Slashdot Mirror
Crackdown on M-Rated Videogames?
Inigima writes "According to this article at the dying GameCenter, the IDSA is preparing to make a proposal to Congress about the marketing of games rated "M" by the ESRB. According to Gamecenter's analysis, not only would this neuter the game marketing industry, but might even prevent games like Quake and Half-Life from being produced."
Are you kidding? It's obvious that Mary Poppins was a meant to be a witch! No way I'd let my kids get corrupted by a piece of pagan propaganda like that!
:)
Of course, not all games need plot or character development, i.e. sports games, strategy games, or arcade style games (although it's certainly possible). But be honest, when was the last time you saw a game that wasn't: 1) a slap a famous name (player or association) on it and release it just before christmas 2) a rehash of Risk/Supremacy with a few more elements thrown in or 3) a repackaging of Karatika (from the Apple II days) or Tetris?
I firmly believe that "there's nothing new under the sun", but come on! At least show a little creativity. Please?
Your right to raise your child as you see fit is neither god-given nor absolute. The government has laws against child abuse and negligence that exist for good reasons and I support. The child is not your property, he/she is your responsibility.
Yes, there is a great deal of merit in films aimed at an older audience, and I believe that a child could learn a great deal about life from, some of these movies. But do you want this child to be making this decision without you? All this means that, if a child is going to buy Q3 is that you have to be there to buy it.
My attitude is to place the same restrictions on in-store video games as we have on our movies. If a child really wants to play/see something violent, then the parent must be there to consent for it.
However, I do not agree that violent games should not be advertised. As long as the advertisements are tame enough for the given media (eg not actually showing anyone being gibbed to bits on afternoon TV commercials) then they should be allowed to do so. After all, R-Rated movies seem to remain successfull, and they have that same limitation.
True. But Lieberman would have been nothing more than a decoration, just like Gore was for the last 8 years.
That said, he's nothing more than a conservative in left-wing clothing. While his assuming the VP office would have been a step forward in racial relations, he would have more than made up for it by his conservative stance on media.
You just don't get it. The problem is not the toys themselves, it's the morons who point threatening-looking objects at police officers. Teach people not to point things at cops and there won't be any problems.
Oh, whoops, I forgot. That involves people taking personal responsibility.
What kind of a conservative (read:mindless) anal bloke are you, anyway?
/.ers would actually be conservitives. it is the people who want to expand the size of the government that want to dictate yet more of your daily life to you. I'm about as pissed off at GW right now as anybody else here, but at least under him, we should get a smaller government, and that's a good thing, imho, and anybody here who voted for Browne should agree because otherwise, you're the sheep here.
okay, it's off topic, but I have to respond to this. as a "conservitive" living in the northeast, I see this all the time where everybody is a "liberal" because they want their social freedom. that's not what the terms mean. if you're conservitive, then you believe in small government. if you're liberal, you believe in big government. the deffinitions stop there. what's happened is that the terms have also come to describe social beliefs and that's what most people think of when they think of conservitive or liberal. given the correct deffinition of these terms, however, it seems to me that most
--- Don't ever trust a woman until she's dead- B.B. King
Of course, don't forget that they've been making bibles for kids for decades now, bible comics, Chick tracts, and our old favorite, "Davey and Goliath"... Even frigging PEANUTS had biblical messages strewn throughout, spouted by the mutated mongoloid, Linus (not Torvalds)...
Biblical infiltration of kids' media is oft times far more insidious than video game marketing... You buy Quake, you KNOW something's head is going to be blown off... But look at the average cable channel lineup between 5 and 7 (when most kids are getting up for school), and what do you see? Cartoons? Yeah, for the terminally brain dead Barney and Tellietubby sect... But beyond that, you see no less than 5 (and as many as 10)seperate channels all running Christian broadcasting...
Used to be (showing my age again - sometime around the early to mid 80's) the other way around, where if you were searching for it, you'd find bible thumpers on perhaps one channel, and one of the fringe channels to boot... Otherwise, the cooler old cartoons would be on, or news... 5AM used to be prime Rocky and Bullwinkle and Robotech viewing time...
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
Does the games industry want to be tarred with the same reputation as the cigarette industry? They will get it if they continue saying that they have to market violent QIII type games at children, right or wrong (rightly, in my view).
Your analogy does not hold water. The cigarette industry produces a product that, in practically all studies except the few that the industry itself funded, shows cigarettes to be dangerous, addictive, carcinogenic, yadda yadda.
There exists no such clear consensus with video games. While you can find many links to studies that show cigarettes to be Bad For You(tm), you will find a) very few studies on games in the first place and b) a widely ranging series of opinions c) that the studies are not funded by the likes of Electronic Arts.
That said, explain again how the game companies' marketing and direction of games at kids causes violence and makes them like the cigarette industry again please?
I would argue likewise, but with porno magazines. I know as many 16 year olds that read porno as people my own age (23).
Spring is here. Don't believe me, look outside!
Knowing Congress, they'll probably comply with IDSA's request, in the interest of "protecting the children". As an avid gamer, I believe this is a crock of $#!+, but Congress is known to be unclueful about such things.
Wait and see who gets re-elected.
This is a good point to advocate voting. Did you vote in the last non-presidential election?
A lot of pissed off gamers is going to get the Congressional membership to turn over like people leaving an XFL game. There are a lot of gamers in the States, not just computer gaming. Consoles are huge... take away people's mature-rated games (leaving them with Pokemon) and watch the "unprecedented" incumbant defeats in Congress.
The question is, though, will "M" rated games be available to those over 18? I would assume so... if you can go to war and actually shoot someone, why won't the government let you do it in a video game?
I always though Unreal Tourney, Quake, and Half Life were good for nation... if we ever had to go to war and had a national draft, most of the young men would already be partially trained.
The IDSA would have to basically forbid member studios from distributing games to non-compliant stores (ie ones that defy the IDSA and sell non-member games) like the MPAA has done to shut unrated indy films out of all the large theater chains. I don't think such a scheme would work in this case as showing movies requires a major capital investment, whereas setting up a software store is no more exspenive than running any other mom & pop sized retail shop. Too many little operations to audit for compliance, sure they could demmand distribution lists from members but the rouge developers wouldn't have to disclose who they sell what to. And the only way they could find out if a smaller store was stocking verbotten games would be to physically go to the store and browse the shelves. (sure they could call and ask the clerk "Hi I'm from the IDSA, are you stocking any verbotten games next to our sanctioned ones?", "Nope", "Thanks, hey your not lying are you?", "Of course not", "Ok thanks, bye", customer: "Hey you got Quake 5?" "Yea, aisle 3 next to barney's family time sing along", "Cool thanks!" ) Which is just too damned expsenseive.
