Slashdot Mirror
Kmart To Card Buyers Of Violent Games
AbbyNormal writes: "Cnn.com is reporting that Kmart(R) is now going to start carding kiddies who buy violent games (based on the ESRB rating)." Reverend Raven adds a link which paints Walmart's name on the wall of shame as well. All the more reason to buy games from local stores or on the Web, at least from places which don't bend to pressure from overzealous state attorneys general. On the other hand, industry 'guidelines' which mainstream retailers follow as if they were law seem better than actual laws doing the same, sort of like 7-11 being free not to carry pornographic magazines.
Every weapon sold has the possibility of being used.
Every video game sold does not turn people into violent zombies with the goal of blowing up NYC.
You're not being consistent in your comparison. If you rephrase the first statement to more closely match the second...
Every weapon sold does not turn people into violent zombies with the goal of blowing up NYC.
You wind up with a similar statement, not a contrasting one. Therefore, there is not a much more powerful argument for your position. If the proof is in the millions of gamers who don't turn violent, then the proof is also in the millions of shooters who do not turn violent. The violence statistics are the same no matter which postition you take.
Maybe it would be interesting to find out how many people grow up playing violent games who acquired weapons just before 'going postal' vs. how many people who grew up with guns started gaming just prior to same.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
The children of the people who buy firearms there.
When I was sixteen (and as stupid , if not more, as most teenagers), I would have simply stolen it if they would not sell it to me.
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
I don't see why this is a big deal. The ratings are there for a reason aren't they? Just like movie ratings, why shouldn't game ratings be enforced by those retailers who want to?
The problem that I have is that we all take for granted the MPAA guidelines for movies? Why? Do you realize how important these so-called 'guidelines' are to the sucess of a movie? R movies have a strike against them from the beginning--if your movie gets an NC-17 'rating' then it is doomed to commercial failure. Who gives the MPAA the right to do this? Certainly not the consumer, although this sort of apathy certainly has let them survive this long. The point is that we as consumers do not get to choose the ratings system--there is no competition and the retailers (movie theaters, kmart, etc.) blindly follow the guideline cartel. That is power I don't think anyone should have--government or 'independant' organizations alike.
Nobody should have control of your buying decisions--weather it be movies, games, porn or guns. Bottom line.
-k
I was watching the news yesterday when I found this out. Instead of filling out the ticket, they just swipe the card and print the thing off now. Just like Police Quest III. :)
Incidentally, it's great for doubling those numbers they show off during "safety blitzes" (read quota filling periods).
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
I think this is actually a good thing. The problem that KMart is addressing is that young children had easy access to buy these games. Excuse me for espousing an unpopular view, but young children should not have access to them--without parental consent!
Anyway, as you said, Any determined 16-yr-old is going to be able to get his hands on DOOM 2000, regardless of its content rating or controlled distribution at a couple of major retail outlets. So KMart is not really restricting a minor from getting something (s)he really wants.
> First, why should KMart be dedicated to Free Speech? (That's the citizen's job, not theirs.)
And why the Hell isn't it the citizen's job to take care of his kids, instead of letting K-mart, Wal-Mart, the MPAA and other clueless corporate pieces of shit be responsible for them? Tell your kid what you think is inappropriate for him to play, watch, read, whatever. If he disobeys you, throw away the copy of Diablo 2 he bought against your wishes. Just don't tell my kid he can't read, watch, and play whatever he wants--which is what you do if you make stores card people for video games, because parents shouldn't have to take their teenagers up to the counter like toddlers to buy them video games, music, books and films.
Clue: there is no causal link between video game violence and meatspace violence. And there never will be, because as any frustrated teenager will tell you video games are a tool for catharsis--they let you relieve the tension of dealing with obnoxious bullies, teachers who shouldn't have been allowed to graduate college much less teach high school, girls who ignore them or worse, make out in the halls all day in front of you, administrators who bully students who dress, look, or think differently than the tyranny of the majority, and clueless parents who are from a different generation and just don't understand that times have changed.
Here's another clue: stores don't do things like this out of a feeling of beneficence, they do it because they perceive that people like you want them to. They do it because clueless and ignorant parents want them to, since they choose to blame teenage violence on video games and films instead of on bad parenting and a failing school system. It makes parents feel better when they have a scapegoat to blame instead of facing the truth that it's not video games or movies that are to blame, it's parental irresponsibility and the squalor of a school system in which they're "dumbing down" standardized tests because students can't pass them as well as they could 20 years ago. It's the fault of a repressive society which wants teenagers to bottle up their natural sexuality instead of being free to express it and experiment with it in healthy ways. It's the fault of a social machine which pushes away anyone in high school who tries to be different, unique, instead of "just another brick in the wall." It's the fault of an oppressive government which lets the FBI release "profiling software" to schools to try to pick out the potentially dangerous, but probably acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy to make people dangerous by alienating them and singling them out further. All these are the problem, not sex and make-believe violence in cathartic video games and films and music.
So, what;s the solution? Something like this only tightens the noose further, makes teenagers feel even more alienated and underesteemed. Teenagers aren't five year olds, they need to be treated like people who are in the process of becoming adults, people who need to make their own decisions, with some guidance, and make their own mistakes and learn from them. Why is it that we can give teenagers all the responsibilities of adulthood--we can even try them as adults and send them to adult prison when they commit crimes--but none of the rights? America puts more children in prison than any other country in the world, and we have a larger percentage of our population in prison than any country except Russia. Sadly enough, you have a greater chance of going to jail in America, a "free" country, than you do in Iraq, China, Iran, Libya, or North Korea; it's not because we're more violent, it's because we have a no-tolerance system with no room for mistakes, in which a 17 year old kid can go to prison for having consensual sex with his 15 year old girlfriend, in which getting caught with a few ounces of marijuana for personal use can get you a long prison sentence as a dealer, in which we incarcerate as punishment instead of rehabilitate as treatment. A lack of rights is the fundamental problem that causes teenagers to snap. Taking away more can only make things worse. The kids who go on school shootings and what not are the ones who feel alienated, treated unfairly, not treated like adults by their parents, bullied at school by administrators for being different, feeling the pressures to conform to adult rules of behaviour but not having any of the rights that go along with it. Of course they snap; they aren't being treated like people, they're being treated like objects.
The solution is for us to loosen the reigns a bit, not tighten them. For all the complaining about school shootings being on the rise, violence in schools is actually at a ten year low--it's just that there have been more high-profile shootings, where kids snap and bring guns to school. If we're going to hold teenagers to the responsibilities of adults, and make them subject to prison when they transgress whereas in ages past we just would have sent them to juvenile detention and released them at 18 after counseling, then we have to give them some rights to go along with the responsibilities. We don't do that, and that's why our kids are having problems. We don't treat them like people anymore. Start treating them like adults-in-training instead of like toddlers or property.
"We don't need no education,
We don't need no thought control.
Dark sarcasm in the classroom--
Teacher, leave them kids alone.
Hey, teacher! Leave them kids alone!
All in all,
It's just another brick in the wall...
All in all,
You're just another brick in the wall...
I don't need your arms around me,
I don't need your drugs to calm me.
I Have seen the writing on the wall...
I don't think I need anything at all;
No don't think I need anything at all.
All in all it was all just bricks in the wall...
All in all you were all just bricks in the wall..."
--Pink Floyd
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
This strikes me as a good thing - if I had a kid, I wouldn't want her watching extremely violent movies without my knowledge, or playing with toy guns without my knowledge. This extends that to interactive "movies" and virtually-held toy guns.
Better still, if enough outlets follow the lead (or legislation ensues) that it becomes difficult to sell violent games to the target market (15 years old, or so), perhaps game makers will actually (gasp) have to go back to making games that are stimulating and interesting, instead of always falling back on a bunch of boring big guns and big explosions. The current crop of shooter games are no different than the lowest-common-denominator action crap that Hollywood spits out - in lieu of real writing or acting, they find a marketable star (in this case a marketable game line) and fill in for plot with flashy violent special effects. One reason there are a *few* half-decent movies without too much violence is the MPAA and equivalent rating schemes, so hopefully this will have a similar effect and encourage game companies to look in other, more interesting directions.
Amen to that brother! You nailed the perverse side of big corps without descending into I-hate-them-coz-they're-rich-and-they-only-care-ab out-money pseudosocialistic rant. Worthy of going into /usr/games/fortune. [Got a spare asbestos suit?]
I can see it now - just like alcohol, they'll up the legal age for buying Quake to 21 years old.
Now that would be the ultimate irony. You can die for your country at age 18, but you couldn't play violent video games! (Just like you can now die for your country at age 18, but you are not considered responsible enough to buy beer!)
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
I'm a bit past 25, but when I was a teenager, I recall the same sort of whining by those my own age. The response is still the same: suck it up.
After all, it's no big deal. Get your parents to buy the game. Oh, they won't approve? Then WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO BUY THE GAME ANYWAY? Seems to me that you have more pressing issues to be worried about.
The comment about rites-of-passage is a good one, but the rite-of-passage isn't at 21, it's at 18. If you're old enough to be drafted (presumably in times of war where it's not unlikely that you'll die) then you're old enough to be considered an adult. For some, that's old, for others, it's young, so until we get an actual rite, we're stuck with an arbitrary age.
I sucked it up and dealt with it. Sure enough, I didn't stay a teen forever. Odd how that works.
Pick One: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~stremler/sigs/sigs.html (Note - disable Javascript first!)
The poster refers to the web as a place for kids to buy stuff. I'm not convinced this is true,at least some merchants on the web (Amazon for one) don't allow children to buy stuff without the interaction of an adult. This isn't because Amazon traffics in violent materials, it's because people under 18 can't consent to most contracts without their parents permission.
My other sig is extremely clever...
----------
----------
Keep on charging the enemy so long as there is life.
But what does that person have a rifle for anyway then?
Well, anywhere north of the 56th parallel or so, the chances are about 85% they're a subsistence hunter and about 15% they're a trophy hunter on a guided tour.
Between the 49th and 56th parallel, it's probably around 20% subsistence hunter, 50% sport hunter, 20% trophy hunter, 9% target shooter, and 1% SWAT team.
(Numbers pulled out of my butt, but they are honest best estimates and I would be very surprised if they were wrong in any substantive fashion.)
Other than thinking trophy hunters are dickheads and you shouldn't kill anything unless you're going to eat it or it's about to hurt somebody, I don't have any problem with any of this.
Little story here: My friend and I (both minors) were brought to the movies by my mom, to see the Art of War (ya ya not a great movie, but good enough). My mom buys the tickets, goes to the admission gate and gives them to us. The (old) guy refuses to let us through because we're minors even though my parent had bought the tickets! The only way we'd have been able to see the movie is if my mother went along with us, and well, she had other things to do. Seeing as movie theatres are pretty much a monopoly where I live (boston area) there was no way to see the movie (and the place lost 20 bucks anyway). There's something very wrong here...
When I was a youngin' (not that I'm so old now) I was, one week, restricted by a curfew law. The next week I participated in an election to ban it. Seven days separated my maturity level between "too young to know what to do at ten in the evening" and "old enough to vote on this law, and for the president of the USA"?
Hmmm...
MyopicProwls
MyopicProwls
My homepage
---
There once was a site called SlashDot
Where geeks and nerds complained a lot
When life took a toll
They called out "You troll!"
And proceeded to form a boycott
---
There once were some really young nerds
Who claimed to know more than the herds
Their purchase was blocked
But they simply mocked
Saying "You're all a big bunch of turds!"
---
Is this now a site where we can find this attitude consistently?:
"Oh no! God forbid they take away my 11-year-old's right to buy what the industry calls adult content without my knowledge when he still has 7 years before he's a legal adult!"
I'm thinking so. I'm about ready to give up on SlashDot. More comments on DeCSS and Napster articles than cool stuff like new tech and new scientific breakthroughs.
Pick your battles, folks.
Frankly, I don't understand the problem here. They're supposed to card children who want to see movies that are rated "R", that want to buy porn, and various other things. If the parent doesn't have a problem with it, they can get off their lazy asses and take the kid to the store to purchase it.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
We must prevent un-wanted social distractions from interfering with the Beurocratized Consumption by the masses. Think about Lefebre's idea that society is a structure of organized consumption. The consumer is not an individual with rights (or even money). They are a public responisbility. Aside from the fact that people would rather have their children see explosions and decapitations (gore) than SEX, Paternalism extends the idea that violence is acceptable and sex is degenerating to the individual. Sex is a creative process (love, babies, emotions, etc) and Violence is destructive process (love, babies and emotions too). But think about all the Sex laws we have restricting content based on Protestant (originally ala Max Weber) moral codes: what happens? Now we have equlization--both are restricted to minors (those having Legal Gaurdians) in practice. Is this good? no. But atleast it is equally unfair and does not propose that violence is any "better" than Sex. Minors do not have rights (per their legal status) and societal mores are notoriously conservative (more old people vote than younguns) we are left with a situation that favors Big Brother and more laws regulatiting everything for OUR SAFETY. Nice blankies and regulated consumerism.
If K-Mart (and any other retailers who follow) are anywhere near as successful as movie theaters have been at carding 'kiddies' then I really don't think that we have anything to worry about as far as a serious increase in warez over this.
You wind up with a similar statement, not a contrasting one. Therefore, there is not a much more powerful argument for your position.
Listen, I don't belive in gun control, and I don't belive in censorship, but saying that selling violent video games is more harmful than selling weapons is just plain ludicrous.
If you take one person, who is realatively non-violent and sell him a violent video game, what is he going to do with it? Bludgeon someone to death with the box? The jewel case? However if you sell him a handgun he now has more potential destructive force, whether he uses it or not is irrelevant.
We're talking about potential forces here, someone with a box and a CD in a jewel case has a lower potential destructive force than someone with a weapon. Picking apart the words of one argument does not negate all arguments.
-- iCEBaLM
Does this mean I can feel good about myself when they card for me games. Because I love it when I get carded for beer and smokes (I am well over the legal age and it makes me feel not so old when I get carded)
Where am I going and why am I in this handbasket?
Is that a problem? I don't see any groups putting pressure on KMart to prevent underage duck hunting.
Look at it from KMart's point of view. It's not about violence, it's not about tools, it's not about rights, and it's not about games. It's about getting someone off their back, preventing boycotts, preventing the threat of boycotts which could lower their stock price by 50 cents, etc. In that regard, there's nothing inconsistent about selling guns and not selling games.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Mister...here's a fifty, could you get me a copy of Solider of Fortune?
