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.
Mister...here's a fifty, could you get me a copy of Solider of Fortune?
Sig it.
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.".
--
If K-Mart decides they don't want to sell any product to a minor, I believe that's their right. Discrimination laws (including those based on age) are all aimed at adults, as in 50 vs. 20, not 20 vs. 12.
Whether such law even applies to sales from a private company (as in, non-government -- I know K-Mart is publicly held), I'm not sure. I would think a store can say "We don't want to sell gummy bears to Blondes because they're too air-headed already" if they want, but maybe that's illegal...
Bad PR is what keeps such activity from occuring, by and large.
Xentax
You shouldn't verb words.
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.
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
It *is* your decision. If you believe your kid should be able to get the game, go with little Timmy to the checkout lane and say so. They're not trying to make it so kids can't play the games, they're restricting who can buy them.
It makes the parents aware that their kid is getting the game, and makes sure that parents know.
This is the purpose of ratings, so the industry can police itself. Otherwise the government might decide to, and there's no way in hell I'll let that happen.
It is your job to watch out for your child, not a retailer's. If you raise her well, with a relatively moral upbringing, then by the time she is interested in "inappropriate stuff", she'll be able to handle it or simply choose not to purchase it.
I find it somewhat amusing that people try to use age limiting ratings as such firm barrier against corruption. They assume that you restrict your child to certain material for 17 years of their life, and then suddenly they're mature enough to deal with it on their own when they hit that magic birthday (be it 13, 18, etc..). I don't know about you, but I don't recall a "sensitivity and impressionability" switch being turned over when I hit a certain age.
You can't expect your child not to be exposed to certain things in life. It just isn't a reasonable expectation. Instead of applauding retailers and perpetuating the American trend of transferable responsibility, perhaps people should sit down with their children and talk to them instead. Educate them on what is out there and what some of their choices are.
To get back on topic: even if a child does buy a game recommended for (M)ature audiences, shouldn't the parent be aware when it is being played. I don't know too many kids that buy ultra-violent/sexy games and then play them in the basement so their parents won't discover their devious side. But maybe I just don't know enough kids.