Like any cartel it just takes one major member to pull out before the whole thing starts to unravel. Now I'm not saying that the defecting publishers should start handing out UT flyers to grade school kids, but continue to market to their audience in a sane, targetted manner. Which means marketing to gamers, on gamer websites and mags. Even if John Doe 13yr old sees an ad that's for an M rated game it's not like he can buy it on his own (at least in theory stores are supposed to enforce the ESRB ratings) and has to get his parents to get it for him. If he gets parental consent for the game then the games rating becomes moot as parental consent always trumps any industry rating standard and federal regs. What everyone of course fears is actual regulation by the government, and it is a valid fear what with all the furor to protect the children. However provided that we don't start seeing Quake ads during Sesame Street or other such foolishneess there won't be enough of an uproar over the marketing of games to motivate congress to do something really stupid (OK OK I know they don't really need much motivation to do something stupid) If the IDSA wants to do something to appease the FTC they should work with stores and get them to start enforcing the ratings system already in place. As myopic and useless as that system is, it doesn't burden producers or consumers too much and still allows for sane advertising.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
check with your employer's policy: it might very well be exactly your job. I suppose you think you should follow only the rules you want to.
get off your lazy ass
and if it was your job and somebody got off their lazy ass and came down and got you fired, we would no doubt have to listen to you whining on slashdot about it.
I've played Doom, Quake, Quake 2, Half-Life, Unreal, and Wolfenstein 3D since I was 10. Now, does this make me a psychopathic killer? Did it encourage aggressive behavior?
I've driven drunk a bunch of times and till now I've never killed anybody, or even had an accident... so, drunk driving should no doubt be legal for me.
I have the constitutional right to verbally let my girlfriend know what a good blow she gives.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
The game software industry seems much smarter than knee-jerk reactionaries, both on this forum and in congress. If you think voluntary prohibitions on advertising from the ISDA (which is run by the game makers) are going to have ANY effect on the popularity or ability to sell these games you're off your nut.
Information and advertising about how good (or bad) a game is spreads 10x faster & more efficiently through a high school hallway than software dealers could ever acheive through advertising. Combine that with the fact that kids that're into these games are usually anticipating them months if not years in advance of release, checking up for the latest info on them from websites & such and you find that nothing essentially will change.
Many kids who play Quake / UT know more than their parents about computers. Hell, if you can kick ass on multiplayer Starcraft or Age of Empires you sure as hell can strategize a way to get your paws on the game you desire.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
More education has to be given to parents and even kids that M rated games should only be viewed by adults. Hell, can you imagine if 10-year olds across the nation were all watching Hannibal without their parents knowing its contents? Nightmare city.
... <rolls eyes>
DEAR GOD!!! We'd have a bunch of creepy little monsters running around with scalping knives looking to eat nubile young females!!! Oh wait
The human condition is only what me make of it. Are we tied to living a certain kind of lifestyle or can we change it as we please? And your statement that no movie, play or other work of art with a PG rating or less can be moving and have an impact is utterly ridiculous. You obviously have a skewed view of the world. If someone doesn't shoot, maim and kill lots of other people while having sex with his next door neighbor's granddaughter, then it's not moving? Come on!
You're statements contradict themselves. On one hand, you oppose exposing children to this kind of violence yet on the other hand, you say they can't function without being exposed to it.
The games won't be disappearing off the shelves. They'll still be there. All that's happening is forcing the marketing of them to take a different path. Parents will still be able to choose to let their kids play the games. In fact they'll be able to have more control over their children this way, without the fear of having the violence forced on their children before they're ready.
Yes, humans are a violent species. But that doesn't mean that we have remain so.
--
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
After all we have a right to bare arms in Unreal tournament and Quake...
We cannot let are god given right to use the annihilator or rail gun slip threw are fingers.
Praise Causey www.thecauseyway.com
Schools don't have to teach morals, parents should be doing that. I listen more to my parents about morals than I would listen to my religion professor, anyhow.
That said, it's not politically correct for a politican to get up there, and tell America's parents what fuckups they are, and that they are responsible for what's happening in this country.
A man like that would never get elected. Telling it like it is just doesn't work when talking to the herd...
Scary, but in all fairnmess didn't Clinton say something about us having too much freedom. I think he might have said it on MTV of all places. Sorry I don't have the exact quote.
Neither party is to be trusted, it is just a matter of which one will hurt us the least.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
I agree with your points, but you know as well as everyone else that a single data point (you) cannot be, and is not, a persuasive argument. That said:
there is someone we should be pointing our fingers at, and it's the parents out there, or as I like to call them, the fuckups.
I subscribe to the idea of being born as a tabula rasa (clean slate), and being shaped mostly by the environment. If the environment (mostly your parents) makes you a killer, that's what you'll be. Eric and Dylan's parents should be in jail for mistreating their progeny, and causing them to do terrible things.
Same thing with the rest of America, but it would be very politically incorrect for a politician to point the finger at the masses of fuckups errr parents out there, and tell them how they screwed up, and how they're responsible for the state of the US. That man would be right, but would never get elected.
So we'll just busy ourselves with singling out more scapegoats, while ignoring a problem. The herd will never notice...
Wow!!! You know how to interpret the bible correctly??
... but you know how to interpret it correctly? Wow!
Somehow, people have been killing each other for hundreds, perhaps a thousand years because of this book, and how they interpret it
** You must know how to interpret it correctly, if you know that 'stupid religious groups' are interpreting it wrong, correct?
When I was 16 or so, I was playing Lazer Tag in the street in front of a friend's house. There were 3 of us. Two had the pistols (black, with red blinkenlights) and one had the Lazer Tag rifle (big and white, like a refrigerator, with red blinkenlights).
We were playing at night. Someone in the neighborhood called the cops; we were told later that they had called in "man with a gun prowling around." Maybe they made that call knowing we had toy guns, because they just wanted us to go away. I'll never know.
Anyway, the cops show up. I almost got killed. Literally. I was hiding behind a parked car. I hear a car driving up the street, and I think, "when it passes by, I will pop out and gun for my friend who I know is hiding across the street." Well, when I popped out I saw it was a POLICE car, passenger door open, driving slowly, deputy with a shotgun walking along with the car, using it for cover.
He saw me pop up and pointed his shotgun at me. He must have been a cool customer because I did not get blown away. At than range (a couple of yards), the shotgun would have really made a mess of me.
Anyway, I relate this tale of teenage misadventure to make the following points.