Sig it.
"The lighted hat was a dead giveaway."
check out yesterday's news update
http://www.ridiculopathy.com
What about a boomarang?
I've bought a ton of video games in my life time .. but I have never bought one at Kmart or Walmart. I can't think of a serious gamer who would buy one there anyway. Oh well, just my 2c
I agree with your sarcasm. I'll take market forces over the iron fist, any day.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
There's a powerful argument to be made that selling violent video games is a lot more dangerous than selling weapons.
And there is a much more powerful argument to the contrary.
Every weapon sold has the possibility of being used.
Every video game sold does not turn people into violent zombies with the goal of blowing up NYC.
Millions upon millions upon MILLIONS of people play violent video games every day, yet crime is dropping. I myself have played violent video games ever since I was, 10... 11? I've never killed anybody, I've never wanted to kill anybody, and I'm 22 now.
VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES DO NOT MAKE PEOPLE VIOLENT, the proof is in the umpteen millions of people who play these games and have never turned violent. This video game stigma strikes of the AD&D stigma of the 80s, if you played them you'd go insane, it was a work of the devil, etc. Give me a break.
-- iCEBaLM
Yet another reason that I won't go into a K-Mart. I'm tired of corporations and government protecting us from ourselves. I've never seen any _convincing_ evidence that anything other than lousy parenting contributes to kids growing up with a taste for blood.
-This sig intentionally left blank
I mean, I do watch over her (she's only 4 at the moment) but when she gets older, and has her own spending money, I'm not going to be able to watch over her shoulder all day and keep her from age inappropriate stuff.
I'm a little thankful that corporations are being a little more conscience of the effects on society of what they sell. If only advertisers would follow suit.
That being said, I am letting her mess around with Deer Hunter.
I am totally for this sort of thing in general. There is no reason not to limit what young impressionable people are able to do without parental consent.
One thing that worries me is comparing this to the movie industry.
An R rating in the movie industry isn't good for the film, but it certainly isn't a fatal blow. An X rating is, however.
What is the difference? Both ratings indicate that the movie should not be seen by children. But since the restricions on R movie admittance are so lax, it doesn't REALLY mean no minors.
But an X rating does. And virtually no mainstream movies are made with X ratings because it would kill their sales. Especially since no suburban cineplex will screen an X rated film. There ARE legitimate films that were cut (or never made) to avoid an X rating. And there are adults who wouldn't mind seeing the uncut version. But any film with an X rating is construed as pornography.
So, the bottom line is that I don't want the M rating to become the equivalent of an X rating. That is, something that hurts the games sales so much that games are modified by the developer to avoid the rating.
If they start to really enforce the M rating and many games change their content to drop just below the M threshold, we may lose the others since it might not be profitable to produce them.
Isnt this leaving judgment up to some pimply kid in the checkout line?
Instead of bitching, everyone should be commending K-Mart for doing this. This is a voluntary, not legal, move on K-Mart's part , and it helps parents. It also keeps that kind of control where it should be -- that is, in the hands of parents, not in the hands of some legislative body (state or federal).
If more companies adopted such voluntary measures maybe we could keep truly odious, freedom-eroding laws from coming into existence. K-Mart's solution gives parents the choice, and they can make that choice based upon the individual level of maturity that their children exhibit.
Also, despite was some have said, this sets no legal precedent -- only a good social precedent.
Personally, I don't see who really buys games at K-Mart, they're likely to be more expensive, I know their CDs are and have no selection. Though this does set a dangerous precedent that I'd hate to see other larger stores follow. I wonder if this will contribute to downloading the games off warez rooms on IRC since the kid can't buy it for real in the store.
Shine on, you crazy diamond.
We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.
And I looked, and behold, the pokemon all spontaneously combusted.
  The carding of persons wanting to buy a video game from Kmart may stop kids from buying the violent games there, but what stops them from getting them from other retail stores such as WalMart, Babbages, Electronics Boutique, etc. The only thing that is going to happen from this is that Kmart is going to lose money. They will be contributing to morals, no matter what kinda a joke morals are anymore, this may help in some small part.
 The other thing is that they can buy games online as well. One they could ask a parent or a relative to order it for them. Two they could just grab one of their parents credit cards and charge it themselves.
 Another point is what are we going to oconsider a violent video game? just aboout every video game is violent in one way or another, with the exception of most puzzle games or like virtual pet sims. the only thing they'll basically be able to get is a game with a lower rating than teen, and even some of the game that are marked for everyone may have some violence in them so that limits them even more.
 The whole point behind this is that Kmart, even though it is trying to do something good, might as well forget it. The only people left with any morals at all are our grandparents. Kmart may have started something good, but who knows if other companies will jump on this and do them same thing. Even if they all did there will always be the internet where they will be able to buy anything they want as long as it's within their grasp.
Just a thought here, instead of the games causing the children to be violent, did you ever stop to think that maybe it's because the children are violent in the first place that they want to play the games?
-- Dr. Eldarion --
The truth is, fairly recently, Montgomery Ward and Sears buckled to the pressure from Joe Lieberman and the others and stopped carrying M rated games all together. Walmart and K-Mart cannot afford to ignore the orders of the man who will be the next vice president of the United States. America hasn't been a free country or had an effective Bill of Rights for quite a long time now, claiming First Amendment protection is a good way to get beaten by police or shot. No one is going to go to the wall over a few video games (well, except me maybe, but considering I don't care for modern polygonal games, maybe not.)
I will admit that American's cavalier attitude towards the First Amendment rights they used to have bothers me. If you know the whole story behind this, it is similar to the infamous Smith & Wesson gun control deal, in which Smith & Wesson agreed to do things that the government couldn't get legislatively. Lieberman and Brownback wanted (and still want) the same type of deal. They want M rated games off the shelves of every major retailer in the country, so they will be impossible to purchase. This is because they have been completely unable to accomplish this through either legislative or judicial means. By not doing this, Wal Mart and K-Mart are in fact standing up to the senators who signed the letter (I have no illusions, they don't want to lose sales, its not because they want to defend Free Expression. However, I still consider it somewhat admirable, even though I expect that they will ultimately buckle to this pressure.) and the senators are not happy about this. Neither American law nor American judicial precedent are on their side in this matter, but this new tactic may work for the latest attempted power grab by the government. I don't really think this is about video games, really, it is about testing the limits of governments power to intimidate people into surrendering their rights. Just as it didn't start with video games, it won't stop with video games, I can assure you of that. It's also not about carding, it's about banning, the wholesale elimination of any video game meant for people age 17 or over from the American market. Yes, it's true that the letter said:
but the emphasis was clearly on pulling the games from the shelves and keeping them out of anyone's hands, no matter how old the customer.The situation is not quite as bad as the 1950's comic book witch hunt, which for many years restricted the content of comic books to stuff which would be considered safe by even the most fretful and overprotective mother.
I do consider it serious though. I think people who are not currently in the thrall of one form of fascism or another will see that the First Amendment, across the board, is at one of its lowest points in the history of the Republic. Not because of this, this is merely one symptom of a larger problem. Ironically, as our popular "reality" TV shows (such as "Survivor") become increasingly about real sadism directed at real people, stuff which is purely fictional is more harshly criticized than it has been since the 50's. People are so eager to give up their First Amendment rights these days.
It took two wars to get us out of the nightmare we created for ourselves in the 50's, I hope it won't take anything to that drastic to get us out of our current national flirtation with authoritarianism.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
To me this looks like a harbinger of what has happened in the United States with teen drinking, smoking, etc. In high school it seemed to me that many of my peers were smoking, drinking, etc. well under the legal age limits as a right of passage to gain status. Doing an act that was reserved for an older age group was seen as a way of either gaining entry into that age group or elevating yourself relative to others your own age for having the moxy to engage in some mysterious illicit act.
So -- now violent video games have the same mystique. Sounds to me like the mommanazis are attempting to give their children yet another means to create arbitrary differences within the age group which can be worked and exploited in popularity struggles. Lovely lessons to teach your children, not?
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
The older I get the dumber kids get. I remember being a kid and thinking that the world was out to get me, I couldn't legally drive, I couldn't legally drink, I couldn't legally go watch R rated movies, I couldn't legally go buy Hustler, can't buy a pistol. Face it 13 year olds can't do squat without permission. This is NOT a bad thing. You have to realize that our social system in dealing with accountability has taken the path of removing the opportunity(or trying to) to do harm from those who can not be held accountable for their actions. It seems that there is sort of a double standard held aloft here. Teens should have the same rights as adults, but none of the responsibility. The problem of course is determining the age of accountability. Should we let K-Mart and Walmart decide, or each state, or the feds? But I would like to hear from someone who thinks that there should be no age controls whatsoever, that we should instead give children the presumption of competence and only react when harm is done. i.e. let a child bring a sawed off shotgun into a classroom, and only arrest the child after somebody has been shot.
But remember back to when you were 12 years old? You wouldn't want to be denied something because you were too young. Now, quite apart from whether violence is good/bad/NOP for kids, you have to remember that Slashdot is overrun with fairly young geeks. no, not Flamebait: I'm proposing this as a statement of fact, not a value judgement They may be old enough now to buy V-games (they may not), but they still remember how much it smarted to be denied, and there's a natural tendency for adolescents to want to undermine anything The Man tries to do.no, I'm not Trolling. I proposing this as a statement of fact. I'm bringing the whole subject up because when you are my age with my sociopolitical beliefs, you see stories like this and scratch your head trying to figure out why this is alarming to anybody. It's an interesting question to me, that's why I feel compelled to click and comment about it.
Um, yeah. I'm going to have to ask you to back that one up.
I've never even seen any evidence of a correlation between violent games and violent gamers, to say nothing of a causal relationship.
However, since you seem so sure of this statement that you have made, I'm sure that you will have no trouble providing us with references to the materials that led you to this conclusion.
anyway, we don't need proof to pass laws. People think it's a good idea not to drive too fast, so we pass a law against it. we think that heroin and marijuana are bad, and alcohol is ok (now, anyway). So what? Is there a law that says we have to have proof? I like the idea of my kids going to public school, but not being surrounded by a bunch of boorish kids who I think learned their behavior from TV and violent video games Right now, most people don't agree with me. But if most people did, we could pass laws against it. I don't see why that gets your panties in a bunch. Mine aren't now... but, there's no law that says your panties can't be in a bunch :)
there's a lot of hostility and emotion in your message, though you try to make it look like it's the other side that's crying.
I don't have children. When I favor laws that I think are good for children, yes, it is to help make up for some amount of bad parenting or bad judgement by some parents, but it's not mine. What's wrong with being worried about the way other people's children are being raised? Do you think anything goes when it comes to kids, or do you just want to enforce your own set of standards? Thanks for bolding the word hypocrisy, it helped draw my attention to it :)
Statement linking media violence to violence in kids draws criticism
I'm glad you brought that up, it is a sickening example of organizations using junk science to curry favor with the current political mess we have in Washington. It's sort of like the way people were sent to insane asylums in the Soviet Union if they published books which were critical of the communist system...
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
BAH! Where is your proof?
I saw an interesting graph recently, that linked most violent actions (54+ %) to FAMILY issues, and only something like 5% to violent video games. Certainly no less biased than you, but just as valid until those making this claim provide some PROOF. There may well be correlation and I'm sure that's easily demonstrable. A causal link is another kettle of wombats.
As far as it goes, I don't have a problem with K-Mart enforcing the ratings, as you say that's why they were created. But please save us the rants about things unproven.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
California issues a state ID that looks a whole lot like a driveres license, but isn't one. There is no age limit that I know of to get one. I never got one, because kids under 16 didn't need ID much back in the 70s and early 80s. My wife did have one, because she didn't get a driver's license until she was 25.
I've always been an advocate of teen rights. I just think it's absurd to have arbitrary ages like 16 and 18, and say once you're this age you're now allowed to do stuff.
Rights go hand in hand with responsibilities. I'm in favour of a test-of-adulthood, which somehow tests (By what means I'm not sure) whether you're capable of handling the responsibilities of adulthood. If you are, then you get the rights - all the rights, all at once.
Currently the teenage years are a slow trickle of rights, but I think that it's psychologically important to have a single rite-of-passage. In primitive societies this might have been having your foreskin cut off, or going out on the hunt for the first time. What it is doesn't matter, but once it's done that person is an adult; no ifs, no buts.
This used to happen around about 13, but these days full rights of adulthood aren't granted until 21, which as far as I'm concerned is very late.
You obviously didn't pay attention in your civics class, young man. The government knows what's best for its citizens, and especially for its citizens minor children. I think you need to go back and take 10th grade over again.
Edith Keeler Must Die
You make some good points about the fact that we as people are amalgamations of what is around us - BUT, why is it that some figurehead makes the decisions about what is around us? How many senators crack down on parents who beat their kids (be it sever abuse or minor reprimands?) Where's the research showing whether or not a slap on the ass by ones parent pushes someone to violence?
The media and the public latch on to these theories because they are easy to grasp and they are easy ways out. OF COURSE kids karate kick people because of power rangers, but a child who has been raised to understand the fundamentals of social interaction will not take it at face value and will make an educated decision about whether or not that kick is appropriate...
It is not K-Mart's place to say whether or not little Timmy is mature enough to appreciate a game. What if a whole bunch of kids in Kentucky were abducted by a couple of mustached italians, are the K-Marts in Kentucky going to not sell Mario64 to kids now??? How absurd is that!? It's not their place, it's the parent of that child who needs to have the checks and balances in place- and if we have put all this trust into parents and teachers to raise the children of this society, then we need to extend that as far as we can and have them educate children and have them decide when the kids are actually mature.
When K-Mart begins doing something like this, it's time to start arguing about the affects of this sort of censorship rather than the effects of video games on kids. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has a right to comment on that unless you are a parent or unless you have something useful to contribute from a scientific/psychological/sociological standpoint, what people like us should be discussing is where this sort of censorship may lead.
One of my favorite quotes in relation to this topic is from comedian David Cross:
"and tell me...which video games did Hitler play?"
Back on topic... this isn't a law; if you really want the stuff, just goto the store next door that doesn't prescribe to it.
--
--
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
A rifle is more dangerous because it makes mass murder much easier.
Sure, a knife or an iron bar will kill a person as will a rifle; but running around with an iron bar killing a group of people is much harder than sitting on a rooftop taking pot shots at people with a rifle.
