Thrashy

...Nope, still not lining up. If that was the conclusion you jumped to, well, that's on you.

And that's NOT what I indicated. Not even remotely. The only thing I was intending to illustrate was the fact that Sega's "mature" image did jack shit to prevent them from dropping out of the console business, and ergo the "kids think mature stuff is cool" argument holds no real merit in defense of Sony or Microsoft. Can you possibly explain to me where I indicated that Nintendo was responsible for Sega backing out of the console market? I'm genuinely curious to know.

What exactly does this prove? First off, Sony and Microsoft also get hate. Like, massive amounts of hate. Second, YouTube comment sections are rarely a good source to use. Reason being, people are far more prone to bitch about something they don't like than to leave a positive comment. If you've ever seen a YT video with 100,000 likes vs. 100 dislikes - and then read the comment section only to see mass amounts of hate - chances are good that the vocal minority is who you're hearing from. As much as this shouldn't have to be stated, the vocal minority doesn't come even remotely close to speaking on behalf of the majority. Yet again, this proves nothing. The Wii-U is bombing because Nintendo made the mistake of not making triple A titles for their most popular IPs available at the system's launch. Had the Wii-U's library not been lukewarm at best, it would definitely have sold more. Furthermore, if a console's sales are to be an indicator of fan loyalty, then how do you explain the fact that Game Cube and Wii sales were through the roof in utter spite of the absolutely miserable failure that was the Virtual Boy? If a powerhouse company like Nintendo can bounce back from one flop of a console, they can definitely do it again. You're seriously arguing that hardware specs make a console? I direct you to the fact that the Wii, despite having inferior specs to the PS3 and 360, managed to outsell both. The Sega consoles were also marketed as more "mature" consoles than Nintendo's, as I recall. Is Sega still in the console market today? Hear that, large and supportive Zelda and Mario fanbases? You're all apparently dead. Okay, seriously. What in the blue hell is with all these naysaying threads lately regarding Nintendo? There's speculation, and then there's just...I don't even know what. Alarmist? So, the Wii-U is essentially this gen's Virtual Boy. That doesn't mean the company's in danger of going under anytime soon. They still dominate the handheld industry, and as long as this remains a fact, I think Nintendo will be able to deflect the losses just a tad. They're not like Capcom, who's in immediate danger of going under. Just give it some time.

I'm somewhat on board with your reasoning here, but I have to point out that nowhere on the Internet is age fraud not a problem. Simply put, there currently exist no website mechanics that can identify with 100% accuracy whether someone is being truthful about their age. You can take your naughty RPs to Skype, you can take 'em to Red Light Ponyville, hell, you can take 'em to 4chan for all the good it'll do. But the simple fact of the matter is that if you have never actually met the person face-to-face and verified their age through some sort of legal documentation, it's always going to be impossible to know for sure. That said, I do believe the legal system is on your side if you conduct yourself inappropriately online with a minor who's posing as an adult, given that you can provide evidence (perhaps in the form of a screencap) that the minor in question had led you to believe they were older. Culpable deniability is what stands between you and a rather uncomfortable feature on To Catch a Predator. If we're to assume that the reason absolutely no NSFW activities are allowed even in PMs is a result of the staff wanting to cover their asses on the slim, slim, slim chance that law enforcement would even consider looking into a possible case of age fraud occurring on a website dedicated to talking horses, then I can somewhat understand their position. However, I still don't stand by the misguided idea that two apparent adults caught passing NSFW material amongst themselves should be punished on the same level as an apparent adult who knowingly passed NSFW material to someone whose age was listed as under 18 in their profile. It has always been my belief that punishments should be scaled based on the severity of the situation, and there really is no arguing that "sexy RPing" with a self-proclaimed minor > the same scenario with two (apparent) adults in terms of negligence. Regardless of whether both are "equally against the rules".

...In the opinion of you and like-minded people. I happen to come from the camp that says we should question silly and pointless restrictions on the responsible exercise of personal freedoms that in no way negatively impact anyone. The most inane thing a man can ever do with his life is blindly accept everything that's presented to him without ever even bothering to ask questions about it. The fear of questioning authority is what kept people believing Earth was the flat center of the universe for eons. I cannot even decide where to begin with this. All throughout history there have been countless examples of "that what [sic] has been established" simply being wrong. The only way mankind has managed to grow as a species has been through ousting old conventional "wisdom", old status quos, old ways of doing things that did nothing but actively hold back our advancement and, in many cases, actively harm individuals merely based on what they believed. Or worse, what they were biologically equipped with. Questioning the validity of the status quo doesn't show a lack of respect towards those who established it. Not questioning it shows a distinct lack of will to think for yourself and, therefore, disrespects yourself.

You're having a hard time seeing the problem comparing pictures that lack the power to hurt anyone to drug abuse? Well, I don't know if I can help you there. But I'll try. Problem being that you're confusing "illegal/against the rules" with "harmful". Regardless of what you may think about clop art personally, the fact remains that adults who consent to sharing 'questionable' pics amongst themselves behind closed doors aren't harming a soul, least of all themselves. Breaking rules? Yes, technically. But if they're careful not to allow minors into their midst, careful not to publicly allude to their discreet activities...then what's honestly the problem? Other than "it's just against the rules", I mean. That holds about as much water for me as "gay marriage is just an abomination, okay? Just trust us on this." ...Of course, I may have just made my own questionable analogy, but I digress.

Speaking of absurd, that analogy leaves a lot to be desired.

I think you're underselling the popularity of those franchises by quite a margin. A few posts ago you asked who anyone knew that was going to be buying a Wii-U soon. Well, I can tell you that once the new Star Fox and Zelda titles announced at E3 are released, I will be buying one. All it'll take for me, personally, is a new Zelda, a new Smash Bros and a new Star Fox to sell me on a new Nintendo console. Everyone's different in this regard, and will be swayed by different titles. But the fact remains that the Wii-U's launch titles have been anything but appealing. New Super Mario Bros. Wii-U? Whoop-de-shit. Wind Waker HD? Sorry, not gonna pay full-price for a prettier version of a game I already own. All the 3rd party crap? Yeah...explain to me why I'd play any of that on the Wii-U when I could get it for PC. Bottom line, it takes console-exclusive IPs to push console sales. Especially new entries in wildly popular franchises. Had there been a new Zelda, Star Fox and Smash Bros. at launch, I would've gladly dumped $400+ into Nintendo's lap.

What exactly are you looking for in your soundtrack? I can do metal and hard rock, which definitely fit the beat-'em-up genre, but if it's in a futuristic setting then perhaps something in the vein of electronica might be more fitting.

Yeah, "PG-13" seems like the ideal way to phrase it, given that nobody below the age of 13 is technically allowed to join the forums. Although the problem I could see with that is that it could be kind of vague, since the waters seem a little muddy in discerning between PG-13 and R ratings in movies. Personally, I'd simplify it as "no depictions of sexual activity, explicit or implied" and "no depictions of genitalia" (which should be a given). Really, as long as folks keep those two things in mind when thinking about sharing "suggestive" content, they should be fine. Although I would pose one additional bit of advice: If you have to ask yourself if something's riding the line, best to err on the side of it being too much and choose something just a smidge tamer.