1. It's too bad we live in a society where it just isn't safe to play with toy guns outside.
2. To *some* extent at least it doesn't matter what your toy gun looks like. The cops still showed up for Lazer Tag. Because lighting was good where I was, the cop who aimed at me was able to make the right decision about my threat level. If it was darker it wouldn't have mattered what the toy gun looked like. I probably would have been shot based on my posture and the vaguely gun-shaped thing in my hand.
If the LT pistol had looked like a real gun, I probably WOULD be dead. I still don't support laws that outlaw toy guns, or force restrictions on them. I am a fairly libertarian kind of person.
It is if you play it right.
Because the voters (parents) scream to the goverment "we don't want to do our job!"
"You take care of these little monsters that we spawned!"
"We just want to go back to watching monday night football and having affairs!"
The average parent is a hopeless fuckup, but try getting a politican to tell the masses that...
--
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
Not really. It's more just filled with the current beliefs of the time plus a whole lot of "love-thy-neighbor" messages. All that anti-stuff stuff came about from the stupid religious groups that interpret the thing incorrectly.
--
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
This is retarded. Preventing M-rated games would eliminate most of the fun found in today's and the future's video games. They should quit trying to do this. It's pointless, we are Americans and this is our culture. We make these games because society wants it. If society doesn't demand M-rated games, then there would be no point to make them but we do, so leave us (and the developers) alone.
This reminds me about that movie with a terrorist living a normal life and his neighbour suspecting him, what was it called.... Arlington Road... there was one good point comming out of it: People needs to point at something tangible and do something about it to feel for their mind to rest. They arrest the terrorist, you feel more secure, but you forget that he had a message and some others will follow.
Still following? I could apply the same concept with these people trying to shut down any exposure to violence. They're trying to find real world "guilty" hobbies that supposely promotes violence, without doing any research, without answering the question on HOW is, a game for example, affecting one's judgement. I play Quake (too many) hours a week, am I gonna go out and shoot someone? Hell no.
It's sooooo easy for parents with violent kids to say "video games and TV fucked my child", not looking at themselves, the way they raised their kids, the value they teached. Parents or victims need to find guilty people, but they are never the cause of the problem of course. That's just plain hypocrite.
School shootout for example, why would a normal tenn go out and kill specific people? because normally these specific people pissed them off beyond repair. Do you honnestly think that anyone "normal" would just happen to turn violent at specific individuals for absolutely no reason? without thinking about the consequences? c'mon.
They try to find causes, but they are looking at the wrong place. That "violent" example, show me why a game would give him that idea, and after that explain to me how different from, let's say, building a snow castle and having snowball fights is that explanation and justification.
My point is: stop being hypocrite and blaming games tv beggars and heavy metal music for your failure, that's just plain pathetic.
Of course it's not always a parent's fault, there's always people and another universe around the teen, that can influence him/her good or bad. but then again, vigilant people would see this and try to seek help.
And of course there are nuts everywhere that don't even think about acting, but will we stop our hobbies because of a few nutsacks? is our liberty threatened by a minority of people?
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
Nintendo realized the error of their "no violence" ways after the console release of Mortal Kombat I. Nintendo sanatized the blood and certain fatalities (e.g., changing Sub-Zero's decapitation w/ spine dangling from head fatality to simply freezing the baddie and punching him so that he shatters).
The Super Nintendo version had far superior graphics and sound, but the Genesis version far outsold it.
Nintendo pretty much decided to give up on being their customers' censor after that...
--
I see a Jon Katz article in the making out of this. :) Wait a week, let's see.
Remember? The study that all the reactionary freaks demanded then claimed would validate their position? Fancy that, it didn't. Now no one wants to talk about it.
That report can be found here:
Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General
To sumamrize another summary of the report:
- Violent media plays no role at all in late onset violence (where a record of violent behavior begins in adolescence).
- In violent behavior that begins before age eleven(11) media ranks as the 10th most significant factor behind violent parents, bad parenting, poverty, substance use, and natural agressive tendencies.
So before you reactive momos point your judgemental little fingers away from your own slimy skins, go do a little research. I'd have a harder time cursing you out and laughing behind your back if you had ANY empirical backup."I ain't got no flyin' shoes."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
First they can't make toys that look like guns, now this! Watch, by 2003 it'll be illegal to sell little micromachine fighter airplaines.
I am !amused.
While any industry agreeing to pre-censor itself is certainly a bad thing, and I hope that this measure fails quickly, I don't actually think it would prevent all these games from being made. Did anyone here buy Q3 as a result of advertising, as opposed to word of mouth?
Don't get me wrong; I'm not an enormous fan of "really violent" games, and there are only a couple in that category I play. On the other hand, it seems ludicrous to be concerned with showing animated pixel blood when eny night of the week cable TV shows far far worse (which bothers you more: seeing a bunch of polygons fall off the side of a sprite in a shower of red pixels, or watching a very realistic representation of an actor's arm being shot off, complete with fake blood and screams? Don't answer all at once...) But whether any of these are "appropriate" for a given audience is a question for individuals and families, not the courts. Or it should be.
Legislating morality = a bad thing.
IIRC, Congress can't make laws preventing stuff like this from being made or published in the first place (that First Amendment thing). However, there are things that can be done once it has been published. I'm not exactly sure which one they're trying to go for here..
--
this has gone too far. people cannot blame TV and video games for violence in society. don't like Jackass on mtv? turn off the TV! dont like quake 3? dont buy it! dont like websites that advertise for X violent game? Dont visit! That is the basis of america. Free speech. freedom of choice. freedom of or FROM religons. I am personally ashamed to have supported al gore and joe lieberman now that they are so outspoken against freedom of speech and expression. i'm so tired of hearing people blame tv, games, books, etc. for problems in society. the problems stem from parents being so lazy that instead of parenting their children, they put them in front of the tv/computer/video game to babysit, and then they are upset because the tv/computer/video game is too violent. there are several church based and non-violent games/tv stations/books out there. if you dont want your kids setting themselves on fire because they saw it on jackass, tell them "now little jimmy, if you set your self on fire, its going to burn you. he's a trained professional, you're not" if you dont want your kids to shoot up his/her school, tell them "now little jimmy, if you go shoot your friends, you'll go to jail for a long long time, and your friends will not be here with us any more" the problem is not with kids seeing violence on tv. they need to see it, to know how the world really is, maybe not at a young age, but that should be up to the parents, not the govt, or some trade group. if parents would guide their children as they watch violent movies, watch sexual tv shows, play violent video games, then we'd have a better society. i hope that if the idsa adopts these standards that gaming companies withdraw from it or boycott it. we should write our congressmen, senators, etc to show them that we are against regulation and denial of our first amendment rights. i dont understand why the right believes they have the right to force their ideologies onto us. if we dont want to follow their standards, we dont have to. we dont have to listen to jerry falwell tell us how bad we are. some people dont care if they go to hell, so dont tell them that they are. people have a mind of their own and dont need some religous nut up on a stand taking the bible to extremes. i am not atheist or anti-religon, but some people are, and that's their choice
Computer games as a genre are neutral, but it seems as though game companies are rushing to produce the most bloody and violent games that they possibly can without any concern for the young lives that they are polluting. And I for one would be glad to see these games toned back down to levels at which they are not so brutal, because children sure as hell don't need to see that kind of thing.