-Legion
Amen to that. I'm currently 16 years old, and have had summer jobs for the past two years. At first, I hated the fact that my father made me keep $100 dollars per paycheck in the bank. No matter what. I couldn't touch it.
;)
It turned out to be the smartest thing he's made me do. I eventually saved up enough money to buy myself a car (something I never would have gotten otherwise), and help out with my car insurance as much as I can.
If nothing else, it proved that saving money can lead to good things, and teenagers need to learn rules such as that (grins at his brand new monster computer
Let large chain stores cater to the "Marketingly Correct"(tm). These businesses are just scared that they will be lawyered into a large settlement, or that they might miss a 0.25 percent upswing in market share.
I buy things from my friends. Not all of them are small companies or individuals, either. I make a concious effort to buy as much of my goods and services as possible from people who live where I do. I want my money to go into the pockets of people around me, and I want them to know that I am where it came from. I buy groceries from stores that use local distribution companies. I buy clothes from locally owned shops. I buy petrol from the corner station.
This is not absolute, and never will be. For example, Visa has me over a barrel, and on and on. But I try. Not only that, but there is a huge advantage to it as well: Since I started this my quality of life has gone up measurably. People know my name, remember me for giving them business, and most importantly, what I buy and live with is no longer rock bottom crap. You have no idea how much better items and services are, even when they are just a little above the worst.
*whup* "Get along, little electrons. Heeyah!"
So how the heck can they legally enforce this?
I don't think they're saying it's illegal for minors to buy these games. I think they're setting a store policy that they don't want to sell these games to minors, which is probably their right to decide.
I've seen a local hardware store that refuses to sell cans of spray paint to minors (on the grounds, I guess, that they could be used for vandalism). This is the same kind of store policy. Nobody is claiming it's illegal for minors to own spray paint.
I'd like to see someone kill me at a range of fifty yards using only ...
You would, eh? Why do I always see this argument? Is this supposed to be some kind of game, where you can kill the most people from farthest away? Yeah, a rifle was made to do that job. But people do gather together every day at the office, the stores, etc. A skilled maniac with a hammer can kill faster than your typical first person shooter with a rifle. With a rifle, you have to carefully aim for each shot, otherwise those high powered rounds just rapidly punch holes off target. Might as well bludgen the victims with the barrel. Violent video games should teach you this fact.
I belive this could be considered a direct violation of basic human rights. If some third-world dictator did this, everybody would be yelling... The US is racing to a bright new (fascist) world... Huh.
In my opinion, Scientology is a cult you should avoid.
I have to say that I agree with K-Mart. I'm tired of these parents complaining about the games out there and saying that it's screwing up thier kids minds. This way, if the parents buy the game it's their own goddamn fault. But in all seriousness, this is why these games are rated anyway, same as movies. As a parent, if you believe that your child has the maturity/grasp of reality not to play this game and then go postal, then by all meas buy it for your child. As a parent it is your responsibility to raise your children and not let them get raised by the Multimedia of today. So flame me if you must (I have on my Nomex knickers) but I say More power to them and I hope that the other stores follow suit and start carrying games like they used to. Phoenix
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
Minors should be carded. It's a good idea.
Game developers, like myself, account for audience age limits when we design our games. We market according to our company policy. Companies like Id Software have designed violent games nearly from day one, and to slap restrictions on their content would be worse than carding minors and policing the vendors. Censorship would be the only other way to keep naughty games out of the hands of our blessed youth. :)
Developers have seen legal backlash from the sale of violent games, which is a travesty. Columbine parents tried to sue Id Software and a handful of other companies for titles like Doom, and the courts threw out such claims as bogus. Why? Because the claims were nothing but money grabs from pissed off parents. I don't blame the parents, but I do blame the stores who sell violent titles for profiting from corruption of youth.
We don't develop violent games so that kiddies can go mow down their schoolmates. We make violent games so that we can come home from a shitty day at the office and kick some ass, with NO backlash or legal penalty. I would rather tote a rocket launcher against some sickos on a game server than hit a 7-11 and leave a lot of bodies in my wake. It's elementary... it's about having your cake and eating it too.
Violent games let adults have their cake and eat it too. Adults get to kill a shitload of people without going to jail! Talk about cool!!!! :)
And if you are 17, chances are you are old enough to have formed a good understanding between reality and fantasy.
ESRB is good. They make a call on a game and it's usually on the money. ESRB gave Quake 3: Arena the 17+ mature rating -- what's wrong with that?
Enforced age restrictions could lead to a better gaming experience overall anyway. Shit talkers on servers tend to lessen the experience, and we all know that the younger the player, the more chance of verbal diarrhea and poor sportsmanship.
I expect that under certain circumstances, violent games affect the perception of people who have not formed boundaries between reality and fantasy, and I agree that it is a good idea
The coolest people to play with are often older than the ESRB rating. I have no qualms with kids -- I just think they need to grow up, and then they can smoke, drink and kick online ass.
And as to who shops at Wal-Mart anymore...only most the country. You can still pretty much find whatever you want at the lowest price.
Invicta{HOG}
There is a strong assumption in our culture that if someone is young, that anything and everything they see, hear, taste or touch is going to have some kind of profound influence on who they are and the content of their character.
I've never been able to reconcile this assumption with reality. A person's basic personality is set by the time they reach elementary school. Also, people are not tape recorders. The things we know and understand about the world stem from our own conclusions based on observation. Our conclusions may change as we go through life, but at no time are we changed by some outside force, especially a video game or a movie or a song. If someone bases their view of the world off a violent video game, it is because they are mentally ill. Don't blame the game because a crazy person chose to play it. They'd be crazy whether they played it or not.
All of this seems perfectly obvious to most people when discussing those over 18. But the moment "children" become the topic logic goes out the window and is replaced by hysteria and just plain stupidity.
Basically what I'm really trying to say is that the world needs to learn that video games and movies aren't responsible when a kid goes bad. If they were we'd have a nation full of bad kids. Instead we have what we've always had, a nation of more or less normal average kids with a few bad seeds thrown into the mix. Don't let those bad seeds determine policy concerning the other 98% who aren't nutcases.
If you're a good person, a good parent, and you live a life that sets a good example for your children and you're there for them and involved in their life, then they're going to turn out fine. No number of video games or movies or "obscene" lyrics in songs is going to make one bit of difference. However if you're not a good parent, if you are abusive towards your children and a terror in their lives, or you neglect them and aren't there when they need help or guidance, then they're probably going to up as broken individuals with emotional scars, which may or may not manifest as antisocial behavior. Now if you've got a fruitcake for a kid then all bets are off.
Its time that people woke up and realized that conscious thought and moral consideration don't begin at 18. They begin the first time an infant looks around himself and tries to understand what he sees. I used to think that everyone did know this and only pretended otherwise as an excuse to discriminate against the young. For a long time that seemed to be the only possible reason. But now I think that maybe people really do believe that young people are imbiciles, unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy or right and wrong. Does that make sense to anyone here? It certainly doesn't make sense to me.
I'm 28 years old, so I'm not some kid who is "too young to understand." I don't have children of my own, but when I do I'm not going to make the mistake of underestimating them and treating them as possessions or pets with the power of speech. Exactly how I'll treat them and exactly what I'll do as a parent I can't say. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. But I can say that they'll have my respect and my treatment of them will be based upon their actions, not their birthday.
As for K-mart, its their bottom line. If they don't want to sell video games this is a very good way to do it.
>
Lee Reynolds
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
It kind of shows that you don't have children of your own. I believe in privacy, both of myself and of "my" children. It works both ways--I don't go rummaging around in their stuff, and they don't go rummaging around in mine. I lead a very busy schedule (work 60+ hours/week), and so does my fiancee. We welcome all tools that will allow us to enforce our rules that we set, such as this K-Mart bit.
Seriously, there is no way that anyone can reasonably maintain a 24/7 surveillance on their children. Like it or not, this is what will be required to filter most of the social rubbish that will be imprinted on our children. Instead, let the society and the corporations help you in building the tools to monitor the products' influences on our children. This is precisely what K-Mart is doing; as the other posters have suggested, if I wanted my children to grow up playing violent video games, I will personally buy them myself. This new-age "society has no place in rearing my children" rubbish really sickens me; for thousands of years, small communities imprinted their values on the children. This indoctrination still happens daily at schools. I guess that your children will be homeschooled as well?
If you don't like it, fine. Boycott K-Mart and Wal-Mart. That is your right as a consumer. However, when you have your own children, and they're at the age where they want to play video games, even violent ones, and are playing them in your living room, at least have the decency to listen to us when we say, "We told you so.".
--
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
Can you picture a 15 year old carding another 15 year old? Because that is what works in these stores...kids working part-time jobs. I know I never would have bothered.
FunkyDemon
parents this is aimed at are happy to rely on MegaCorp to raise their child for them
You just hit upon the real problem here. Some parents these days want to rely on anyone (staff at Wal-Mart, etc.), and anything (V-Chips, etc.) to supervise their children for them, because they just aren't around to do it. I'm going to sound old-fashioned here, but what happened to supervising your children yourself? When I was growing up, my parents didn't need all sorts of regulations and technology to keep track of me, because they spent time with me and knew what I was doing.
If people are so busy that they can't supervise their kids, and need to rely on all these external mechanisms to "police" them ... well, maybe they shouldn't have children in the first place. A child is not a parrot, where you can just push some food in the cage every so often and walk away (on second thought, that would be an awful life even for a parrot).
I have heard of such laws in effect, and did point out once that the ratings system is being enforced. banning or restricting something only makes it more wanted in the eyes of some. K-mart and Wal-Mart have made a move that sort of surprises me. I'd think their greed would cause them to tell the goverment and lawyers to g to hell. Of course, there is always the liability issue and harassment by politicians. But they have sacrificed their profit margin to restrict the games to minors. If I want a game, I can get the demo for free, and even the real game forfree if I was to lack ethics. It's like banning assult riffles; those who want them bad enough will get them. This article contained the tripe ''We cannot expect that the hours spent in school will mold and instruct a child's mind but that hours spent playing violent games will not.'' Are these losers implying that school is %100 innocent in all of the shootings that these games are supposed to be interlocked in? Is it not true that people who commit these horrible acts are partially twisted and corrupted by the school that alienates them? Is it not true that revenge is a primary motive of these people? Is it not true that violence among minors is down, even with the rising of the numbers and bloodiness of vidieo games? Pardon me if I come off as being a bit trollish to people.
Don't call my crazy, that's what they called me back in the home!
KMart is *not* preventing individuals 17 in age from playing those games, and just like a R rated movie, a parent or guardian is required to purchase it for the person.
Unlike you, I am a parent (they're still in the Freddie Fish and Putt Putt the car game stage) and I appreciate the additional control this policy gives me for what my children play. Its not that I don't want my daughter to play first person shooters, (Tribes will probably be her first...) but I want to decide at what point in her life she has access to them (hint, a lot earlier than 17)
If my daughter (or son) want a game that is mature rated, then I would want the chance to discuss the content of the game with them prior to obtaining it for them.
I feel the same about books, Heinlein is a great read but not always quite child-friendly (Number of the Beast, Time Enough For Love...) I want them to read those books when they are ready.
-Peter
e to the i pi equals negative one
Start by enacting legislation that prevents minors from purchasing these games ANYWHERE. Force online purchases to FAX their IDs in order to order these games.
Next, we must make laws forbidding adults from purchasing these games for minors. Our society will not be safe until we can BE SURE that noone under 17 will get access to these horrible games.
Finally, hold parents criminally responsible if their children get access to these games. Don't allow games with sufficient ratings to even be installed in homes that have children. The purity of our kids will then be fully enforced and crime will become non-existant.
What better path to utopia than this? Call your congressman today and demand they DO SOMETHING!
Folks,
Don't miss Peacefire's Bennett Haselton on CNN tonight. Everybody's favorite youth-rights advocate will be on around 10:30PM EST, live, arguing against this new policy.
-Waldo
-------------------
Why do so many members of the "open minded" and "free thinking" OpenSource community feel it necessary to bash anyone who disagrees with them? Ratings exist because many parents don't want their kids exposed to certain things, and K-Mart is merely helping them out by actually enforcing the ratings. You may not agree with the decision of those parents, but HOW DARE YOU try to deny them the right to raise their children as THEY see fit instead of how YOU see fit!!!!! You've got a long way to got to understand the term "open".
10-4 Good buddy
The best book I ever read
But you totally misread what I was saying, and colored it with your own experiences.
My daughter is frighteningly smart. She is four, and started our car yesterday. Just because she's physically capable of starting a car, should I let her drive? I don't blindly forbid her to do things, I explain why she can't.
If she was 13 and wanted an M-rated game, I might buy it for her (depends on the game). I would rather be the one deciding if it was appropriate for her or not, and if KMart forbid her from buying it, that gives me that power.
Honestly, I hope you have a good therapist, and are working through that anger.
You are "influcenced" every time you are exposed to any sensory input at all. What many of us are saying is that playing video games or watching a movie will not cause a formerly peace-loving individual to go on a shooting spree. There may be counterexamples involving people with mental disorders, but that does not justify censorship for the >99.9% of the population that is able to easily distinguish between fantasy and reality.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
No, we are seeing more violence in children because the news media has discovered that news about violence gets ratings. Youth violence has consistently dropped in recent years, even as video games have become more graphic.
the combination of an angry child, bad parenting (or lack of parenting), and graphic violent games are not such a good thing
Of the three items, I would submit that the video games are by far the least of the problems.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Demonstrably false. Youth violence has declined in recent years while entertainment media is more graphic.
I don't question your experiences, but I have two questions:
- Would you agree that your reaction to video games was substantially greater than that of most people?
- At any point during your "daydreaming", were you actually tempted to inflict violence upon innocent people?
Based on your reaction to your dream, it looks your morals were not compromised at all. Your experience suggests that it may be better for you to stay away from graphic games, but fails to make the case that they cause real-world violence.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
In case you've been napping, this conversation was about whether video games are more dangerous to the general population than firearms. I don't think that it's much of a stretch to suggest that firearms are inherently more dangers than, say, hammers. In USMC basic training, you're taught to field-strip and reassemble a rifle in the dark. "Advanced Hammer Combat Tactics" isn't anywhere in the curriculum, to my knowledge.
