Interesting theory.

better not be any stupid restrictions.

I'd like to throw my two cents in even though I'm a little late to this party.

Obviously it's literally true that more created content will be restricted from players (by the creators) than before.  But will the difference really be significant?  I doubt it but it's clearly debatable. 

But, on the other hand, the options available to the creator are now less restrictive.  It's no longer a choice of not uploading at all or having anyone/everyone on the Internet able to copy and access your work at will.  You can make some rules regarding the dissemination of your content.  Some people made the point that it could facilitate putting up games that could only be accessed in sequence, if a creator felt that it was important to that people see its work in that order. 

So is the new setup more restrictive for players?  Definitely.  Significantly so?  Maybe.  More restrictive overall?  I don't think so.

[edit:  I note that your first post, Sqrl, was about how this was another step away from totally open content sharing, and that's pretty much an indisputable fact.  But the people arguing with you were not speaking from that viewpoint, and it seems possible that the debate shifted in their general direction, in which case your case is not so unassailable.]

Copyright is never a good thing. I hate restrictions being placed on things.

yeah good adea

@Final-Fan

I think you'll notice (and you seem to have noted here something to this effect) that my argument was increasingly centered on the technicality of the issue.  This was somewhat by design, as I was trying to determine precisely how set in the position he was. Not being able to agree with a clear cut technicality is a good way of showing that and by sticking to that point until he acknowledged it I was prevented from becoming engaged in a much lengthier debate without him first showing a willingness to concede a point even if it was only a technical point. 

In the meantime I made it clear myself that I was not ruling out his theory for the way things would play out and that I would (and I do) like for him to be proven correct because it would be a good thing (although I do doubt that any proof will be possible one way or the other). You yourself pointed out just how obvious the point was yet he did not concede it..and so I saw no reason to go into a far more complicated issue with him.

As for the arguments of creativity I do think it's somewhat disingenuous to discuss the ways in which this can increase creativity in the community without also talking about how it decreases the creativity in the community at the same time.  The way a free creative community works is by allowing each person to decide for themselves whether to build from scratch and add it to the pool or build something new onto an existing idea in the pool. Both of those choices would increase the pool thus increasing the total creativity available to draw on. Thus you have a reinforcing cycle. I think reducing the number of ideas in that pool or at least the rate at which they are added to the pool has a pretty clear implication for how it effects this process and it's long term sustainability, and I don't think that there are any obvious ways by which it is effectively made up, particularly in the long term as this loss is compounded over time.

Now one point you brought up was the ability to release content that might otherwise be considered inappropriate without these ratings and restrictions and thus not possible without them.  I think this is somewhat of a red herring issue here if I'm being honest.  I don't believe the value of an idea is tied to the initial (or subsequent) instantiation(s) of that idea (in fact that philosophy is contradictory to the entire purpose of the LBP community).   I don't see how anything you can do with the game would be inherently inappropriate such that it simply could not be done in an appropriate manner and I would further argue that for the health of the community, both in appealing to the broadest audience and for keeping it an inviting and enjoyable place, that keeping the content appropriate is an extremely good thing.  If that reason isn't enough then I would also point out that its worth keeping everything appropriate because it means that every idea is directly and immediately accessible to every member, which in turn allows the system to maximize the exposure of every idea and create the highest chances that new and interesting ideas will be created. 

On the issue of the types of restrictions I think some distinctions are in order.  I don't think a requirement to play previous levels before playing the next is necessarily a bad thing at all as long as those requirements don't get out of hand, but I'm not objecting to that though.  I'm objecting to the idea that there is a box you can check that makes your content available only to friends, or a box you can check that prevents your content from being spread beyond people you specifically give it to, etc...  Those are purely stifling creativity in my view and those are the types of restrictions I object to.

Good point on trying to test the waters before getting into a wider debate. I'm just not sure he understood that you two were talking past each other -- but I guess that says something too.

As for your objections, I'm not convinced that the types of users who would overuse the content locks would be adding much content to the community without any locks in the first place.

Well the speculative response to this is that even a single idea can blossom into much more.  But the more direct response would be that if it is a feature that is detrimental when overused and affects an imperceptible change when properly used...why have it at all?

Imperceptible change? Not at all.

lol@ most people in this thread lol

can you close a match in halo for just your friends?
Yes.
do you always find a match
Yes.
can you close a match in Call of duty for just your friends?
Yes
do you always find a match
Yes

Does everyone see the point?