It all started with Mortal Kombat, but today that is tame compared to some of the blood and death games out there, where children are desensitised to death in the same way that soldiers are trained to be. How can this be right? Children are innocent, and that time in their lives is unique and should be cherished, not thrown away watching people having their entrails ripped out.
There's enough violence in the world without bringing it into the front room. All I can say is thank God for Nintendo, who realise that you can have a great game without blood and guts.
The benefits of such a system would include freeing parents, who these days both have to work to support the family, removal of the financial burden of children (The tax increase to support this should cost less since you're doing it in bulk) and the children will be raised in an environment that's much less likely to be physically or sexually abusive.
All in all I think it'd be a good idea.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
No - I, for one, expect parents to keep tabs on their kids, and take responsibility for their kids' actions. It's not my job. If I want to buy a copy of Quake, why should the fact that some snot-nosed brat's parents can't keep him/her under control, and keep track of what they're doing, preclude me from doing so?
I don't think anyone's saying that kids won't be affected by anything that they see. But I just don't think that should burden or otherwise influence my ability to choose the games I wish to play. Make the parents be responsible for what their kids see and do - they brought them into this world, they think their genes are good enough to be passed on to a new generation - they should take responsibility for what they've created.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
I also am not affected in any negative way from videogame matter to real-life, HOWEVER, simply because you or I are not affected does not mean it is not a risk. I play violent games, watch violent movies, etc. It appears to me as movies and games get more on-the-edge, it certainly effects the people who are seeing this, mainly if they are at a young impressionable age. Certainly seeing guns does not mean they will attack with guns, however seeing violence does cause children to be more prone to hitting others, as far as I have seen (if this is posted twice, it is because of error first time which made me repost)
Kids are taught not to jump out in front of cars on highways or drink cleaning supplies. Why should pointing a gun (toy or otherwise) at police officers be any different?
The problem with the ratings system these days is that it puts the movies into strict categories, based on a number of variables (nudity, violence, language, etc). Now, parents put different priorites on each of these variables. So I propose that, instead of categories like G, PG, and R, the ratings be a series of floating-point values from [0-1], giving the parents a better idea of the actual content.
"For success, it is essential you have Thunderball Fists." "I can have such a thing?" "That's right. Thunderball Fists."
I even pointed out that the game had a good deal of blood and violence to one parent, who was buying it for a kid who looked around 10. "There's blood in this game?" she said. They don't show blood on the front of the box. I pointed out the M rating that was clearly stamped on the front. "Oh. I didn't even know what that meant".
And how is that a failing of the rating system? I just grabbed my "American McGee's ALICE" box (I don't need anyone's opinion of my taste in games, thanks), and looked at the rating label - it has the ESRB "M" rating icon,, above which is printed the word "MATURE". Also, there is a box to the right which reads "See package back for content descriptors". Those include "Animated violence" and "Animated blood and gore". It also says "For more info, visit www.esrb.org, or call [800 number]".
To me, this doesn't indicate a failing of the rating system - my mom (she's as far from computer savvy as you can get) understands what "mature" means as a game rating. It just means that some people are just plain damn stupid, or illiterate. Or both.
_____
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Oops, my fault. Teen lets you go to prostitutes. Mature lets you pimp.
(Fallout 1/2 is M, Torment is T.Privateer 2 is also M)
I think we all know who is at fault, and what to do about it... Lt. Col. David Grossman!!!
So, what should we do about this, you might ask? well, I propose that gamers from all parties come together, and make the official "David Grossman UT Skin!!" This creation of a common enemy would unite the gaming community further, giving it the strength to move the entire industry to Singapore once the lawmakers get their ways.
I am quite sure that he would never see it though, because, as his blatantly stupid arguments show, he has never played a video game in his life...
WTF, just cause there are alot of M rated games doesn't mean there good games that get played, and if they do it doesn't mean that people don't understand that its fake and realize the limits between reality and the games. I am a very hardcore gamer i play quake3 every day any were from 1 hour to 8hours a day, but i still realize that quake is just a game and you don't go around killing every one and pulling health runs off of pentagrams. I think the congress and all the other goverment renjects need to get the hell out of my life before you know the making breathing a public place or breathing to loud illegal.
Damnit...couldn't you just flame me back? Why did you have to go and be all reasonable?
:)
Muahaha! My master plan. Apology accepted.
Isn't slippery slope usually considered a logical fallacy...?
Well, not everyone believes it's a valid argument, but if you look at history there are a lot of examples. Even in the state of California, where I used to live, we went from "register your 'evil' guns and we promise they'll stay legal, we just want to keep track of them" to "we changed out minds, turn them in or you are a criminal" within a year or so. So it can happen.
Switzerland: Google around for data, I don't have links around. But they are quite a gun culture, with some mandatory military service, and a lot of full-auto weapons knocking around. I don't have all the details here, but suffice to say with all that hardware misuse is infrequent.
Economist article: Reading it now. You should read Gary Kleck's studies. But this stuff is hard to study, it may never really get worked out.
Truthfully, I don't care if it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that carrying a gun statistically makes me MORE at risk. I am the kind of person who would rather take the "risk," trusting in my intelligence and skills to carry the day if I ever had to use the weapon. (I do shoot pistol competitively. I have no experience with being attacked, but operation of the hardware is second nature and I have a lot of faith in that. I live in Seattle, where I can get a permit to carry a weapon, and I plan to do so. I shoot better than 99% of the cops out there, and I have an even temper.)
I believe you mentioned somewhere in another post that you disapproved of too much sex in the media...
Nope, wasn't me. I do not understand the American fear of that material either. We are a very odd culture here... it probably looks TOTALLY insane to an outsider. My Aussie friends who used to live here were in complete culture shock the whole time.
good point, good link.
c e/sgreport/Chapter4/appendix4bsec2.htm#TelevisionF ilm
Here's the relevane page from the study about media and games. The result? There's quite possibly a real association, but it's *small*, and likely just an indicator of tendancies already there.
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/youthviolen
How come this is still at a score of 2?
This sort of thing ends up in my local newspaper more than once a year, but not always with such a happy ending. And I live in the midwest...