Phew. Good thing there aren't more "skilled maniacs" running around. If there were, why, I suppose we might see a huge spurt in the crime rate as banks, convenience stores, and supermarkets are held up at hammer-point. Drive by hammerings might become common. And thank god those damn Columbine killers, with their TECDC9s, combat shotguns, and homemade explosives, didn't get their hands on any ball-peen hammers. The carnage could have been... even more carnagey.
Whoops. You're right. I'll have to file that away with the other lessons I learned from violent video games, including "dismembered alien arms are great for taking out enemies around corners," (Half-Life) and "a fully loaded marine can just about outrun a LAW projectile."(DOOM)
The thing is that the ratings are there for a reason. If the US Govt passed a law, then we'd be justifiably up in arms. But these are corporations we're talking about -- they have to do what's good for business, and this is good PR for them to most people.
/Brian
Does anyone remember the Comics Code? (It's still in effect today.)
What happened was that the government was cracking down on comics as a cause of juvenile deliquency, and as a gesture of "Look, government! We're policing ourselves! Go away!", they enforced ratings -- if you worked for one of the big boys (the *only* boys, with one exception I'll get to in a moment), your comics had to be 'clean'. Except that it was all a dastardly ploy to get rid of EC Comics by ostracizing them. No one sold EC comics, and they folded.
Are there parallels here? I think so. Any rating system enforced like ours is causes a separation of for-kids and not-for-kids. Cinema split into Hollywood and 'One Day Wonder' porn flicks. Will we see specialty shops where the basest desires of violence and carnality are expressed in video-game form, on an under-the-counter business which everyone buys from but no one admits?
Or am I on a wild tangent here?
-grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
... Keeping Middle America Really Tacky? (I think I saw that in Mad magazine.. 0 points for originality.) If a store wants to choose their customers, it's up to them - but age discrimination is something else entirely. "No shoes - no service"... I hate that... Oh, well. As always, there are many sides of the story.
-- boredwithmysig
If you're the sort who believes your kids can play whatever games they like, the least you can do is go buy it for them. I mean, really - if you're too lazy to get off your ass and go to the store to FIGHT FOR YOUR PRINCIPLES, you mustn't feel all that strongly after all.
And you keep missing the point again and again.
What if I believe in freedom to play whatever games they want? What if I believe in teaching my child that I (gasp) trust them? That they should be doing what I want them to do without my supervision?
Why, K-mart is now infringing on my principles, and I can point back at the 'we-want-control' parents and ask "why are you too lazy to take your kids to Kmart, if you really believe in supervision?
A story that I tried to submit but was rejected was on 4 major medical groups (AMA was one) connecting violent games to violent behavior. But as this report stated - not all violent game players are violent, and not all violence comes from violent game playing. Only that there is significance in the data connected violent actions of youth to violent game playing. I don't doubt the result, considering that they probably lump things like tempertantrums, disobedience, and such rather mundane things into violent actions.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Spoon-armed robbery? That takes talent my friend. If somebody could sucessfully rob the local Quick-E-Mart with a spoon, they'd be busy stealing rare artwork or small office buildings instead. They'd probably have enough money to buy France by now.
Is there a link to the study? If so please post. I suspect they're only showing correlative relationships, which as I said, are easy to demonstrate. A violent kid will like violent games, but that doesn't mean the games made him that way.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
I don't agree with the people in slashdot who would like to criticize K-mart for enforcing a pretty good standard.
The rating system is there for a reason, and reasonable people can support it. My 12 year old sister is currently begging me to get Diablo 2. But our parents, I know, just wouldn't want this for her. A control like this can stop the kids who want to go against their parents, and help kids who can convince their parents WHY they are responsible enough to enjoy the latest gore-filled game.
As a parent myself now, I feel that "parental control" is a good thing in and of itself. Yes, it can be overdone, but gosh when it's underdone the results can be disasterous!
-Ben
I'm waiting for them to say next that advanced dungeons and dragons is violent because you go around slashing people up with swords and bludgeoning them with maces, and casting satanic magic. Not to mention all those post-apocolyptic role playing games, where you have actual guns and shoot people. My god.
Yes, I'm being facetious, but my girlfriend's younger brother is just getting interested in role playing and I hope not to get a letter from his teacher one day saying that I have to stop my perversion of his poor little innocent mind with my violent and obscene "role playing".
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Of course. But Lieberman speaks from a more educated position on the computer industry than does the Republican party.
After all, Al Gore invented the internet.
Both parties make me sick, though the Democrats are clearly the lesser of the two evils.
Remember, the Republicans want to make the country into a religious state. If you want to live in a religious state, move to Iran. I hear real estate in Tehran is cheap.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Its really up to the parents to control what comes into their house (in Utopian society, anyway).
Being older this really doesn't affect me since I have to show my ID other places (cigarettes, beer, credit card sometimes, checks, the airport, speeding tickets, clubs, Sylvian Prometric testing)... so I think I'm just going to punch a hole in my ID, and attach a belt zip chord thingy along with my building access card.
Ya know, in Ohio, we now have a magnetic strip on the badboy, and I've never seen it swiped... ever.
----
>Unfortunately, the same is true of LSD and automatic weapons.
No, I don't think you understood what I was trying to say.
I mean, given enough determination and money anyone can get just about anything in this country. I think attempting to draw a parallel between violent video games and illegal drugs and weapons is stretching it a bit.
I think handing $40 to a 17-tr old and having them get you a copy of Quake from K-mart is a totally different thing than scoring an AK-47.
Having a violent video game in your posession doesn't have the same potential for harm as taking a hallucinogenic or wielding an automatic weapon. What is your point?
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
opening wallet plastic sweeps, is yet too young lara croft denied 88
Further information on this topic may be found here.
Then you get your ass down to the K-Mart and buy the game for them. Problem solved. But I'll bet $20 that this is a moot question and you don't have any kids, Alleria.
In fact, I'll make a blanket statement right here -- I suspect that 95+% of people posting that this is evil censorship don't have kids. In other words, this isn't your problem (unless you're under 17). And don't give me some "slippery slope" argument. As long as K-Mart is carding people who buy violent games, that means that they'll still carry the games, which is a better result than lots of stores have chosen.
I have a zero year old daughter, and I don't see any problem with having stores card kids who try to buy mature products -- alcohol, tobacco, firearms, DVDs, video games, whatever. If I want my kid to have that stuff, I'll buy it for them.
you must be 9 to buy prOn.
you must be 12 to get into an R rated movie.
you must be 16 to drive, 18 to vote.
you must be 10 to buy cd's with a parental warning
you must be 12 to purchase a gun.
you must be 13 to purchase cigarettes.
you must be 13 to purchase alcohol.
In a perfect world all the ages would be somewhere around 150. I haven't met anyone under that age mature enough to handle all of these things responsibly.
Best Buy is carding people when buying games like Soldier of Fortune (at least their Durham, NC store is).
But is this such a bad thing?
Screw Micro$oft.
In and of itself, this is not a Bad Thing. Ratings were not created to keep games out of the hands of kids. Quite the opposite, actually; ratings were created in recognition of the fact that some kids are mature enough to handle violent games, while at the same time recognizing that some are not. Ratings, as they were originally intended, provide a way for kids who are mature enough to still get the games... but only if they can prove it, as evidenced by the fact that an adult will vouch for that maturity by being the one to actually purchase the game. That is something I can support; it's not a threat to free speech in and of itself. Ideally, it keeps the games out of the hands of kids who really shouldn't be seeing this stuff, while still letting those who can handle the game's subject matter do so.
The problem is that lazy parents will use this as a crutch. Rather than actually carry out their responsibilities as parents by taking (or, if need be, making) time with their kids and getting involved, will simply go along with the post-Columbine hysteria and say kids can't play any of those games. It's an insult to the intelligence of a lot of kids, but it's simply a sad fact that many parents shirk their responsibilities today.
So in the end, I can't support the carding. I don't remember when the last time was that I shopped at K-Mart or Wal-Mart, but I won't be anytime soon, I know that.
----------
opening wallet
plastic sweeps, it yet too young
lara croft denied
88
Further information on this topic may be found here.
Yeah, and what if I want my kid to buy whatever vodka, machine guns, and cumshot videos that she wants? I'd have to get them for her. That's so fucking inconvenient. Boo hoo, whine whine whine.
But your entire argument suffers from a simple flaw -- you don't have kids, Alleria! I find it very interesting that the people here who actually have kids don't think this is as awful as you do.
Actually, that statement has been widely condemned in the international medical and scientific community as crass crrying for political favour. It is unsupported by the current body of research, and as such was staggeringly irresponsible.
Personally, I do have a problem with this sort of thing. I will agree that the ratings system is being used the way it was supposed to be here, I support the ratings system, and these companies are doing what they should have been doing all along. However..
/.-ers were that Doom was painted as training software for the murderers and multiple rational posts on how games don't make kids killers. And that went over quite well here on /., but we didn't do enough to get the message out of our own circles.
Every time another company makes a move toward restriction on violent games or movies these days, it perpetuates the myth that this is what's wrong with our society. In this post-Columbine world, the geeks lost, folks.
I recall countless posts on how upset
It is now apparent that video games are being used as a smokescreen to cover up the unprofitable fact that teen violence continues to decline. The inconvenient fact that well adjusted people might want to play games riddled with pseudo-satanic images. And the fact that some parents don't mind if their kids watch South Park. These facts confuse the closed minded and those who want to make money off of them (like K-Mart, Wal-Mart, and politicians).
Every time one of these policies is put in place, it adds more fuel to the 'Think of the children!' bonfire and increases the possibility that those kids with permissive parents will be as shut out from these games as kids whose parents legitimately do not want Junior to have Quake 3. It happened a year ago with South Park and will continue happening because if there's one thing we humans (especially Americans) are good at, it's the classic Overcorrection.
So in summary, I don't mind the policy, I just hate the timing, which will undoubtedly cause some unfair restrictions all in the name of some bogus crusade.
If this were _law_ that was being applied unilateraly to all retailers to enforce what is (I think) a voluntary industry content rating system, then I'd be yelling.
Aren't there plenty of other places to buy video games? I guess if you live in a smaller town that only had a Wal-Mart, that could be a problem.
This seems to come right on the heels of the Democrat's schpeil at the convention about parents having the right to have control over what sex/violence their children are exposed to in their own home. PR for K-mart and Wal-mart to say 'see, we support family values too. Come shop with us'. So what?
Any determined 16-yr-old is going to be able to get his hands on DOOM 2000, regardless of its content rating or controlled distribution at a couple of major retail outlets.
Flame away.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Boo-hoo. Then stop demanding that the rest of us pick up the slack where you left off. You acknowledge it is impossible, why saddle the rest of us with an impossible task, that causes a lot of inconvenience? How about THAT, HMMM??
Like it or not, this is what will be required to filter most of the social rubbish that will be imprinted on our children.
How about instead, teaching your children what is rubbish and what is not, and teach them to follow your example, instead of pushing off the enforcement chores on the rest of us? If your kids are so fucked up that they can't tell right from wrong, whose fault is that? Mine? I think NOT!
This new-age "society has no place in rearing my children" rubbish really sickens me; for thousands of years, small communities imprinted their values on the children. This indoctrination still happens daily at schools.
Wonderful! Gay Day at the local high school is ON. After all, gay people are part of society, let them imprint some values on the next generation, too!
You know what sickens me? The hypocrisy of so-called parents when it comes to who is responsible for their children's behavior.
Edith Keeler Must Die
How long before the way the ratings are given are changed due to developer pressure? I can see it now - the developers are told that if they cover that woman's top just a little bit more, it will get a better rating. Look at the way movies are rated now... it makes no sense.
Think back to when you were a kid. Didn't you do at least one thing because you were expressly forbidden to?
My parents raised me with that memory fresh in their heads. My mom offered to buy me smokes in junior high; to this day I've touched only one cigarette. I was allowed to watch "A Clockwork Orange" when I was 14; I have yet to go out on the town for a bit of the old ultraviolence, let alone ever picked / been in a fight.
I'm not saying that this is the proper method to raise a child. On the other hand, I did not turn out to be a sociopath (I think...)
Beav
Bet I just shot the tiny bit of Karma I've built up all to hell with that posting.
when you think about it... the violence on tv and video games have been increasing at a very fast rate.. And guess what.. teen violence has gone DOWN..
.. you masturbate.. you feel fine for a while.. you feel blood lust.. you kill something in a game... you feel fine for a while.
:)
Why don't the politicians see this? How about the news media? I don't frickin know..
seems to me.. these sort of things suppress ones lust for blood (a natural thing).. not encourage it.
Its like masturbation..
You are really horny
(Although, if you where doing both at the same time.. I then I would start to worry....
Luke
The problem with rating systems like this is that the ESRB or MPAA is making the decisions, not the parents. The ESRB system is just an arbitrary age limit-it doesn't help parents make decisions. If parents depend on corporations to raise their kids, and the corporations depend on the ESRB, where it the accountability? Under the current system the anonymous members of the ESRB are deciding what is appropriate for consumption. Why should parents trust the religious/political biases of this faceless group rather than evaluating the material for themselves? Parents are far better judges than the ESRB, because they can take their child's unique level of maturity and experience into account. Rating systems are inherently bad because they encourage this type of corporate censorship. Just imagine where we would be if we (gasp) had to evaluate each piece of media based on merit, and make our own decisions, rather than trusting our "friends" at the ESRB to raise our kids.
Because children do not have full legal rights. Period. Whether you consider that good or bad, it's the law. Stores can set arbitrary limits on what they will sell to children.
I've seen hardware stores that don't let kids buy spray paint. The Lechter's chain of kitchen stores won't let kids buy nitrous oxide cannisters (I think they're used in automatic whipped cream makers or something). This is not a new issue.
I'll raise my kids the way my parents raised me.
By the way, I'll never take any comment you make, on any issue seriously.
It's fascists like you that are ruining this country.
Bah, and I was one of the ones defending Walmart and K-Mart, scumbag...
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Isn't this the way it's supposed to work? The game makers rate games similar to movies, and if a kid really wants to play a violent game, he needs to get an adult to buy it for him.
I realize this won't stop some kid from buying a violent game, but it should increase the chances that the parents know what the kid is playing.
I don't see any problem with this. They just need to formalize the age restrictions.
-thomas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
"And like that
Be sure to visit Joystick101.org for in-depth gaming news.
which mainstream retailers follow as if they were law seem better than actual laws doing the same
Sure, pressure the companies to do the job w/o laws. Avoid all that "public view/debate" nonsense. End runs around the system beats formal review any day, especially if the goal is something sleazy and underhanded, like this.
