[...] I don’t know who rates the video games we play but I think they do a fine job. I mean I know it’s the ESRB but who are the “actual” raters? Well it could be you. The ESRB is looking to add to its rating team, but you aren’t going to see them advertise the position here at FileFront. Where you will see it is over at GamerDad.com. The website is a resource for parents that rates games beyond what is done by the ESRB. As game ratings strive to protect kidos, I guess I’m not too upset that GamerDad wants to “stack the [ESRB] deck” with parents. [...]

Sounds like a good idea, hire a few gamers to play and rate the games. Instead of handing over the rating to people who dont have a clue how to play games, give it to the gamers. I dont agree however that "adult gamers with kids" would be perfect. Rather a group of people, comming from multiple backgrounds. Thats not to say that "gamer parents" would make bad raters, just there needs to be a diverse group.

I agree Pixelantes.
Come on over and see me sometime.

Given the current hubbub about wanting to examine games more thoroughly before rating them, only game players themselves are qualified for that task. It does make a lot of sense to recruit gaming parents. Being an adult gamer probably means less-permissive, meaning better qualified to judge for their own children.

I personally think this is a bad idea on the ESRB. Anyone they hire is going to have their own opinion on what's violent and what isn't. For instance, a gamer might overlook certain violent parts of the games because they're used to it, thus garnering a lower rating and creating backlash amongst parents. However, on the other side of the coin, a concerned parent who rates games will more than likely rate a game too harshly, so that their kids wont be exposed to such vile filth that would cause them to grow up as something other than law abiding, God fearing Republicans.

Also, am I the only one who thinks Jack Thompson is gonna move to New York so he can apply for this job?

While there is nothing wrong with openly hiring gamers to rate games, doing so at a time where anti-videogame sentiment it high is foolish. All you will be doing is adding fuel to their fire and giving them more ammuntion to use against you.

How would you feel if this move was the tipping point that got the federal government to finally rewrite the laws against games? It's just not worth it right now.

@ Aniki21

I've given a lot of thought to the "Stack the Deck" comment and I think you're right. It's inaccurate for my meaning and needlessly hyperbolic. I've rewritten that sentence in the article and added an editor's note explaining why. Thanks for bringing it up.

The only problem I can see now is that people will just claim that NY is trying to force it's morals on the rest of the US, or that NY's morals are looser than Indiana, so they'll still clamor for their own laws...

I like the idea of hiring some full time raters though. How do you keep ratings consistent across the range if you're only hired to rate 1 or 2...

I just wish the ESRB would get some of it's raters outside of New York. Sorry but using 1 city in the United States just screams biased. Would ratings change? I don't think too much but just for PR reasons, they should get a cross section of the country, not a city.

GamerDad is a reasonable site. We don't moralize and I've had a lot of success with anti-gaming folks by using that message. My message is not "Games are good for kids!" and it isn't "Games are bad for kids" it's: Some games are good for kids and some are bad.

So, if anyone wants to make hay over me saying "stacking the deck" that's fine with me. GamerDad has a JV security guard, two school teachers, and the rest of us are simply parents and frankly it's absurd to have nongamers rating games. The MPAA keeps their judges secret but guess what? They're movie fans. I guarantee it.

As for a media storm, we'll see. I'm a fully armed culture warrior folks... and I'm on the opposite side of the other culture warriors. So, to quote my least favorite politician:

"Bring it on!"

PS: Speaking less flippantly to the other good point above, this isn't going to make any difference. Having GamerParents rate games isn't going to change the ratings at all (except perhaps in the cases I illustrated in my column). So why is it a worthy goal? Because the demographics are changing and people who don't understand the hobby have no business rating games. I'll defend that point through any coming storm.

Awww, I don't live in New York either. Down in Florida here. Oh well, I'm sure the ESRB will hire folks to be objective and document potential rating items in detail so a final rating of what playable content is in the game is listed. Hope a few GP folks get a chance to work there, and let us know how it is to work there.

While I like the idea of rating games for a living, I'm worried about observer bias. The standards of some gamers on what -is- and -is not- mature content may conflict greatly with those of a lot of parents. And you KNOW that the anti-gamers will use this as ammunition, saying "Now the evil video game industry is having it's own mind-warped byproducts rating games! That means the next GTA will be rated E!" or something like that.

http://www.byzxw.com