I'm really getting tired of running into immature brats playing online (M-rated) games. I'm not fond of censorship, but if it keeps some anti-social teen from going hostile on me in Diablo 2, I'm all for it.
Or just make them take a psych exam previous to buying the game. That way we'll know if they're serial killers trying to get their jollies.
An aside - whenever this topic comes up, 99% of the posters seem to agree that no connection exists, and that censorship is bad. I agree that we have to be careful with censorship, but I wanted to ask, what do you think causes the greater amount of violence in America? If it isn't the culture, what is it? If you say, "parents", what made American parents fail where parents from other countries succeed? If it isn't culture, what? Something in the water?
I'm not trolling. I really want to know your opinion on this.
************************************************ ** *
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
>>This is all a bunch of conservatist bullshit.
>This is being pushed by *Lieberman* - he's a Democrat, bucko.
They didn't say Republican, they said conservative. One condition does not depend on the other.
1. It's already illegal to be a fool and store your gun where kids can get at it. It has been for a long time. The penalties are severe. Such laws seem never to be enforced. Why? Beats me. Probably because the anti-gun crowd has an easier time getting more laws passed with a pile of dead kids around. If some parents did get locked up for being retards, other parents might get a clue and rates of accidental shootings might decline. That probably isn't optimal for the Master Plan, which is getting rid of all the guns period. (Was this an excessively cynical comment? Maybe. Maybe not.)
2. The solution to bad parents is not more laws.
As to the rest... forget it, I'm too lazy to have this argument today. Let's just agree to disagree.
check with your employer's policy: it might very well be exactly your job. I suppose you think you should follow only the rules you want to.
This is true. The law requires employees to enforce these ratings and he absoluely should have done so. This doesn't mean parents should be absolved of responsibility for their children's upbringing, though. That would be completely ludicrous.
I've driven drunk a bunch of times and till now I've never killed anybody, or even had an accident... so, drunk driving should no doubt be legal for me.
Now this is just a poor analogy. When you're driving drunk you're actually engaging in an act that could potentially cause harm and loss of life. A closer comparison would be firing a few random shots with a gun in a populated area. You may not be trying to hurt anyone but it's not unlikely that you will by accident.
Now, if people think playing these kinds of games makes people go out and dangerously misuse a real weapon... what about drinking leading to drunk driving? Hell, video games don't even lower your inhibitions like alcohol does. Perhaps prohibition should be re-instated instead?
My point is that stupid people do stupid things and it's these people who should be punished for their actions, and not responsible consumers of "dangerous"(sarcasm) things video games or alcohol.
"Where shall the word be found, where will the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence." -T.S. Eliot
Next time when this happens, tell them that you're buying it for a kid - better yet, bring one along with you and give the game to the kid immediately after you pay.
It'd be interesting to see what they can do.
> Republicans are both for and against death. Yes, and Democrats/liberals are too. They're for abortion, and against the death penalty. Which way is worse? The conservative way, where innocents are saved and killers are killed, or the liberal way, where innocents are killed and killers are saved?
"For success, it is essential you have Thunderball Fists." "I can have such a thing?" "That's right. Thunderball Fists."
Perhaps since some parents are incapable of raising children, all current and future children should be confiscated by the government to be raised in sterile, certified ISO facilities where they will be given the 24x7 attention and care they obviously need, instilled with the proper values and work ethic and released to be productive members of society at the age of 18.
Well, we are going to be under Republican rule for at least the next 4 years. Anything could happen.
Can you imagine....
Instead of just being busted for having copies of Penthouse etc. under the mattress, poor young Johnny is now equally liable for PC Gamer? Not to mention the stress his Quake IV CD would cause his parents.....
Anyway, what stops kids seeing the games in arcades? In the main street in Sydney you're able to see gun games all the time from the street without going in at all. (Although lately they've been overshadowed by those dancing / drum playing machine things)...
I remember at one stage you couldn't walk down the street ever without hearing "Nice shootin', try another one!" from some Western game which was bleeding edge arcade technology at the time.
>It is true that the NRA lobbies against every single gun restriction. They're believers in the slipperly slope thing. Give an inch, you lose a mile.
Isn't slippery slope usually considered a logical fallacy...? I know I don't want to ban all guns. That is defenitely a too severe infringement on personal rights. ...Of course, what I think doesn't really matter since I am not a US citizen. Aren't you glad? ;-)
I'm not sure about the Switzerland example. I have heard it mentioned several times, but never from a reliable source. I know that some NRA people have used Sweden as an example in similar arguments. Sweden has more guns per capita than the US, but less violent crime, they say. However, what they fail to meantion is that what we have are rarely assault rifles or even handguns, but hunting rifles.
Furthermore, the law says these must be
A) Securely locked, for instance in a safe
B) kept with a vital part removed, and
C) In a separate place from the ammunition
I'm not sure if it is a requirement to buy a gun, but to hunt, you have to have a hunting licence, and to get one of those you have to pass a pretty difficult test.
>There is one other main reason to be anti-gun: many anti gunners simply don't believe in the possibility or the right to self-defense. They prefer to rely on the police for everything, and they are trying to arrange it so that you have no other option. I find these people especially odious. Self-defense is a basic human right, and the best tool for it is a gun. Even if you don't think people should be allowed to carry guns, they should have the right to keep one at home.
I am sceptical that a gun is the best tool for self-defence. Did you read the article in the Economist? Of course, I don't believe that this is the final word or anything. I know Lott has sent a letter disputing the claims. But the Economist tend to do very well researched articles. I just don't see how having a gun is going to stop somebody from shooting me. If they know I might have a gun, isn't that just going to increase the likelyhood they make sure I don't get a chance to fire it, for instance by shooting me in the back without warning? If they have a knife at least I can run, but few people can outrun a bullet.
By the way, I grew up in a hunting family. My grandad, my dad and my brother hunted. My brother is now a cop. So I am not unfamiliar with guns. I have been out on several hunting trips, and while I never was present while an animal was killed, I did see the dead bodies and the butchering. I have also done target shooting, and when I did military service I learned to use a machine gun (model 1945...I was a radar operator. If the enemy ever got into the command central it would be short distance combat, so the guns would actually be ok, especially since they are light to carry. They gave the modern guns, AK4 and AK5, to the people who would be in the field). So I have some familiarity with guns and might even be said to have experienced the "gun culture".
I believe you mentioned somewhere in another post that you disapproved of too much sex in the media (or did I confuse you with somebody else?). That is such an alien concept to me. If you have to censor something, I really prefer that they allow sex (a natural, pleasure giving, life affirming act) and ban violence like they do in Sweden, instead of the other way around like in the US.
************************************************ ** *
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
Clinton (to my knowledge) never said it in reference to trying to shut down a web site critical of him personally.
