals anyway so grain of salt there. I'm against censorship, so actively punishing people for slip-ups would be bad IMO, but providing people better tools to find the music they want can only help artists. Especially because animators, etc. might be using the audio-portal to find work and wanting something that falls under (or above) a certain rating, I don't think this is a bad thing even though my first reaction was more towards the anarchist bent.

How many of us have noticed this kind of threads happen frequently only on the audio forums ?
I mean the kind of "lets change this" thread. I know some of us have, and that's the why of this.

Maybe I'm too n00b to have noticed it, but as far as I my lurking goes, I haven't saw this on other forums.
Is the audio portal really "that badly" constructed ? or are we NG musicians "that kind" of fellows ?

At 4/21/16 05:40 AM, LexaHergon wrote: Is the audio portal really "that badly" constructed ?

I'm not sure if it's really that - it seems more in the vein of further improvements.

-----
@Anarkat - you haven't really explained why you think it's shit. I'll gladly think about your reasoning when you post it.

At 4/20/16 07:53 PM, Anarkat wrote: guys, having rating on music is a very baaaaad idea. not even soundcloud, bandcamp or youtube thought of this idea, but this shit came to NG cuz some idiots got offended for simple reason?

Yes they do, Anarkat. There's many videos on Youtube you need to sign in for to see it due to age restrictions and content.

At 4/20/16 09:32 PM, Anarkat wrote: implementation is easy, damage is not.
we can talk and bullshit all days, but in the end giving NG shit features won't help much for the community.

Damage? Honestly? The default would be E [for everyone] and then if you happen to create lyrical content with heavy swearing etc then you just tick the M [for mature]. There's no damage at all, don't be so dramatic.

also, where do you draw the line of which content should belong to which rating? given an example that the content containing some profane but author refused to put such content in so-called appropiate rating. what would you do next? ban them?
both @Daru925 and @lich made very valid points on this issue.

And the same answer is given on how we treat art, games and animation. There is no repercussions for flagging something incorrectly. I've seen numerous pieces of art flagged as T but really should be A due to the sexual content. Nobody is banning those users. It's an additional piece of information if it applies to your content, if you talk about adult related material or include swearing you simply change it to M. It's completely non-intrusive.

Honestly...talk about blowing shit out of proportion guys. It's good to see some users above like @Eagleon and @Gragon73 be realistic about the simplicity of this implementation and it's impact.