Given the detail in the videos provided by the publishers, are raters often avid players of the very games they've rated? That is, does the rating process spoil too much of the games to make them appealing?

PV: Of course one inescapable consequence of their job is that they will be reviewing game content before the rest of the world gets to see it. So yes, the raters are deprived of some of the surprise that everyone else gets to enjoy. But rating a game's pertinent content is a very different experience than playing a game for enjoyment. Raters are focused on very different things than someone who is playing the game to get from one level to the next.

Do raters tend to rate games that they enjoy playing?

PV: We rate over a thousand games a year. Some of those games are undoubtedly games that the raters like, and some are, I'm sure, games of which they're not the biggest fans. But whether or not they like a given game has nothing to do with the job they do each day. They approach content through the eyes of the average consumer and put aside their own likes and dislikes.

The raters for a game collaboratively determine a proposed rating and set of descriptors. Tell us about how that process has generally worked. Is it typical that raters have the same rating in mind when they get together to discuss a game they're reviewing?

PV: At each scheduled rating session, raters will watch the DVD or videotape together and then each writes down the rating he or she believes to be appropriate, before any discussion takes place. Each will then disclose his or her rating to the group, and discussion will ensue. After discussion, each rater indicates his or her final rating recommendation. As I'm sure you would expect, some games are very easy to agree upon. For example, you typically won't find much disagreement about an E-rated puzzle game. There are, however, inevitably going to be some titles that are "borderline" between two rating categories, and these generate more discussion and require greater deliberation on the part of the raters.

Truth be told, though, I'm just not privy to the conversations that take place when the raters are doing their job. We take the integrity of the process extremely seriously, and nobody else is present in the viewing room when raters are reviewing and discussing content.

How are disagreements among the raters resolved?

PV: Usually through discourse. They express their opinions about the content and recommend ratings to the group that they think are most appropriate, and they'll deliberate together trying to find common ground. They may review submissions for similar games previously rated by ESRB to help with the parity aspect. But ultimately, ratings are based on the majority consensus of raters, not on unanimous agreement, so it's not essential that all the raters completely agree all the time.

Along with a game's rating -- such as Everyone, Teen, or Mature -- it often receives what are known as descriptors. How contentious is the process of deciding a set of descriptors for a game?

PV: Content descriptors aren't intended to be a complete listing of all of the different types of content one might encounter in a game. They are applied within the context of the rating category assigned, and are there to provide additional useful information regarding the content a consumer can expect to find.

But again, it's hard to make a blanket statement given the multitude of games we rate. Some games are pretty straightforward, and others require a more thoughtful and nuanced approach. We have a two-part rating system, and it would be fair to say that, at times, the assignment of content descriptors can be equally as deliberate as the assignment of a rating category to a particular game.

After the rating is assigned, the publisher may adjust their game to try for a different rating or appeal the rating. If a game is resubmitted, are the same raters used for the resubmitted game?

PV: The raters are scheduled based on availability and workload, not on what they've rated in the past.