No, no, not "PureText". Being a M$ system, it would naturally be named "ActiveText".
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Wouldn't you just LOVE a Half-Life Happy Meal?
I'm just wondering how many 14 or 15 year olds have sort of ID to prove their age. What happens when Mom/Dad/Uncle/etc. buys the game for 13,14 year old...
My boss said he wanted to see more of me. So I gained 12 pounds. This post may or may not be sarcastic.
> There are limits to freedom.
>
> You can't scream fire in a crowded theatre.
Sure you can.
There's no problem screaming fire if, for instance (a) there is a fire, or (b) everybody knows that you're kidding.
Even in other circumstances, and even if you were arrested, you wouldn't be charged with of a _speech_-related crime, but rather something such as "creating a public disturbance". So the problem is basically caused by the _effect_ or _intent_ of your action, not the actual speech act itself -- you're allowed to say what ever you want, and you're only being punished because what you said happens to be inappropriate to the situation in that it potentially endangered those around you.
What if you screamed "FIREman?" in a crowded theater? It contains the same sounds. Or how about, to your friend, screaming "Can you buy me some FIREballs at the snack bar?"
--craig
Wish I had a +1 for you, well said.
As to being afraid of guns -- well, it is better than being cocky and overconfident. But you are not being served by your fear. Too much fear is a detriment. If you have trustworthy friends or relatives who go shooting, try to go on a trip with them. Learn a little, like how to handle a gun safely. Having knowledge like that can never hurt.
I actually think they should teach kids about guns in school, kind of like what they do with cars. They should show videos of gunshot wounds, like they do with car crashes. They should teach you basic things like "don't point a gun at anyone."
(I actually think that kids should be taught HOW to shoot in school, because training can instill respect for the weapon, and it demystifies it, making daddy's hidden gun less attractive.)
I'm sorry to say that the odds against your dream being realized are pretty high.
Could it be because the NRA bribes the republican party with millions of dollars to prevent any gun law, no matter how common sense, from being passed or enforced?
>Probably because the anti-gun crowd has an easier time getting more laws passed with a pile of dead kids around. If some parents did get locked up for being retards, other parents might get a clue and rates of accidental shootings might decline. That probably isn't optimal for the Master Plan, which is getting rid of all the guns period. (Was this an excessively cynical comment? Maybe. Maybe not.)
There is no maybe about it. That was the dumbest fucking thing I have ever heard. Why would someone ever be anti-gun if it wasn't to save kids from being killed by guns? Oh, of course, it is all a plot to disarm white trash so the UN can invade and occupy their precious trailer parks. Why would anyone want to? To get to all that precious Budweiser and fried chicken? Don't worry IronChef. You can keep it.
************************************************ ** *
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
Okay, I don't know that he said that, but the issue is that Bush and Cheney know what freedom is, and think it is a good thing, but it is not an unqualified good thing. That's far better than the democrats, who think that freedom is completely irrelevant, because they will discover the one true way to run your life, and then they will force it on you.
I dislike republicans because they're inconsist in applying their principles and tend toward hypocracy. I displike democrats because they're servants of the devil who want to enslave the world to acheive their goals.
Ok, but what kind of parent is so uninvolved in their kid's life that they don't know what games he/she's playing?
It's not really that hard to investigate what games are like, and if the parent is buying the game, they can always ask the clerk/salesman. A rating system is not needed. Games already state 'blood & gore' on the cover, so if they simply read that they should have a pretty good idea of what's going on...
Mass media attention, or a strict rating system, is not required for a parent to find out what a game is like...
I don't play half life-- and I suck at Quake III. But I do enjoy the 'M' rated games from Bioware-- Torment, Fallout, etc. I did think that Privateer (also an 'M' game) was rather juvenile. On the whole, I like the freedom that a 'M' rating gives to its designers.
No, the bloodspatter isn't strictly neccesary, but decapitating kobolds is somehow more satisfying than a bloodless death. It also wouldn't be quite the same without the prostitutes (male and female).
Next thing you know, the'll be going after D&D taverns for serving liquor...
Are you stupid or just not paying attention?? Joe Lieberman is for censorship FOR CHILDREN, not censorship FOR EVERYONE "to protect the children". He has stated many times that Hollywood and videogame companies and any other entertainment companies should be allowed to make their products, whether they be violent or pornographic, et al. He feels that these products should not be marketed towards or sold to children. That is not the mark of a right-wing religious censoring nut...that's the mark of somebody with a brain. Children SHOULDN'T watch porn and children SHOULDN'T watch people be gruesomely murdered on-screen day after day after day...these are products for adults, and Joe Lieberman is only trying to keep them for adults.
-Rylfaeth
Well, maybe if they get their jollies by fraggin me online I'll live longer in the real world...
Frag 'em all...
Not being able to play your favorite video game in jail is probably sufficient deterrent for most addicts.
Those who do not know the past are doomed to reimplement it, poorly.
As for the ratings, they're probably too high anyway. What is mature about Quake anyway? I would allow my (if I had one) under-17 play it at about age 12 or 13. Keep in mind that some manufacturer's ask for a higher rating to start with. It's the same reason why there are so many R movies out there.
----------------------
I'm 15, I enjoy playing computer games.
.22 with a 10 shot clip and a 5x scope, I can shoot within a 6 inch radius circle from 100yards (I know this from experience). I also own a cross-bow, and can hit withing a 1'circle from 25 yds. I often shoot clay-pigeons with my dad, Using a 12 gauge shotgun, I can hit 7 out of 10 clay pigeons.
I have UT, Q1-3, SOF, and many many more (all the way back to wolfenstein).
I own a gun, a Semi-automatic
Does this mean I'm going to go shoot up my school?
Heck no, I'm more worried about the people who have no clue about guns, and therefore have no respect for them. I have respect for guns, I only touch it when I am shooting it, or cleaning it, not to play around or point it at things.
A guy in my Drafting class is different, he goes hunting with friends all the time, 4 15-17 year old guys out in the woods with shot-guns, he has been shot at numerous times, because his friends "Thought he was a deer".
I am not the kind of person that would shoot up a school, that kind of guy is the one who looks like crap, smokes in the Rest-room with the Principal right out-side, and mouths off to teachers. That is the kind of guy we need to take out back and shoot through the temple so we don't have to pay his welfare check every month after he drops out of school when he gets old enough.
"those who would sacrifice a freedom for security will get, and deserve, neither" (not an exact quote of Franklin, I think).
It's your kid. Hate to break it to you, but it isn't our responsibility to raise your kid how you want him raised. Nor is it our job to subject ourselves to inconvenience to make it easier for you to raise your kid how you want. Don't want your kid playing violent video games? Don't get him a video game system and know who his friends are. "Oh, but that's so much work, couldn't the government do it for me?"