Live to be Moderated
I have no real problem with any retailer choosing to enforce ESRB ratings on software if it will help once and for all put an end to the 'violence in video games is bad' line of thinking. Plus I will always have the option of purchasing a game for my child if the store won't sell it to him so it doesnt infringe upon any adult majors rights. Not to mention it will allow accountability to be 'enforced' (IE sue walmart) the next time some kid shoots up a school AND plays quake. I don'agree with the sue anything that moves mentaility, but it does take much of the bit out of a trite and tiring platform. Cynical? Yup.
What the hell are these people thinking? It's not like there's not about 5000 other places to get these games. Anyone who wants to get Grand Theft Auto can just go to Fry's, EB, or even (god help us) compUSA. There's really no purpose in carding unless it's universal.
Along those same lines, what is it that makes people blame violet video games for problems which are clearly not caused by games. After all, just because I play doom dosen't mean I'm going to go on a shooting rampage killing a bunch of hellspawn.
http://slashdot.org/co mments.pl?sid=00/09/07/1658220&cid=341
I realize I've had to be redundant myself to do it!
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
http://slashdot.org/co mments.pl?sid=00/09/07/1658220&cid=341
That's like saying I never lived in the Soviet Union, so how dare I criticize it. What a disgusting parasite you are!
Moderators, note the redundant comments, if ever there were a need for the redundant tag, it's this guy!
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
A nonviolent person with a rifle in his hand is not going to hurt you.
A violent individual will make it his goal to hurt you with all available weapons... or even with none. That's something I saw firsthand in the joint.
It is mindset, not weaponry, which makes someone a danger to society. If it were to be proven that violent video games increase the likelihood of acquiring a violent mindset (which I rather doubt, however) it would be perfectly reasonable to ban them... while keeping the .22 rifles available.
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
Ronfar, I apologize for my earlier redundant posts (at least I turned off my +1 after the first one, but it's still wrong). I had a bad morning doing software support and needed catharsis. Hmm...kinda like blasting people in a video game to vent anger. However, this legality thread is a different topic than that other stuff.
There is nothing in US law that forces stores to sell anything to children. If the supermarket decides to card people who are buying toothpaste, that's their decision. It would be economic suicide, but it's not illegal.
When stores put age limits on video games, it still just comes down to money. K-Mart is betting they can make more money by appearing "parent friendly" than they might lose by appearing censorious. In America today, that's probably a good bet for them.
You hit the nail on the head: this is an annoyance. One that can grow larger -- especially since K-mart is such a big corporation, and covers so much of the US. And considering that a great percentage of low/middle income Americans shop there, they have considerable leverage, in effect having the power to create somewhat of a de facto standard when it comes to the restriction of violent video games to minors.
All that said, you are perfectly correct in asserting that they have every right to do so. They do. And I have every right to take my business elsewhere for K-mart's stupidity, Wal-mart's censorship, and Amazon's idiotic patenting. You may also note that, I, in fact, do.
All that said, Kmart is encouraging parents to take less responsibility for their kids. I can't wait to see the day when some redneck parent who's usually far too busy watching redneck TV and getting drunk off of cheap beer sues EB or Baggages because some other fuckhead kid shot their precious little Johnny, with the argument that they didn't card like Kmart did, thereby helping to create a killer.
What utter bullshit this will lead to. Parents are responsible for raising their own kids. This is not the government's responsibility. It is not the corporation's responsibility. It is not the neighbor's responsiblity, nor that of the little bugger's algebra teacher. The responsibility of raising a kid belongs to the parent.
Okay, you might well say, but what about those parents too busy to take care of their kids? And I say:
1) If you've instilled your kids with the right values, you shouldn't have to worry. They'll grow up right -- knowing not only that something is off-limits, but also why. Instead of "Soldier of Fortune is off-limits because that fuckwit behind the counter won't sell me a copy," it'll be "Soldier of Fortune is probably something I should wait until I'm older to play -- it's not good for me right now." and 2) If you were too busy when you shit out the little bugger in the first place, then you're an idiot!!! Go give your kid up for adoption.
You have no right to diminish the convenience and choices of others because of your own laziness. What if I want my kids to be able to buy whatever video games they want? Under this policy, if my kid wants to buy it at Kmart because they're selling it cheap and he's poor (and all kids generally are), I'd have to go with him. I don't want to do that. You are making me. You're refusal to take care of your kids on an individual basis is causing ME inconveniences! Comprende?
As for movies: AFAIK there is a law saying that they must card. The ratings on videogames are an advisory at this point. Witness how EB doesn't card. Nor does, oh, say, Outpost. Until it becomes law, I'd like my advisories to stay advisories!
As the parent, *I* should decide if they buy things that are not age appropriate. If I want them to get the "M" games, I'll buy them for them ... that's called parental control, more people should practice it and the more help parents get from voluntary actions like what K-Mart is doing, the better.
You've missed the point. They're taking choice away from parents. If parents really were responsible, they shouldn't need "assistance" of this sort from K-mart. Lemme ask you this:
What if I'm of the sort who believes that kids should be allowed to play whatever video games they want? And instead focus on controlling other areas, like making sure my kids finish their homework on-time, and correctly?
If my kids wanted to buy Quake III at K-mart, I'd have to go with them. Despite my philosophy. You can assert that the converse is also true: if there were no carding, the other group of parents who believed in control over their kids would have to go with them to Kmart.
But that's the point!!! They believe in control, they'd better actually be there, and in control! Why do they need the clerk to be a surrogate parent???
I'm over 17 and enjoy playing games of all types, violent and non-violent alike. The ESRB ratings were created so that parents and merchants could be aware of which games were not meant for children. For years, the ratings were blissfully ignored by arcade operators (who put games like Soul Calibur, rated "Life-like violence -- Strong" in public view) and merchants (who wouldn't want to risk losing a sale because their customer is too young). I'm glad that a corporation is stepping forward to make sure that the ratings are actually put to their stated purpose.
Call it censorship if you'd like. Say it's Big Corporate America trying to say what's right for Our Children. (Don't worry, JonKatz will say the same thing soon enough.) Threaten to boycott K-Mart if you're really that active about it. This is just a realization of the ratings system, much like a young kid can't go into an R-rated movie -- assuming that the person behind the counter knows to card.
This will be an annoyance, but it's something that parents have asked for. The world doesn't revolve around whiny Your-Rights-Online activists.
For more information, click here.
Just cause parents aren't doing their jobs doesn't mean that a large corporation/government should be doing it for them. Come on! You parents of America need to stop spending so much time bitching about violence in games and start spending more time actually raising and eductaing your kids properly. The ignorance of them all!!
But what does that person have a rifle for anyway then?
to hurt animals?
I have a feeling kids will just not shop at K-Mart or Walmart anymore. Off to Comp-USA or Buy.com to get my violent games..
/. is a commercial entity. goto slashdot.com
Just don't go to Kmart to buy your games. Is that hard?
According to ESRB's website, mostly lame PC porn games that I've never heard of anyways.. The only title I recognize is Thrill Kill for the PSX. http://www.esrb.org
Soon I will have to buy my software from the mafia.
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Quoted from USA Today:
''Common sense should tell us that positively reinforcing sadistic behavior, as these games do, cannot be good for our children,'' said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.Thank God Kansas Republicans are here to help us all with common sense. After all, between saving our kids from both video games and Darwinian theory, we owe a debt of gratitude to the forward-thinking minds of Kansas conservatives.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Also, the article states that they only want "store's more than 2,000 outlets nationwide" to prevent children from buying these games. So, you can't buy it at the large stores. But the smaller ones will sell it. Then what's the use? Transferring sales from the large stores to the small ones? Doesn't make sense. It just seems like a half-hearted attempt to make the people that like those kind of ratings think nice about them. They don't really seem to care about selling games to minors.
The world will now be a better place... I bet
this will have a direct impact on the number
of mass murderers produced by our culture.
~
Twivel
http://www.penny-arcade .com/view.php3?date=2000-06-02&res=l
Because all of life's problems can be solved through better Web Comics.
> Nobody's saying that your kid can't read, watch, and play what he wants. If
;-) That's the way it's always been; kids will see what they want to see, regardless of what the parents want.
/. when it comes to tech matters. What can I say, I don't think Windows is so bad, because it's so functional and easy to use. But I share the more progressive views which the majority of /.ers tend to hold. After all, a lot of people here were geeks in high school who played video games or roleplaying games or got into violent films as a relief of tensions that geeks above most others are subject to. As such, we can understand better than you can what it's like to be a stressed teenager, and how cathartic such release valves are. Without them, many teens would become the next Eric Harris. Is that what you want? No? Then stop being selfish and start to think about what teenagers need, instead of thinking about what you personally dislike.
...the majority of parents have some ideas of what they do and don't want
...And anyone that's going to "snap" because they're denied their video games
> you want it that way, go to KMart yourself and buy it for him or her.
You are missing the mark by a mile or two. How am I to teach my kids to be free and use that freedom responsibly, if they're living in a very un-free country which requires them to "present their papers" to buy a CD, video game, or film? That's what this is about. Making a parent go up to the counter and buy a video game for a 16 year old, as if he were a child of 5 instead of a young adult, sends a message to that teenager: you're a child; we may say you're a young adult, but that's just lip service since you have no more rights than a 5 year old; if you hurt someone we can try you as an adult, and put you in adult prison, and you have all the responsibilities of an adult--but you have *NO* adult rights, even though the responsibilities are yours; you have no rights; you are property, unable to make any decisions for yourself, your parents must make all decisions for you; your parents matter, you do not. You may not think it sends that message, but it does: ask teenagers about it, since they have a perspective different from yours.
Now, it would be impossible--*IMPOSSIBLE*--for me to treat my teenager as a young adult if I have to go to the counter with him to buy him a CD or video game. All of a sudden, he's being treated *exactly* like he's five years old, and all my work is ruined. Way to instill self-confidence and self-sufficiency in someone, oh wise society.
That's not even bringing up the issue of rights and fairness. If someone is expected to behave as an adult, he should be given the rights and privileges attendant upon those responsibilities. To do any less is a gross unfairness. I find it revolting and disgusting that we can and do try and sentence young teens as adults, and yet we don't give them any adult rights whatsoever. A fifteen-year-old, legally, has no more rights than a five-year-old, and yet has far more legal and social responsibilities. there is something quite wrong with that.
> (Of course,
> you have other things to do than that, and couldn't be bothered to take any
> responsibility for your views by taking some action.)
On the contrary, I am clearly much more able and willing to be involved in raising my children than you are. After all, I have thought out the implications of treating them like children when they are no longer mere children, but young adults; and you seem content to treat teenagers like second-graders with no regard for their maturing process and self-esteem. And, I take as much action as I can to make sure my kids will grow to be adults in a world which is friendly to them--I write and have published in actual print media articles about the troubles facing teens these days, most of which come from parents and other adults who are well-meaning but misguided.
Let's look at the immediate issue, though; if stores card everyone for video games and CDs with mature content, and therefore either parents or older kids have to buy such materials for their teenage kids, what are the effects?
1) I and other parents who actually desire to treat our teenagers as young adults, in an effort to nurture responsibility and self-worth, will be unable to avoid treating our teens like they're five years old whenever they want a video game or CD. Of course, this sends our kids the same message we try so hard not to give them, and it can't be avoided.
2) *Your* teens, whom you wish to treat like immature little kids instead of nurturing their growing minds and self-consciousness, will still get the games and music you don't want them to by having older kids get them or by playing them at friends' houses. Your kids won't like you because you're an overbearing bastard who tries to give them all the responsibilities of adulthood but NONE of the rights and privileges.
Nothing truly constructive, in other words. Now, compare that to what heppens without such restrictions:
1) Progressives like me have one less thing to worry about in raising our teens.
2) Teenagers may still be put upon and held back by clueless parents, overbearing administrators, and some fellow classmates, but at least the video game store/CD store/arcade is one less place that they're treated like five-year-olds whose opinions and self-esteem are worthless.
3) People like you will have to actually *parent* instead of letting retailers do it for you, but you can still have control over what your kids bring into your house. If you find a contraband copy of Diablo 2, throw it away and chastise your teen.
4) As with the other list above, your kids can still see all the video game violence and arcade sexuality they want--by going over to the houses of friends with more progressive parents. Like, well, my house.
So, we can clearly see that censorship-at-the-store helps no one, and hurts parents who actually trust and nurture their children.
> You can disagree with KMart
> and WalMart all you want, but saying that they should share your views is
I don't say they should share my views; I say they shouldn't share *yours*. Retailers should be parenting-neutral; it isn't their job to make decisions for anyone's kids, mine or yours. *Yours* is the only opinion that would have corporations making parenting decisions for us, not mine.
> unfounded arrogance on your part,
Well, I already disputed this above, but on a side note: yes, I'm arrogant, but my arrogance is well-founded. Unlike you, I've actually read most of the best, most recent literature on adolescent development. Unlike you, I care more about raising teenagers to be healthy and completely developed adults, rather than in misguidedly exposing them only to things which I personally approve of 100% and attempting to shield them from the world.
> that's shared by most of your clueless slashdot colleagues.
I disagree with a lot of people on
> If graphical depictions of violence are considered good psychological
> replacements for actually dealing with you problems, or even are treated as
> a generic escape route, then I think that there's a problem, and it's not
> KMart's.
That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it; but it's an unfounded opinion and you shouldn't try to force it upon everyone else. Every single human being is an escapist--why else do we dream? Without dreams, we cannot function. If you allow a person to sleep as long as he wants, but wake him briefly whenever REM sleep indicates he's ready to dream, you'll have a very agitated and unhelthy person in short order. This has been proven by clinical studies. For whatever reason, we need to dream. We need that escape. Video games perhaps serve a similar function--we exercise our reflexes in ways we can't in day-to-day life, but which were common in our primordial days; we exorcise our violent impulses, which otherwise would stay bottled up inside us until they flare up IRL; we can be powerful, important characters in video and roleplaying games, to make up for the lack of power and importance which plague so many teenage lives.
Using games as a cathrsis doesn't mean that you're not solving your problems IRL; but often there are problems in real life which we cannot solve. For example, when society gets medieval with teenagers and starts treating them like little children, as in the present example of restricting the purchase of simple games, there's little a teenager can do about it. He can complain all he wants, but sadly enough, adults won't listen to him because too many of them are as thoughtless as you are.
>
> their kids to see, and appreciate a policy that agrees with them.
