I think the reality is that the IFcomp team do not have the resources to play all of the submitted games and actually check their content, so they’re taking a very broad-strokes approach of restricting anything that sounds like it might contain content classed as harmful.
(For all I know, @Antemaion may actually have written a game full of gore and self-harm, but I helped to beta test a game which absolutely doesn’t contain any of those things and was blocked anyway because the author’s content warnings mentioned mild violence.)
This is a law which is designed to regulate user-generated content on social media platforms with millions of posts an hour, where there is absolutely no question of pre-vetting all of the content like the IFcomp team are doing. I’m not sure why authors weren’t asked to declare as part of their submission whether the game contains anything in the restricted categories, with a reporting mechanism (which the OSA requires anyway) used to identify and restrict anything which wasn’t properly declared by the author.
Content warning: Mild implied violence and brief gore
the “gore” is quite mild, i was actually overstating it just to be safe in case someone wanted to avoid the game completely. i never imagined it would get “banned in britain”.
i was mid-reply earlier but then got an email from an organizer asking, basically, “how gory/violent is it really?”.
i feel for those who would be cut off, but if this is what this has come to and the organizers are having to split such tiny numerous hairs, then IFComp should probably just be blocked in the UK this year or until things get sorted out.
UPDATE:
the block was lifted, which, obviously, i’m happy about. but doesn’t change the fact that the organizers shouldn’t have to be doing this.
Yeah, I think I would have described it as “cartoon gore”, because people being chopped to bits definitely falls under gore, but here it’s done in a comedic, fairly bloodless way. More Looney Tunes than Game of Thrones.
I took a few minutes to set up a VPN after getting the email about my own game, so if anybody’s affected by this and concerned it’ll put a dent in the amount of feedback/ratings they get, please do let me know. I probably won’t slog through things that aren’t to my taste just to spite the government, but it might prompt me to at least try a few more games than I usually manage.
EDIT: The block has now been lifted from my own game, but the offer still stands.
I know. Are they banning books with violence described as well?
I don’t know if this will work in every situation, but creative descriptions might be able to get by - “gore” is a flagged term in many contexts, but perhaps “body horror” would be okay?
If it’s human on human violence with a weapon, I suspect that’s what they’re worried about and not much else you can do except not go explicit with the descriptions.
It’s probably as stupid as “Bob stabs Joe” vs “Bob disembowels Joe”.
Is it as simple as “don’t describe viscera or extreme blood” and “don’t describe naughty bits or activities with them interacting…”?
Some ideas for potential dodge phrases:
non-bloody violence
adult humor and situations
discussion of (non-depicted) sexual situations
non explicit description and discussion of corpses (for a murder mystery)
I’m really at a loss for words for how to respond to my game is being geoblocked, which is not shocking from the perspective that the content warning contains a decent list of things. But many of them were included with abundance of caution. There are a lot of acknowledgments of difficult topics, but they’re not graphic. Most of what I’ve included is in the perspective of “here are things people go through and they’re hard, but you can move through it.” Heck, I’ve even embedded links to mental health resources in the game itself.
I guess where I’m unsure is the topic of gore. If it’s gore sans violence, just… the description of a body, and some blood, but also depicted in a very…surrealist context that is not actually how bodies would be…I don’t know? Where’s the line here? I don’t believe this content would be harmful, but it’s all so subjective.
Yeah, as excited as I am to see all the entries, giving people an extra day to appeal geoblocks seems reasonable. Especially since it’s currently night in the UK, I believe?
Not everyone is going to check the forums and affiliated Discords, so I hope that the voting period gets extended or pushed back and that there are instructions and information for UK players to know about what’s going on.
I was extremely nervous people would think this of me too. I have been affected by this. It’s because offscreen in a fight between two kids, but you see one of them afterwards with some blood coming from his nose. There is nothing overly graphic, no promotion or glorification of harm. It’s definitely not just applying to games with high levels of gore/illegal activity/promotion of harm etc. I will try to rewrite when I get time, but it will likely still be blocked when the comp opens. (Just to be clear, this is voluntarily on my part- no one is making me do this. I have spoken to the organisers about it. I understand they are trying to apply the act so as not to get into trouble).
But yes, please don’t think authors with blocked games have necessarily done anything bad.
I think it’s worth writing back to the email you got and explaining this! Seems they’re open to removing blocks if they decide the content doesn’t actually warrant it.
I emailed @Jacqueline at IF Comp this weekend with a separate question about my game’s content note. At that time, she also notified me that some games were being geoblocked.
After discussing things with her, I asked her to include my entry in the geoblock, and she agreed. To be clear, the organizers did not impose it on my entry and would have allowed my game to remain unblocked.
I’ll probably go into more detail about this post-comp or during the comp.
Additionally: I’ve criticized the UK’s Online Security Act (OSA), but I’ve also said that I’m mainly opposed to age verification and imposed age ratings as a way of complying with the OSA. I see geoblocking as a far more reversible policy. Post-competition, I also plan to host/mirror my game on other websites that are more open.
Entering the comp is also a bit of a conflict of interest since I’ve criticized IFTF projects for complying with OSA. I plan to either return any prize money or donate it to the Electronic Frontier Foundation or similar.
I’m not involved in the geoblocking, but I do think that people’s scale of what’s normal doesn’t match what an oppressive government oversight employ might think is normal.
It seems completely plausible that, if it was pushed by conservative groups who want to block adult content, that they would block games with killing or dismemberment or drinking, even if it’s “fun” dismemberment or light use of alcohol. It seems to me the criteria aren’t “do I personally think a kid would be harmed by reading this “ (I doubt any of the blocked games are actually harmful!) but “how would it look if this example were read out in court or mentioned in an attorney’s letter”. If your game is called “captain assassination” then it’s probably intended to be blocked by osa even if it’s light and silly.
I don’t think IFcomp will be a target of uk censors but the geoblocking seems intended to prevent even that small chance, and that means blocking things that go against the new law even if it seems silly or trivial.
Again, I have no say in the geoblocking and have not given the IFcomp team any suggestions. It’s just my thought process
I’ve been told it is not. I have discussed it with the organisers and they reviewed my game on request.
I did say that his nose was broken, so that likely constitutes “serious violence”. The organisers have reviewed my game and let me know what they believe the issue is.
My reason for commenting was not to stir up any kind of trouble for the organisers, it was because I was very worried people would think I was writing horrible, illegal things when my game appeared blocked under that act. Sorry if I’ve overstepped here.