What the ratings system has meant is that if you want to make a movie that doesn't pass the board with an R, you aren't going to get to show it anywhere. How many of you saw Kids in the theater? I thought it was a great movie with a important message. You know what else? No kids are going to go see it. I mean, a friend of my who ran a church youth group took them to see it, but it's not exactly going to spread by word of mouth.
How about American History X? Rated R. Only movie that has ever given me a nightmare. Should children be allowed to see it? Sure, why not? They can go to a bookstore and get a copy of Hersey's Hiroshima, with graphic descriptions of people's flesh falling off from the effects of radiation sickness, or Eli Weisel's Night that talks about people starving to death or grateful even for someone turning a hose on the train car they were locked in because it was unbearably hot. But when someone tries to present an unpleasant issue in a format that may actually attract those who don't like to read books, they won't let the kids in.
It's not the movies, or the video games, that are violent and brutal. It's reality. If you want to shelter your son from that fact, that's fine. But do not ask me to help you gut culture because you don't like it. You keep your kids sheltered by keeping them sheltered. Like with a curfew, and keeping track of what they do.
You are the problem. The entirity of the problem in today's world is reflected in your whining. You want someone else to solve your problems for you. You don't want to have to do things for yourself. This is the problem, whether people are saying they don't want to deal with their personality problems and turn to drugs, that they don't want to deal with the fact that they're a klutz and turn to personal injury attorneys, that they don't want to deal with teh fact that they're a loser and sue for wrongful termination, or that they don't want to deal with the fact that they are not confident in their ability to raise a child and turn to government to do it for them.
Well, first off, there's a big different between the old & new...the old was all 'wrath of God' shit, and it scared too many people so it got toned down for the 'new' testament...
But anyway, I still have to disagree with either being 'filled with the current beliefs of the time' meaning they aren't anti-whatever. It's anti-gay/female/etc regardless of what the 'current beliefs of the time' was.
And the old testament was not filled with 'a whole lot of "love-thy-neighbor" messages'! What about Jobe? I mean, "God" was worse than Satan in that shit! He let Satan do that on a fucking bet! And the whole Adam & Eve shit - Adam disobeys God once, and all of humanity has to pay for it for the rest of time?!? Tell me how God can possibly appear as a 'love-thy-neighbor' kinda guy. Don't think so. He was a vengeful bastard, and anyone who pissed him off got his wrath. That was later carried out by his "minions", i.e. religious zealots, who became Judge, Jury, & Executioner. E.g., countless centuries of religious persecution. In most cases, for simply not believing what the religion in power believed. Now that's scary!!!
Organized Religion scares me more than anything else in this world. Not just Christian religion, there are plenty other self-righteous religions out to kill/punish everyone else...
Children are prone to hit others because of a variety of reasons. Many of these same reasons cause them to seek out violence in movies and video games. Are the movies the cause, or part of the result?
I have a friend whose son is deaf and has MS. As a result of these two conditions, he is constantly made fun of at school (unfortunately, the school system does not have any special programs available to him and he is in 'normal' classes). As a result of this, he lashes out and hits his schoolmates. He also chooses to watch violent movies. However, the movie watching is likely a result of his frustrations at school. He wants to see people that do bad things get punished.
I agree that violence in various forms of media can influence people, but I do not think it produces a violent person. I think that we are looking at the wrong things. Violent kids seek violent movies. It makes them feel like they are not different for being violent. Have they ever done a study on this? Probably not. All the studies are making the wrong conclusion. Now, does this mean that we should get rid of violent media because it makes violent kids feel comfortable with their violence? No. They would not become nonviolent just because they didn't feel comfortable. They would simply be more volatile.
It wouldn't work to outright blame the parents. If a politician were to suggest spending on parent help programs, it might work. I suspect that there are a number of parents who are downright frustrated and would love some programs to help them with parenting. Sure, there are books to read and resources on the web, but that requires motivation. Many people need someone to offer a community class that 'forces' them to learn.
We need to somehow find a way to move our society back in the direction of responsibility. One of our biggest problems is that we are trying harder and harder to blame everyone else for the problems we have. We blame TV and video games. We sue people constantly. We sue the police. We sue the government. People just need to learn the consequences for the things they do in life. Sure, consequences suck, but life goes on. You're a better person for dealing with them than you are for suing someone else.
oh please. Children have always been exposed to levels of violence that have been 'excessive' at the time it was being shown. I highly doubt that all of the violence in the world is related to little Johny being able to play games where he can blow his friend up with a rocket launcher. If there is so much concern, why don't parents put the family computer out in the open and watch what their kids do on it? This would be a much better method, IMHO, of controling what children are exposed to.
karma is for the weak >)
Pure Text(tm), the latest advance in Mature Systems gaming. PureText by MS would be the best system for CDs, DVDs, and Streaming Text presentation systems. Plus the use of the Pure Text system allows for far more content and far larger worlds than has been experienced before.
This is an Idea whose time has come.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
It is just like in a pub: No ID, no beer - No ID, no Quake :)
What happens when Mom/Dad/Uncle/etc. buys the game Who knows what happens, when mom/pop buys booze/tobacco/guns/whatever for the kids? At least the grown-ups know what kids are about to. Not though I would buy beer for my under-age baby brother... But Quake? Sure, any day. -P--
I hate people who quote
I think if anything should be regulated, it's the movie theaters and major retailers, such as Walmart, who currently can, and do, refuse to sell an "M" rated game or a ticket to an "R" rated movie to a person who doesn't present proper identification to prove they are over 18.
There is no law (that I am aware of) that requires age identification for merchandise (besides tobacco and liquor).
Refusing to sell clearly legal items/services by age, IMO, is no different than refusing to sell items to a person of a different race,
religion or gender.
These rating systems are in place to help clueless parents get an IDEA of the appropriate age group, not to impose further restrictions.
The only restrictions i'm for is preventing age discriminate practices.
- Slash
There is the potential of this turning into the equivalent of cinema's NC-17 rating. Many movie theatres and rental outlets (such as Blockbuster) have a policy of not carrying NC-17 films, in the name of being "family-friendly." As a result, an NC-17 rating for a film is equivalent to commercial death. Producers do whatever they can to avoid the NC-17 rating, and thus the rating becomes meaningless, as it is never used.
If making an "M" game means it will be less profitable, game producers will stop making "M" games. Under pressure from the game producers, the raters will start giving a "T" rating for games that should have been an "M", meaning you're going to find all the violence of "M" games in "T" games.
What's the point of having an "M" rating if nobody wants to use it?