Yes, but the majority are often wrong. That's why the founders of our country and its Constitution used phrases like "the tyranny of the majority" and "the rights of the minority." Just because a majority of parents--and I don't think it's anywhere near a majority, but for the sake of the argument--have an opinion does not mean that they have the right to violate the rights of other parents and the rights of teens. Sadly enough, though, in legal terms teenagers have few rights--not much more than young children do, and that's not right. Just because the majority desires something doesn't make it right; in fact, the majority is typically wrong. That's why there are so many safeguards in the Constitution against tyranny of the ignorant masses, like the Electoral College. Who should be making decisions, smart people (the minority) or average people (the majority)? And, before you answer, realize that the "average" person can't locate South America on a globe, or learn to use Windows without calling tech support *a lot*.
> The rest of your paragraph is a fine argument that
> unrestricted access is ideal, but it misses the point. KMart is taking reasonable
> actions to fit in to the society that it caters to.
If indeed unrestricted access is ideal, you should support it. "Society," though I hate to use such a blanket term here, should be changed through education if it's wrong, and ignored if it won't listen. After all, what makes the U.S. fairly unique is not the rule of the majority, but the respect we maintain for the rights of the minority. So, if unrestricted access is, as you say, ideal, then that's the way it should be.
>
> has mental problems anyway
Where have you been lately, my friend? Most teenagers have mental problems--or at least what society chooses to call mental problems. A very significant portion of the teenage population are permanently medicated--why, you can't walk into a classroom these days without finding someone who'd at least on Ritalin, if not anti-depressants. Personally, I chalk most of these "mental problems" up to being merely symptoms of adolescence and the emotional intensities that are always a part of it. Many doctors agree that Ritalin is definitely over-prescribed. I've also known teenagers on Zoloft and Wellbutrin. Most of them should not be. But, most teenagers have clinically diagnosable "mental problems" like depression. But largely they're just part of growing up. It's sad that we medicate our teenagers to remove the symptoms of adolescence, but we do.
> Everyone has limits on what they're allowed to do.
Yes, but in the U.S. we have far too many. That would be why the only country with a larger percentage of its population in prison is Russia. That's very telling and hideous. "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"--Tacitus, *The Annals*
> Teenagers have a few more; they always have in our society.
True, and many of the "extra" limitations are necessary. But new ones are not. Unfortunately, every year we oppress teenagers more. Legally enforced curfews--in my city, a teenager can't legally spend the night in a friend's house, even if they stay indoors all night, without written parental consent. WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT ABOUT?!? In Michigan(?) a 16 year old boy was found guilty of statutory rape and subject to the sex offender registry for having consensual sex with his 14 year old girlfriend. That's *wrong*, and would never have happened even during the height of the Reagan morality police. Kids are now being profiled in schools by FBI software. We have tried 11 year old kids as adults and given them life in prison for murders which they quite frankly could not have understood--no rehabilitation, they're just thrown away. Our young people are at risk--from their elders. This video game business may be a relatively minor thing, but it's one more thing which should be stopped, one more thing which goes over the line. A small evil is still an evil.
> Learning to live with that is part of growing up.
No, for all the kids I knew growing up and know now as an adult, learning to get around those rules is part of growing up. After all, when I was a kid, movie theaters didn't even card for R-rated movies--the ratings were a "suggestion" and not enforced. And now, I can't buy a damned cigar without being carded even though I look about 34 with my beard and all. We are becoming a pathetic country in which no one is free anymore. I remember back in the 80s we used to say that what separated us from the Soviets was that a Russian had to show his papers everywhere he goes, and an American could go wherever he wanted to and no one would question him about it. Now, we have to show our papers as much as anyone in the Soviet Union ever had to. And we treat our teenagers like they aren't even people. in 20 years, America has gone from being the soul and savior of the world, to being a mocked and ridiculed and hated caricature. Our children are failing because we've failed to protect them by guaranteeing basic rights.
> BTW: Great song, great Lyrics, and great point, but completely irrelevant
If you think so. But I think it's the whole point. It's why Columbine and Jonesboro happened. Violent video games didn't do it; boxing our teenagers in, treating them like veal, did.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
Not only that, as a kid, anyone remember how you got cigarettes? Anyone? Bueller? I'll tell you how, you asked your big brother or one of the seniors to do it, and you paid them an extra 5 spot for helping you out. Viola, problem solved.
I know what I'll be doing at Kmart next week...
Get your copy of DOOM 4: Columbine Massacre in Living Color right here! Step right up, no ID required!
... the title alone should have the religious right burning effugy's of me across the street! And they call themselves non-violent. Yeah. *cough*
Sorry, is this the same kmart that buys shoes from a company that was recently involved in an expose by several human rights groups for running sweatshops? Where's the righteous indignation against Nike shoes?
Every single K-mart that I know/knew of is now out of business or turned into something else. I don't know where the nearest K-mart is, but I do know that it is too far away to be worth the hassle of getting carded for a stupid video game.
The thing that bothers me about this is that it is yet another use for the driver's license (presumably the "card" discussed in the article summary) that really shouldn't be there.
If I may remind you, prior to 1975, many states did not issue licenses with pictures (Ohio, my home state, started in 1972, perhaps a bit earlier, but not much.)
The picture wasn't actually added for driver's licensing purposes, but most people accepted it that way. In fact, some states put photos on them but then said they couldn't be used for identification purposes, much like the Social Security Number, which was just as much of a fraud.
Either way, I would like to see more people in more states opt out of having a photographic driver's license, and I think that that would improve our rights to anonymity in performing transactions.
BTW, got any weed?
As a matter of fact, i do have some, but it was far more difficult to get than it should be. But that's another topic entirely.
Children are like a wet bar of soap:
If you do not squeeze tightly enough, it will slip out of your hand.
If you squeeze too tightly, it will slip out of your hand.
Well, I can't fucking exert the right amount of pressure with the government grabbing my fucking hand and squeezing for me.
God bless America.
Source code is a lot like a parachute; it needs to be open in order to function properly.
Why is it that always spot a problem, and then, implement a fix to that problem that is asinine? (Admitting upfront that I'm being typical in griping and not offering a better solution) Why don't more organizations do the following? 1)Spot a problem 2)Find a like organization that doesn't have that problem for reasons that are workable 3) implement their solution? To make an extremely BAD example - America has a crime problem. Suadi Arabia does not. If America started beheading thieves, they wouldn't have a crime problem either. The methodology should work if you picked better examples, right?
mas cerveza, por favor politically incorrect stu
But seriously, folks, who shops at Walmart anymore? As timothy stated, there are so many other, easier places to buy anything they sell. What was the Mint thinking, giving their gold dollars for distribution exclusively at Walmart?
---
Calvin: But if we don't have cable, how will we achieve uniform commercial blandness?!
Calvin's Father: Oh, we still have McDonald's and Walmart for that.
3 points:
1) It's true: I don't have kids. How does this make it a moot point? That's like saying that since I've never been treated inhumanely, I shouldn't give a shit about human rights violations in [your favorite country here].
2) K-mart's policy is detrimental because a) it sets a standard by which other shops may be sued for not doing enough to prevent the creation of a killer. Like I've said in other posts, I don't wanna see some hillybilly parent suing EB or Babbages because some dimwit shot their runt, and the evil stores didn't card, thereby helping create a killer.
3) K-mart's policy does, for example, preclude a parent from a "I trust my kid" policy. A perfectly reasonable policy, designed to build 'the right person' through trust, and expectations, rather than rules and punishments. A policy which K-mart forbids.
Say, under this policy, a parent wanted to tell their child: "okay, you can go buy Quake III at K-mart, but don't buy Soldier of Fortune. I trust you." K-mart says: "no can do."
I say: why should I have to break my policy because of pressure to K-mart from other lazy parents? They want to enforce their policy of making sure their kids are on the right track by guidance, but refuse to take the time out to actually guide them, instead relying on a corporation to their their job for them.
What is wrong with this picture? Ummm, maybe that American's parents continue to breed little monsters at a rate that make rabbits turn green with envy, scream about their little babies when one decides to cap another in the head because the parents were too busy getting high off of glue and clorox bleach (or whatever's in fashion now), and then whine to the governments and the corporations and their churches and support groups, and demand that someone else do their parenting for them?
Hmm, I see.
"playing video games or watching a movie will not cause a formerly peace-loving individual to go on a shooting spree"
It's doubtful that just playing some games or watching some movies will cause someone to wig out, I can't help but wonder what the total effect from years of playing realistically violent games is.
Also, how does it influence the totality of our culture? I believe in a feedback-type system. We play violent games. We watch violent movies. We have violent TV shows. We talk about violence, think about violence. After a while, this degree of violence is passe, and no longer shocking to the masses. So the envelope is "pushed", and the violence in movie & TV increases. Video games follow suit, as the gamers now want more violence; increase in computer power allows the violence to be more realistic. Repeat cycle.
Where do we end up? Where does a child starting here, now, end up in 20 years with a steady diet of murders, deaths, and slayings?
Most of us separate it from reality fairly easily. But can everyone? Can a small child? Or even a young teenager?
As for censorship - there is none. Companies can still make violent games. Adults can still buy games. Kids can play games if their parents buy it for them. Kids just can't buy them directly. This is restrictive, the way movie ratings are, but it certainly isn't censorship.
I like violent games here and there. I'm also 29, understand the impact of real physical suffering, and I don't confuse pretend for real. I don't believe that's the case for the typical 10 yr. old. Parents are responsible for their children, but they can't monitor their behavior 24/7. So why not make parenting a little easier by having mandatory carding on high-violence games, just as we do with beer, movies, and magazines?
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
If KMart starts asking for IDs when buying any violent games, most kids won't even go there. Even still, KMart doesn't have much of a selection (where I live). If other stores do the same, I know for a fact that since I'm 16, if I wanted to buy a game that I can't buy since I'm " under age ," I could just get one of my friends that's 23 years old to buy it for me! Just because I can't buy it doesn't mean I can't get it. So It doesn't matter what they do because they can't stop us from getting what we want!
"In May, Sessions, Brownback and seven other senators sent a letter to executives of Kmart and several other major retailers encouraging them to pull the games off their shelves or prevent their sale to anyone younger than 17.
Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democratic nominee for vice president, was among those who signed."
Are SURE you want to vote for Gore?
(or against gore? or for Bush? Oh hell, now I'm confused)
And you keep missing the point again and again.
It must be because your argument is illogical...
What if I believe in freedom to play whatever games they want? What if I believe in teaching my child that I (gasp) trust them? That they should be doing what I want them to do without my supervision?
Well, perhaps you could go into the store, grab whatever titles they're interested in, and buy them without questioning the content. During the car ride home, you could tell them that you disagree with the need for the restriction, but as it exists there's nothing you can do about it. Kids are amazingly understanding.
Why, K-mart is now infringing on my principles, and I can point back at the 'we-want-control' parents and ask "why are you too lazy to take your kids to Kmart, if you really believe in supervision?
This doesn't make sense. No parent, no matter how smothering, is going to watch over their child 24/7. Some kids, amazingly enough, disobey their parents, even when their parents are acting in the child's best interests. Kid is at school, kid goes to store at lunch and buys game, parents can't do anything to stop them.
Have you never been responsible for a child (or, for that matter, a puppy) in your life?
--
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
Pardon my linguistic query, but "carding" ???
--
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
when you know damn well if chains voluntarily take up something like this, laws won't necessarily be passed and politicians will stop bitching about violent video games... The whole video game rating system is voluntary by the publishers, right? It wasn't forced on them or anything... right?
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
[o]_O
Accually this one was around for a while still it was a bad idea.
Yes parents wanted it.. but not everyone is a parent.
The horror storys that spawn this are like the one where a lady basicly buys a record becouse a soung is named "Micky" and finds this isn't a record about Disney carricters... She could have saved herself a lot of truble by looking at the front cover.
Putting a lable on the front cover dosn't help much for people who don't even look.
It also dosn't help when parents let kids run wild. This is why Kmart is carding. Posably conserned about liabilitys.
At any rate in all thies "protections" we still don't do much of anything about the neglectful parents who don't take care of there kids to start with.
I'm not saying we should scoop up kids who aren't supervised. But I'm saying we shouldn't make provisions for them eather.
It's the parents job to handle this. Not socitys.
On the other hand.. if it is socitys job... then socity should be taking those kids away and giving them homes where they will be supervised. Becouse thies policys and laws do nothing. The kids still wonder around and do what they shouldn't. Just becouse they can't get to the video games they like don't assume they can't do other things far less savory than fragging Stroge...
As for Kmart and Wallmart... they are probably just protecting themselfs from liability. Really can not blame them for that...
If the parent belives the kid is responsable enough to behave with out supervision them horray.
If not then the parent needs to make provisions.. and I don't mean provisions in law...
I don't actually exist.
Buying a DMX CD for my brother. At the time of the sale the clerk asked, "How old are you?" Not expecting such a question, I stammerred, "Uh, 21." The asked to see my ID. I let them see it all right. Fascist pigs! B'wa ha ha ha...
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
Well, perhaps you could go into the store, grab whatever titles they're interested in, and buy them without questioning the content. During the car ride home, you could tell them that you disagree with the need for the restriction,
Your point about an actual implementation is well-taken. And by no means am I asserting that a drive to K-mart a huge burden. But this isn't about laziness, but principles. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, K-mart generally doesn't sell games the cheapest anyhow. If kids wanted to buy games cheap, and not get carded, they should be looking in the back sections of their nearest EB.
Nevertheless, such an approach invalidates K-mart's solution to the 'problem' of violent video-games and kids. The fact remains that I've had to modify my parenting methods to make room for some other parent, who hasn't taken the time to educate their kids properly and watch them. If they had, there would be no problem:
This comes in 2 forms:
1) Their kids should know better than to disobey their parents. Granted, I agree, this one is often broken, kids being kids. But less so if they've been told why, and properly educated, etc. I think that's easy enough to agree with? If you've been properly educated that something is wrong, you're less likely to do it. Also:
2) Parents should be watching what the kids are buying, but also more appropriately, uh, what they are playing?
Look, it doesn't matter that Johnny can buy Soldier of Fortune. If the parent is 'anti-violence', the kid won't get to play the game. And if the parent isn't around often enough to notice that there's a game called SoF on the computer, and that it involves head shots where people's heads explode, then uh, they shouldn't have had the kid.
