Legal Niches

Classification Board Member Quizzed

By pete_gallagher

Australian Gamer has an interview up with an unnamed member of Australia's Classification Board who provides some insight into both the rating and appeal processes.

The person queried would only identify himself as a Senior Classifier for the Board.

He/she was asked to provide a little more detail into how the Board actually reviews content:

I will clarify that we don't play through all games, I don't think we have the resources to do that. However the Act is set up in a way that allows the industry to provide an assessment under strict circumstances which is then provided to us. That involves a detailed report on the content of the game, in majority of cases we also receive gameplay footage and we always receive a copy of the game itself.

How does the Board measure or quantify violence?

It's a hard question to answer as it is a moving target. We operate in a method by which we call an impact test. This test is somewhat prescribed but on some level it comes back to the individual impact on the person playing that game. Putting that aside, I can give you the standard answer which is any violence that exceeds "Strong".

 

Overall in terms of the guidelines violence that exceeds a "Strong" rating is a scene that contains the use of greater detail that can include slow motion, close-ups, extenuation techniques (such as lighting, perspective and resolution), uses special effects in colour, tone, images and sound. A key factor in some of the controversial decisions you see is the use of prolonged violence.

On the appeal process and how appeals are not handled by the Board itself:

An appeal is actually an application of review to a different statutory body and they independently classify that game. The difference between us and them is that they effectively sit above us if you consider it a hierarchy. The appeal is to them and the things that they consider are the Classification Board's initial report as well as inviting submissions from interested parties. To my understanding it has usually been a representative of the applicants that comes in to argue the point of why the Classification Board's decision was wrong.

 

We are effectively different statutory bodies, we do not meet in any way and to be honest I have worked here 6 and half years and have never met a single member of the other statutory body.

Many more questions answered over at Australian Gamer.

Full post as published by GamePolitics.com on February 17, 2010 (boomark / email).