Forum - View topic

Should Manga have official ratings like the ESRB?

Also, let me just say that I'm neither arguing either for nor against a standard rating system. I merely just wanted to start a discussion on the topic and hear the opinions of others on the forum. I think it's a very interesting topic that, we, as otaku, might be facing very soon.

And it's not that hard for parents and bookstore employees to look at the back of the book and mention the rating.

As for complaining parents, it's the same as it is with TV shows and Video Games. LEARN about it. READ it first. RESEARCH it. TALK to your kids.

The one thing that might be best right now however would be for manga that is rated higher to have a brief explanation of WHY it has that rating, like the ESRB does (violence, nudity, coarse language, etc...)

And the ratings are just that, a rating, with absolutely no description of what or why the series receives that rating.

Having worked in a bookstore previously, there were innumerable times when we had parents return manga or come to us complaining because their children bought manga that they deemed inappropriate.

It would be easier for parents and bookstore employees to know what kind of content is contained in certain manga. As well as for readers.

No, I remember their being an in-depth description of why a certain title recieves a rating on the inside-cover of a manga; take my One Piece volumes, which say (now, this might not be precise since I'm reciting from memory), "comic violence, alcohol consumption, and some sexual situations".

How is that a problem? I'd imagine such an incident to be something to praise since it illustrates to me an incident of parents actually monitoring what their children read.

And how does the current ratings system not meet this goal? I'd imagine the "ESRB" ratings to be very simmilar, just more well known.

If it were a mature-rated series and had to be wrapped in plastic, shouldn't the reasons be on the outside, next to the rating? Shouldn't it be that way in general?

The customer who comes back is upset at the employee for selling it, not at their child for reading it (and not necessarily that they should be).

When I worked at Waldenbooks, we almost got sued because a parent found out that their child bought a Mature manga from our store, from an unknowledgable clerk. If there were formal regulations in place, there would not be a problem. And even no matter how much you try and educate all the booksellers, a lot of them won't understand unless there is a set way it is done.

Malintex Terek wrote:

t;]How is that a problem? I'd imagine such an incident to be something to praise since it illustrates to me an incident of parents actually monitoring what their children read.

I never said it was a bad thing for parents to be monitoring their children. What it comes down to, is that it's bad from the business perspective. The customer who comes back is upset at the employee for selling it, not at their child for reading it (and not necessarily that they should be). But from a customer service stand point it's an issue. When I worked at Waldenbooks, we almost got sued because a parent found out that their child bought a Mature manga from our store, from an unknowledgable clerk. If there were formal regulations in place, there would not be a problem. And even no matter how much you try and educate all the booksellers, a lot of them won't understand unless there is a set way it is done.

No. Getting a shrink-wrapped treatment is enough of an indicator of objectionable content, with maybe a sticker or something on the wrapper to serve as an additional warning. If the wrapping was removed by a browser, blame lies with the retailer or customer, not the producer.

Brand-labeling is negative in intent; it's not meant to attract people to a certain title, it's a warning as to the content of it. Given this context, many people also interpret information from the brand-labeling that I find to be destructive and audience-restricting; namely, identifying a correlation between appropriate content and age.

If the customer was a child who purchased a manga that was inappropriate, blame lies with the parents for providing money to that child. Of course, the child is also at fault, but the general trend of parents nowadays is that they try to shirk their parental duties by supplementing their children with money. It's their irresponsibility, and the retailer should not feel any burden of guilt from it.

Granted, even if a clerk should "know better" that clerk cannot foresee/impose mandates on customers. Say, for example, a young child comes in and asks to purchase a volume of Berserk; if the clerk denies the child, the parent comes in and complaints. If the clerk allows the child to purchase the title, the parent comes in and complaints. Which ground is safer if the child provides no identification?

Frankly, ignoring the "common sense" argument since that could potentially get someone into hot water, it's far easier to defend a "sell to a willing customer" situation than a "not old enough" one, since the foundation is tangible and objective (money) rather than subjective (age-appropriateness).

"almost got sued" here is the key. Unless your opponent was a lawyer, I highly doubt that person would have the initiative to pursue a legal case against Border's Group or that they would have won it, given there were no corporate stipulations against the selling of the mature manga to a minor. As I said earlier, it's easier to defend an argument founded on something like money than on taste.

I apologise for not putting up a decent argument right now; I'm actually quite busy and my hands hurt, though this is a topic of great interest to me. A more in-depth response is due later, I should say.