Look: responsible parenting is a duty of the parent, not of the stores, or the government. Why should K-mart bow to the wishes of those who don't want to take responsibility for their kids, and thereby inconvenience me, and cause me to modify my parenting methods? (Same goes for government bowing to whiny parents and mandating carding at movies, but that's a rant for another time.)
So let me get this straight. At 16 years old you are allowed to have sex, have control over medical treatment and be legally seperated from your parents but you can't go out and buy a copy of Half-Life or Soldier Of Fortune because some grumpy old bastard Senator with his head firmly implanted in his ass says that you shouldn't view such "objectionable content"? If you'r allowed to do such things at 16, then what's the deal with buying a Mature game. Isn't a 16-year-old mature enough?
This is exactly the kind of idiocy and blatant ignorance that is perpetuated and, hell, even rewarded in US Congress and in the general public. Blaming violent video games and heavy music on the problems kids face today is not the answer. I know that it's already been said a million times in a million chat rooms by a million teenagers AND a million extra reasonable adults (a rarity I know) but it's exactly this point that the people in power are not facing. Normally, you'd expect that the people that are elected to Congress display at least some degree of intelligence and common sense but these latest comments by ill-informed knuckle-headed twits like Senator Jeff Sessions defy belief. His dubious theory of young kids who are exposed to violent video games becoming violent is essentially a crock of shit because it relies solely on the notion that kids can't distinguish fantasy and reality. The fact that statistics freely available from the Department of Justice show a decrease in violent crime as video game and music sales increase is the nail in the coffin for the so-called "protection" of children (read as thin disguise for censorship agenda).
We live in a violent society. It's a regrettable fact but still unavoidable. Just watch the freakin' news! Children are allowed to see graphics pictures of the Vietnam War yet can't see less graphic images playing Soldier Of Fortune is inexcusable. It's essentially denying reality and keeping the public in a dream world.
If you don't like Postal, Carmageddon, Half-Life or any other game intended for a mature audience then don't buy it! But don't screw it up for the rest of us because you're incapable of not giving a shit. Because aren't video games meant to be fun?
Self Bias Resistor
"A minute ago this was the safest job in the world. Now it's turning into a bad day in Bosnia." - Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels
----------
When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend.
It's not illegal to own these games (yet). It's not illegal to possess these games. There's no current age restriction on most of them (I have yet to see a violent game carry a sticker saying that you have to be 18 to own it).
So how the heck can they legally enforce this? While I am not a parent, I can understand that maybe all of these violent games are not the best for little Junior, but shouldn't that be my decision, not K-mart's?
I really find this to be an infringement on the ability of the public to freely purchase legal products. What's next, refusing to allow minors to buy aspirin because of the "no-drugs" policy at many schools?
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
But I'm even less of a proponent of big game/media corps pushing their violent agenda on the most vulnerable segment of society -- our children.
The destruction of freedom sounds like a noble endeavour if the 'our children' phrase is invoked, but once you distill the argument down to its essence it becomes the same old crap. Essentially person A feels like everyone should give up their freedom so that person B will be protected from harm. Lets take away the ability of thousands of people to buy a game so that we protect society from the five people like you, who turn into deranged killers after playing an hour of Doom.
I'm tired of people like you telling me what is best.
Think about this. If you wanted to train a generation to become killing machines, how would you go about it? Let me suggest that putting children in a killing simulator is about the best thing you could do to achieve that goal.
Actually, that doesn't seem to be working very well. Violence has been on TV and in the news for far longer than it has been in video games. On the other hand, keeping people broke (welfare) and keeping the drug market profitable (current US drug policy) seems to be working wonders. Take a few dozen LA gang members and put them up against some kids who run FPS LAN parties....
Icebox
Yes, it certainly takes choice away from parents.
Scenario A - No ID. Parent says, "I don't want you playing that game, so I won't buy it for you." Kid goes down to the store, buys it, goes home, and plays it.
Scenario B - IDed. Parent says, "I don't want you playing that game, so I won't buy it for you." Kid goes down to the store, tries to buy it, fails. Sure, if they look hard enough they may find some person who will buy it for them, thus circumventing the parents' ability to parent. The parents can only do so much, but at least they tried. Hopefully, though, the kid has been raised well enough that he/she will not even try to go down to the store.
If you're the sort who believes your kids can play whatever games they like, the least you can do is go buy it for them. I mean, really - if you're too lazy to get off your ass and go to the store to FIGHT FOR YOUR PRINCIPLES, you mustn't feel all that strongly after all.
It's kinda like one comment on a story about online voting. The person says that he cares a lot about politics, but that it's too hard to leave the house for ten minutes to go vote. We should be able to vote on the computer. Please.
--
If a tree falls on an anonymous coward yelling 'first post' in the forest, does anybody hear?
Acutally, I had loads of cash as a teenager. I jsut didn't blow it on games, because I worked to hard to get it for that (Instead I pirated games and bought cars). Kids in those "different" hoods live there because they have rich parents who are the ones paying the bills, even the bills for toys.
I never made such an assertion.
If you take one person, who is realatively non-violent and sell him a violent video game, what is he going to do with it?
As opposed to what a relatively (whatever that means) non-violent person would do with a gun?
However if you sell him a handgun he now has more potential destructive force, whether he uses it or not is irrelevant.
How is it irrelevant? If someone shoots me or doesn't shoot me it is certainly relevant to me.
We're talking about potential forces here, someone with a box and a CD in a jewel case has a lower potential destructive force than someone with a weapon.
No, that's not at all what was being said. While your statement above is true, it is out of context with regard to the discussion. If that were what we were discussing, I'd have to say that I'd rather meet a group of Arizona cowboys with pistols while hiking than a group of gangstas with baseball bats spoiling for a fight. The holstered potential of the cowboys (and they do exist) does not bother me as much as the aggressive nature of the gang bangers (even without the bats).
Potential is non-existent. I don't get paid for my potential. I get paid for what I do. I'm not concerned with someone's potential for violence, but I am concerned with their propensity for violence.
Picking apart the words of one argument does not negate all arguments.
I never said it did. In fact, I didn't take issue with the argument at all. I just pointed out that you can't use the the two statements as a logical contrast because they come from two different perspectives. What I pointed out was the difference between a logical presentation and emotional rhetoric.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
Capt. Ron
crazy dynamite monkey
But that's the kind of compromise you get when you have an ESRB. A Richard M. Stallman Board would be far more critical of those who want to sell children proprietary, code-subjugated violent video games. Sure, there are some who would call the members of the RMSB "hippies", or "a disgrace to the Open Source Violent Game cause". F-ck 'em.
Down with the ESRB! Up with the RMSB!
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
you must be 18 or 21 to buy prOn.
you must be 18 to get into an R rated movie.
you must be 16 to drive, 18 to vote.
you must be 16 to buy cd's with a parental warning (may be inappropriate, obscene language, adult material, etc.)
you must be 18 to purchase a gun.
you must be 18 to purchase cigarettes.
you must be 21 to purchase alcohol.
I can go on and on.
so these are laws put forward and PASSED by local government officials (that were elected by the people to serve the people).
god forbid a company actually take a stand and police the law. do we want convenience stores selling our 12 yr olds cigarettes? do we want our young teenagers walking in to a liquor store and buying grain alcohol?
a law was passed to deter kids from purchasing violent games (same as violent movies and prOn) without parental consent. god forbid a company follow the law.
In the CNN article it states, "There are six video games ratings voluntarily set by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB), ... "AO" for adult only and "RP" for rating pending. Kmart does not sell video games with an "AO" rating."
Maybe I've been living in the dark under a rock. What games are rated "AO"?
Defecation occurs.
Frankly, I don't see this as a large issue.
I came from a small town where one convience store starting carding for lighters. So, what happened? All of the kids that smoked (or used lighters for other purposes) weren't too happy, so they went to the other end of the block to another convienence store where they didn't card. It was as simple as that.
One store put a restriction of sales in place, so the consumers simply went to another store, where there was no such restriction. The consumers were happy, the store that got new business was happy, and the store that was carding eventually stopped the practice, bringing back few if any of it's former customers.
I also see this as strange because isn't K-Mart only hurting themselves in this case? What do they have to gain financially? Carding will only bring fewer sales; those kids who were going to purchase a game and help K-Mark make profit before, can now not purchase that game, hurting both the consumer and K-Mart. Sure, K-Mart may receive applause from the anti-violent video game crowd, but isn't business about profits? And by enforcing this practice, K-Mart his hurting their profits.
The answer to this "problem" is quite simple: if you can't get it from retailer A, go to retailer B. The end result will be the same: happy consumer, new retailer gains business and the old, restrictive retailer loses business.
Hmm. You must just give off that vibe or something.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Carding kids to buy video games only makes it more rewarding for them to get their hands on. Utimately, even young kids will grow bored of silly violence.
This simply puts violent video games in the same class as cigarettes, alcohol, and porn. We all remember how exciting it was to first get our hands on those objects!
This also creates a class of consumer who is old enough to buy the game, yet young enough to be persuaded to buy it for those not old enough. He's the momentary middleman. He (it is usually a he) tends to be one of the first kids in his class to have facial hair.
Here's to a new form of rebellious fun!
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
Silly me, I thought retailers could sell whatever they wanted to to whomever they wanted to for whatever reason. Guess freedom isn't a very popular sentiment around here.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Grown ups can still buy games
The shops are showing "responsibility"
The pressure groups are happy
The shops have less hassle
Kids can still buy games (albeit in a roundabout way)
As a side effect, kids learn to work around inconvenient rules
Everyones a winner!
I don't see why this is a big deal. The ratings are there for a reason aren't they? Just like movie ratings, why shouldn't game ratings be enforced by those retailers who want to? I don't see any federal or state authority forcing K-Mart to do this, they simply feel it's responsible and that's their right.
... you're not an adult and like it or not, you can't get whatever you want or do whatever you want.
... that's called parental control, more people should practice it and the more help parents get from voluntary actions like what K-Mart is doing, the better.
... but as far as I'm concerned, K-Mart is doing the responsible parents of this world a favor by giving them yet another safeguard to make sure their kids don't buy what they don't want them to have.
Wal-mart asks for ID when I buy an R rated DVD (I'm 27 mind you) and I have no problem with that.
People seem to want to give CHILDREN all sorts of freedoms but the simple fact is, if you're not 18
If I were a parent, I'd much rather drop my 15 year old kids off at a theater that ENFORCES the ratings knowing that if by chance my kids do want to buy tickets to an R rated movie after I leave, they won't be able to. The same goes for stores that enforce game ratings. As the parent, *I* should decide if they buy things that are not age appropriate. If I want them to get the "M" games, I'll buy them for them
Suggesting a boycott or "wall of shame" in these cases is just ridiculous and makes it seem like this story was written by a 14 year old who's mad he can't get Soldier of Fortune without his mom knowing.
If you want to be an irresponsible parent, fine
A few thoughts:
1) Funding and promotion for the entire media industry (entertainment, news, Slashdot, etc.) is largely predicated on the belief that people's behaviors can be influenced by the media; hence, commercials, ads, celebrity endorsements.
2) Nearly everyone in the media who earns money from the sale of violent, salacious, or obscene material holds that their work does not affect people's behavior. Interestingly, that work is usually funded & promoted in part by commercials.
=> The media is hypocritical.
Of course we are influenced by what we mentally "consume". Our entire culture is based upon information transfer. We read newspapers, books, magazines to gain info and thus have our behavior influenced and modified. We send our kids to school to hear teachers teach, so they gain knowledge & wisdom, and have their behavior change with that. Most of this is self-caused, and often purposeful. But not all. Young kids watch "Power Rangers" and then karate-kick friends and family in emulation. Teens watch hit comedies, and then talk about them, and introduce new slang into their language ("Not that there's anything wrong with that", "D'oh!", etc.)
To hold that the content of movies, books, music, games, etc. has no effect on anyone is naive, to say the least.
It seems a useful question to ask is whether we should have any restrictions on who can access what content, or none at all. (e.g. > 17 for "R" movies, "Playboy" can't be purchased by minors, need parents' permission to call the TV Psychics).
Perhaps first, we should ask not whether we are influenced by intellectual intake, but to what degree.
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
I think this decision is yet another case of someone who has his head so thoroughly up his ass as to have blipped into an entirely new intestinally-based reality and desperately needs to get a wider frame of reference.
----
Brazil has decided you're cute.
sorry, my mistake.
some of those were laws. the ratings were not. what I mean to say was that it's nice that some companies are taking the intiative without them becoming law
But what does that person have a rifle for anyway then?
A rifle is insignificant if that person can kill you with his hands and arbitrary nearby objects.
But what does that person have a rifle for anyway then?
A violent individual will make it his goal to hurt you with all available weapons
True. Maybe you, maybe someone else. Violence is stupid.
It is mindset, not weaponry, which makes someone a danger to society. If it were to be proven that violent video games increase the likelihood of acquiring a violent mindset (which I rather doubt, however) it would be perfectly reasonable to ban them... while keeping the .22 rifles available.
*if* it were proven, that would be a good reason to take care with those games. But banning won't help. People would get the games anyway, and negative publicity and such would just help them. Just look at the Carmageddon example. (yup, I played it too, and I liked it. But I dont go around getting into cars and driving like a lunatic, killing everyone in sight in real life, while I did in Carmageddon) I think those people who get violent because of the example of computer games, TV, books (yup, those too, read a few of Stephen King, or some police stories on how to commit murder or something) are unstable anyway. And someone unstable can do less damage without a rifle around. It might not be the weapon that kills people, as is said sometimes, but it does help.
I'm starting a business where we'll be running a bunch of PC's networked playing multiplayer LAN games. We plan to follow the guidelines on the games as well. Teens and younger children will be able to play 'M' rated games with parental consent.
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure.
--Ambrose Bierce
Since when has violence become so acceptable? When has it become DESIRABLE? We need to consider that maybe the Kmart decision is a good thing. We are seeing more violence in children because we allow them to watch violence on TV, and even participate in virtual violence in Video games that emphasize realism. This says to them that it's okay to do. Some kids should not be seeing this stuff.
I'm not saying that video games are the cause of the problem, but the combination of an angry child, bad parenting (or lack of parenting), and graphic violent games are not such a good thing.
If a kid has money to go out and buy violent games without supervision, then there is probably a parenting issue. If they want the game, make them have to go to their parents for it: they should have to anyway.
