The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) has never had an easy job. It’s arguable that as gamers, we take the efforts of them for granted, but over the years, they have been on the front lines; standing between the distribution of our games and legislation after legislation that would seek to censor many games. But just how does the ESRB really work, and why should parents, and even gamers, be concerned?

In the April issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly, Jerry Bonner, who spent six months with the ESRB as one of the organization’s first crop of full-time content raters, offered his perspective on video game ratings and problems within. ESRB president, Patricia Vance, was also there to respond to Bonner

Concerned just as much as the rest of us of impending government intervention, Bonner offered six solutions to solve the problem of rating games, some of the highlights as follows:

1. Dropping the “Adults Only” rating and and adding a T-16 to go along with the current Teen rating, which is intended for those 13 and older.

2. Actually playing the games:

"I would strongly suggest having the raters play the games to completion and carefully log their findings throughout the playtest. I’ve already heard the ESRB’s argument on this one: “That’ll take way too long and it will compromise our turnaround time.” My solution to that is simple: Hire more people."

3. Forget parity:

"The logic goes like this: If game X gets a Teen rating, then it stands to reason that the sequel will get the same and so on and so forth into infinity. Forget the whole concept of parity, or minimize the dependence on it, and judge each individual game solely on its content and nothing else."

4. Be more open:

"Realistically, there is nothing to hide at the ESRB. Everything was above board as far as I could tell… But by acting in a secretive, mysterious way, the ESRB creates an appearance of impropriety. "

Not content to stand by idly with Bonner’s points, Patricia Vance simply refutes all of it in one swift response:

"Mr. Bonner’s article contains numerous misleading statements, factual inaccuracies, and misrepresentations… The author also fails to mention the unique and limited nature of his six-month tenure at the ESRB…

He implies that we arbitrarily change ratings after the raters have done their jobs. This is not the case… And, contrary to Mr. Bonner’s contention, the fact that a title being rated is part of a series has no bearing on the decision…

The author unfortunately also confuses our efforts to ensure the integrity and trustworthiness of the ratings system with unnecessary levels of secrecy. It is regrettable that the author does not appreciate the importance of protecting the confidentiality of the raters to avoid even the possibility of undue influence from external sources.

At the end of the day, ESRB stands behind each rating it assigns, and the process by which it assigns those ratings."

Although heres a thought… what would she have said if addressing Bonner’s first rating suggestions?