Now there's a fascinating argument. If I understand you correctly, that which can cause me to become violent, or at least, to "acquire a violent mindset," should be banned. Let me ask you a couple of questions, though: is it merely enough to try and attempt to keep people from acquiring such a mindset? If, after all, it's people and not the easy availability of weapons that are the problem, wouldn't it make sense to take a proactive stance to prevent people from becoming violent?
It is a long-held tenet of law in the US that you can't be held accountable for something you're thinking, only for things that you actually do. (Or don't do. Whatever.) To suggest that we start to legislate based on the thoughts or general mental state of the public is to push us a notch closer towards "acceptable beliefs" and "thought police."
You're also much more likely to see someone use a shiv fashioned out of a purloined spoon "in the joint" than you are to see someone hold up a convenience store with one. While I concede the possiblity that people who are incarcerated are more prone to violent behavior than the populace at large, I also ask that you consider that the reason people tend not to hold up stores with spoons is because guns make it a whole lot easier.
Granted, it's going a little too far at this point...
I may be wrong with current laws, but weren't movie ratings and enforcement originally (and I think they still are) a voluntary system? The ESRB ratings are also a voluntary system. If a movie theater won't let a 10 year old watch an R rated movie without a parent/guardian, I don't see that as any different from K-mart not selling Soldier of Fortune to a 10 year old without his parent/guardian. Quite frankly I don't see any problem with this at all. I'm not saying anything about whether or not violent games make violent people (I really don't think they do) BUT certain people, certain children, need a little more guidance than others. While my 10 year old nephew Jake may be well mature enough to handle Soldier of Fortune I would never let my nephew John, the same age, play it.
Age does not equal maturity.
BillyZ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I take no responsibility for any spelling mistakes in the above post.
While I agree that in this particular case it doesn't seem like such a big deal for a big store to voluntarily restrict a product, there are other cases where it has a more profound effect.
For instance, WalMart announced not so long ago that they would no longer carry birth-control pills in their pharmacy. It is all well and good to say "They are a private institution and should be free so sell/not sell whatever they damn please", but the fact of the matter is that WalMart is so big (and getting bigger) that in many communities they are the only source for many products, so WalMart saying that we won't sell product x is equivilent of an outright ban.
Also, many stores (like WalMart and Blockbuster video) sell/rent modified versions of CD's and movies without labeling them as such.
I think that once a corporation gets to be a certain size, it takes on a quasi-governmental power, and should be held accountable to the same standards as a public institution. [Putting on flame-proof underwear].
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
Have you ever even looked at what is a law and what isn't? While material deemed pornography, the driving age, the voting age, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are all government regulated, movies, music, and games ARE NOT.
Movies have had a rating system for years, and it's up to the movie theater how strictly it is enforced. The music industry created a "Parental Advisory" sticker in response to a lot of complaints about a decade ago. And video game ratings have been standardized within the past five years. It is completely up to the stores whether they choose to use these ratings as a guideline of what young customers can buy. If a store doesn't want to sell you something, they don't have to. However, the ratings system becomes somewhat useless if not applied.
Stop referring to things as laws when they aren't.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the government! When the hell are you people going to notice the difference between parental groups and congress? This isn't even about video games causing kids to be violent, it has to do with allowing parents to moderate what their kids see. As a kid, my parents would notice what I was doing, what game I was playing, etc. But a lot of parents are more negligent these days and may not notice it if their kid buys a game they'd disapprove of or goes to a rated-R movie.
If the parental groups want to actually enforce a useful ratings system, good for them.
Don't get me wrong -- I know kids are smart enough to know the difference between pretend and real life. But let's not be ludicrous; these games DO have an affect on people.
I used to play hour upon hour of Duke Nukem. We played it in my workplace with the blessing of my boss (who also played). It was loads of fun. I enjoyed it immensely. Yet even as an adult, I began to feel it's effects on my thinking. I found myself looking for air vents that I could kick out in whatever room I entered, just in case a machine gun guy broke in. I daydreamed of running through buildings I entered, finding good hiding spots from which to take out targets.
It all seemed harmless, until I had a dream one night where I killed my wife with a sawed-off shotgun. In the dream, I hadn't really meant to hurt her -- it was just as harmless as shooting my workmates in Duke Nukem. Except that it wasn't. She died in my dreams. I woke up breathing heavily, but glad to see her sleeping safely. I vowed never to play FPSers again.
The effect of such games on children may be much more profound.
You can dismiss me as a lunatic for my admission here, but I assure you I am a happy, stable person.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Violence into children, violence out.
I am 25 years old, however I can still remember when I was a teenager, and how I felt about age discrimination against teenagers: unfair.
It may be easy to forget many of you probably felt the same way, but when you become older you probably do forget, and begin looking at things in your own interest. You come up with explanations about why the current situation should be perpetuated, which you would never believe if you were the subject of that discrimination.
I am not going to say, "Oh, I don't care if teens can't buy a computer game or CD or go to a movie, because I'm 25 now. It doesn't affect me." I still think it's unfair and I'm still pissed off about it.
What to do about it, then?
What is the legal basis of majority vs minority status, and how does that relate to civil rights?
Interesting... looks like some other people care about these issues too. Google search: "teen rights"
here are a few appetizers:
http://pages.prodigy.com/teenrights/agediscr.htm
http://pages.prodigy.com/teenrights/
Liberal politicians are not your problem. The USAToday article states:
''Common sense should tell us that positively reinforcing sadistic behavior, as these games do, cannot be good for our children,'' said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
Of course, maybe the Republicans in Kansas are liberals now.
I hate it when someone uses phrases like "common sense tells us..." What he really means to say is, "If you don't or can't agree, you must be an idiot."
Pssshaw...
Defecation occurs.
I find it terribly offensive that a company that has an army of slave labor making crap products in every third world nation wants to make moral decisions about what games kids can play.
Hell, they have no right making any moral judgements whatsoever. If they ever come out with a SIM for corporate life and ethics, that's the game I won't let my kids play.
So now you have to show your ID when you have your wallet out anyway to pay for violent games. As other people here have said, big [insert expletive of your choice] deal. This will only affect kids, who will now have to tell their parents to buy the games for them. Kids also (in theory) can't get into an R-rated movie, can't drive (until 15 or 16), can't buy porn, can't buy tobacco, can't buy alcohol (until 21), can't vote, can't rent a car, etc. [Insert supreme being of your choice] forbid parents should actually have to get a clue about what their kids do with their time and money.
This puts a TOOL in parent's hands so that they can raise their children as they see fit. This is NOT big brother. Any parent who wants their children to have access to these games can and any parent who doesn't want their children to have access is given assurances that the store will not go against their wishes.
Good grief people, think about this a little before jumping on the CENSORSHIP/TAKING AWAY MY RIGHTS/HELP, HELP I'M BEING OPPRESSED! bandwagon.
Mark
Those who open their minds too far often let their brains fall out.
I'd like to see someone kill me at a range of fifty yards using only his hands and "arbitrary nearby objects." You don't need guns to kill someone. They just make it a whole lot easier.
But, out of deference to your argument, I suppose we should make an effort to destroy all the remaining copies of "Donkey Kong," in the world, just in case some big yahoo walks past a stack of barrels and starts getting ideas.
I'm not so much against carding kids for buying M rated games, but look at how these games are judged.
1. Nudity and/or sexual situations.
The US culture has such a sexual phobia, that we think nudity and sex are things that children should be saved from. One could argue that sex and reproduction are the chief reason for our existince, yet we hide this fact from our children as if it were a dirty secret. Why are people worried about children seeing sex and nudity? Are they all going to become rapists?
2. Blood & Gore
Its fine to show people being killed, being masacred, or generally being oppressed. You will get a Teen rating. As soon as you start showing the consequences of these actions: blood and gore, you immediatley get slapped with an Mature rating. Isn't it better to show children the consequences of their actions rather then make them think that homicide is a nice clean action that makes the other guy fall over and disappear?
3. Animals
For some reason, the ESRB is fine if you show humans being cruel to each other, but not if you show humans being cruel to animals. Why are animals more important than humans?
The movie rating system seems to be just as bad. As the producers of South Park found, what is deemed appropriate doesn't follow any consistent pattern.
I would like to see a rating system that tries to find the intended audiences of games and movies and gives the corresponding ratings. These things should be judged on how content is presented, not with a crib sheet of bad/good things.
--Tom Stanis
There was a letter from a reader that I feel is very pertinant to this issue of Kmart carding young video gamers, I did not write this letter and in the issue the name of the author was withheld. Sorry for any typos my OCR software might have made. This letter is as follows-
I've worked at Electronics Boutique for almost two years, I've seen children under 17 purchase M-rated games. I've sold them to young people- Resident Evil, Mortal Kombat, Metal Gear Solid and more recently Perfect Dark. Do I feel guilty? No.
Let me give two of my experiences to illustrate where the power to enforce ESRB ratings lies. Once, a young boy of about 14 purchased a Mature-rated PC game- I think it was Dungeon Keeper. Five minutes after he left, his mother stormed in and demanded I refund his money and take the game back. She was upset that I had sold the game to her son. I apologized, refunded the money, and told her that it was too difficult for me to monitor all the transactions. I told her I was pleased she had noticed the rating, and had involved herself in her son's recreational pursuits. She apologized for her anger and the matter was settled.
On another occasion I sold Resident Evil 3 to a 10-year-old boy. This wasn't my idea. I refused at first, but then I was screamed at [by his father] for not selling the game to his son. When I indicated the Mature rating on the package, I was told it was none of my business what his son played.
What am I getting at here? The power to enforce the ESRB rating already exists- parents have the power. The ESRB provides the information the parents need to involve themselves in the decision to purchase a game. Yet far too often parents ignore the ratings and games end up in the hands of kids who should not be playing them. Parents are the ones who know their children best, and can decide whether or not a game is appropriate. I don't know your child well enough to judge if he would consider DOOM as target practice for real-life violence.
Name withhld by request
you mean like bike racing? After all they can just run.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Age discrimination laws do not affect 20 year olds. 50 vs 35 would be protected. Strangely, 18 makes you an adult, but does not free you from age discrimination.
That retailers are keeping people from purchasing product based on a VOLUTARY system. Same with movie ratings. There is no law in America that says that kids under 18 can't see R movies, therefore it should be unlawful to discriminate on the basis of age, not encouraged. Same goes for video games. Just because a bunch of Angry Moms(tm) decide to put ratings on games so that kids we've now decided, here in America that it's immoral and illegal to let kids play quake. Never mind all that drugs, sex, and alcohol your kids are into. In fact, give them your credit card so they can order porn through the internet, but PLEASE GOD don't let them play video games! I geuss this is what us Americans get for living in a country founded by people who buckle their hats...
====
Crudely Drawn Games
A one-night stand is not the same thing as a rape. And if you're raped, you should go to the ER, they have that pill and more emergency contraception.
"But what does that person have a rifle for anyway then?"
I don't know, how about hunting or sport shooting? Last time I checked target shooting is still an olympic event.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
This will help the game industry more than hurt it. They came up with age based rating ages ago, and would have been saved most of the headache had stores enforced the ratings this way all along.
It isn't like this will hurt game sales. How many people under 17 buy their own games anyway? Games are expensive, not too many teenagers (Much less young children.) have $50 to blow on games on a regular basis. This will just result in parents purchasing the games, just like they do with R-rated movies. How many dads do you know that would tell their teenage sons no if the kid wanted to play a violent game? Chances are that if a kid has parents stupid enough to shelter the kid from violent games, the kid is probably too stupid to figure the games out anyway.
It frees the game industry from people being able to claim that they didn't know what their kids were into. That will really do a lot more good than harm in the long run. Age limits were never able to stop porn, or R level content in movies, or cigarettes, or alcohol. They won't stop violent games. If anything, they will help.
Actually it's not a big deal. But slashdotters tend to think everything is violating thier rights.
OrangeTide
-- karma is just a way for the Man to control you!
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Whom does this reallllly affect?
If you're under 16.5 (in pennsylvania), you can't get to WalMart without mom driving you there. Ergo, she can buy the game with you.
If you're 18 or over, you're covered.
So frankly, its only for those one-and-a-half middle years that it matters. Go to Software Etc or someplace for a year and quit whining. Better yet, put your games on your christmas list and let your parents waste their cash on 'em instead of yours :P
As an example, I have played the demo for Soldier Of Fortune. I would not let my kids play this game until they were of a certain age, say 14. This is a very violent game.
Of course having said that, I don't think this is such a big deal. No store is being forced to enforce this raiting system.
I don't really think raitings work either. I find it very silly that a young child can sit in front if the TV on Saturday afternoon and watch Bruce Willis kill 173 terrorists per hour but can't hear him tell them to fsck off, or see a stray boobie.
I guess the answer is that we have to be careful that little Johnie doesn't see anything we don't want him to do when he grows up. What does little Johnie learn from this? "Boobies and saying fsck are bad, killing people with machine guns is okay". Huh?
Oh sorry, watching people get killed on TV is OK, pretending to kill people in video games is bad.
does this strike anyone else as silly?
I've always wondered about the MPAA and theatres enforcing age restrictions on movies. As far as I know, they have no legal authority to do so - restricting access to a public accommodation solely on the basis of age.
This smacks of the same thing. An arbitrary ratings system is being enforced solely on the basis of age in what is otherwise to be considered a public accommodation.
With cigarettes and tobacco products, there is legal authority for the restrictions. But I am not aware of any legal authority that allows the denial of service based on a third party rating system and the consumer's age. Legally, it strikes me as age discrimination.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
Actually I think Walmart is going to start doing it too.
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
This is bad just like the music labeling thing a few years back was bad. It leads to censorship. You make not think that it is censorship now, but it can certainly go that route in the near future. I know that my local Wal-Mart won't carry any CD's that have the Explicit Lyrics label on them. How long until they stop carrying game titles that are rated for 17 plus. Do you want Wal-Mart deciding what's good for you to consume?
>I love our government.
This annoys the crap out of me. If this were a government mandate or something, this comment might just make sense.
>They take away violent video and computer games which surely, and of course completely shatter the poor childrens minds
Um, this is a company doing this on it's own perogative. I didn't see anywhere where this was anything but voluntary. Of course, things like the content rating systems that are being voluntarily adopted are presumably intended to head off government regulation.
I don't like all the things our government does and I'm not defending it. Just that this pissed-of venting is assuming that this is some federal regulatio or something when it's not.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Let's not forget Tipper Gore's rating games either...
At least with regard to the ratings/censorship issue, a Gore administration would really suck big-time.
DNA just wants to be free...