And this is a bad thing? I don't think so. But then I can't stand either Quake or Half-Life nor any of their clones so I won't be sheding any tears over their quite hopeful demise.
Well alot of people do. Should the new policy be 'band whatever C.Lee doesn't like'? If you can't support even speech you don't like, i don't think you get the idea behind that concept..
I've driven drunk a bunch of times and till now I've never killed anybody, or even had an accident... so, drunk driving should no doubt be legal for me.
The last time I checked, drunk driving is against the law, whereas pretending to kill animated people on your computer/game system is not. Did you think at all before you posted this?
karma is for the weak >)
Part of the problem is that much of the gaming press is largely undifferentiated, with "kids" games being covered right along with the mature ones. The rationale to this is that even older game players who play games like Quake can still also enjoy the latest Zelda release. Much of the attitude that typifies computer gaming is centered on "fun", which in America's twisted sense of work ethic and maturity is equated with "kid stuff". naturally anything that's bright, colorful and entertaining is either aimed at children or losers who never grew out of it. "Normal" adults should have no interest in it because they're clearly too old to play with toys, and the people who make these games are clearly just trying to extract money from kids since they couldn't possibly actually want to play such dreck.
I don't disagree that his analogy is poor, but for other reasons than that one is against the law and the other isn't. IMHO, when discussing ethics, the law shouldn't be taken into consideration. All it represents is the current consensus about morality in the society we live in, and doesn't correspond to absolute right and wrong (or your personal sense of right and wrong, if you are a relativist). If we lived in a hypothetical society where murder is legal, would that make it moral?
Also, the law is subject to change at any time. In the future, killing animated people _could_ be illegal if it was judged a psychological danger (and the poster you replied to seemed to be advocating a move in this direction). Would that then suddenly make it wrong, just because the government decided it is?
If I misinterpreted the intent of your post and you weren't implying that law=morals, never mind :). But then what was your point? I wouldn't stop doing something ethically acceptable just because it's against the law.
Keep in mind that there is no law saying "you can't produce these games", just restricted advertising wouldn't make it worth the company's while to create them.
The end result is the same; censorship. It doesn't matter how you try to get around it, thats what it will be.
And if you are really really lucky, you can even get to see them kill something. Then you will see first hand the real purpose of a gun, what a metal bit passing though living tissue at high velocity really does. It's really fun.
>I actually think they should teach kids about guns in school, kind of like what they do with cars. They should show videos of gunshot wounds, like they do with car crashes. They should teach you basic things like "don't point a gun at anyone."
Yeah! Maybe it could even teach them that "guns are really dumb things, we would be better off without them in everyday society".
BTW, here is an URL for you. Recent research has shown that guns do not deter crime, they cause it.
************************************************ ** *
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
Being a good citizen and censorship are completely different. Before you go pointing fingers at my senator (went to school 2 blocks from his house), realize that he could not and would not censor. If anything, he would give credibility to the industry by letting them have a good name in the eyes of the consumer.
You are correct But you DO have the right to criticize politicians, which is what the quote was about (parody website that GWB wanted taken down)
>Could it be because the NRA bribes the republican party with millions of dollars to prevent any gun law, no matter how common sense, from being passed or enforced?
Wow, you have it all wrong. Understandable, you aren't from here, the system probably looks screwy. Well, it is. But one thing you should be crystal clear on is this: the pro-gunners here are strongly, strongly in favor of the enforcement of existing anti-gun-crime laws. The NRA and its kin are big backers of stuff like "use a gun, go to jail." The reason is simple -- they know that the only chance they have not to get new, more restrictive gun bans passed is to enforce the "abuse a gun, go to jail" laws that are already out there. So whatever else we may disagree on, or whatever you think about politics over here, just understand that one thing.
It is true that the NRA lobbies against every single gun restriction. They're believers in the slipperly slope thing. Give an inch, you lose a mile. (Yes, I am an NRA member.)
>Why would someone ever be anti-gun if it wasn't to save kids from being killed by guns?
There is one other reason: To change society. We have a lot of anti-gun-CULTURE sentiment here. There are a lot of people who seem to care less about "the children" than they do about getting rid of people who have a tradition of gun ownership. It's an ideological struggle, as bitter as any one a society has had over religion, abortion, or anything else. You just don't see it that way unless you are on the front lines as an activist for one side or the other.
There are polite, well-armed societies out there like Switzerland. Every man there has a machine gun, given to him by the state. Yet their society isn't in chaos. Instead of trying to figure out what they are doing right, here in the US they are trying to paint all guns and the gun culture as evil.
There is one other main reason to be anti-gun: many anti gunners simply don't believe in the possibility or the right to self-defense. They prefer to rely on the police for everything, and they are trying to arrange it so that you have no other option. I find these people especially odious. Self-defense is a basic human right, and the best tool for it is a gun. Even if you don't think people should be allowed to carry guns, they should have the right to keep one at home.
>Oh, of course, it is all a plot to disarm white trash so the UN can invade and occupy their precious trailer parks.
Wow, nice shot! You combined conspiracy theory and classic US white trash racism and tried to paint me with it because we disagree. Very classy. Very mature. C'mon... start taking about my overalls or pickup truck.
From the article on Slashdot:
...but might even prevent games like Quake and Half-Life from being produced."
From the article on GameCenter:
Games that can't be marketed won't be produced, and that means we could soon see the end of the likes of Quake, Doom, Half-Life, Unreal Tournament, and much more.
Keep in mind that there is no law saying "you can't produce these games", just restricted advertising wouldn't make it worth the company's while to create them.
Just FYI, too, Dr. Bushman and his associate are psychology researchers that specialize in aggression and violence. In fact, those are the only types of studies I've ever seen Dr. Bushman do. You could take this to mean that he knows what he's doing, or that he sees what he's looking for (which, admittedly, aren't necessarily mutually exclusive).
http://psych-server.iastate.edu/faculty/bbushman/h omepage.htm
- Former computing staff at Dr. Bushman's university :)
It's always nice when *facts* humiliate the long-winded rants of Jon Katz.
Since Bush won, all we've heard from him is "Evil Bush! He will only let you read books on baseball!! He's evil I tell you!"
All of this was speculation, since Bush's record on any type of censorship is virtually non-existant. (That's good!)
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Joe Lieberman's *record* indicates a strong eagerness to censor based on "protecting the children." (Games, TV, movies, magazines...)
Now, you may not like Bush, but let's be honest: when put side-by-side with Joe Lieberman, he's our *friend!*
Add that to the fact that John Ashcroft is a die-hard privacy proponent, and arch-nemesis of Carnivore, etc.... hey, things are pretty good.
GenChalupa
Moderators: The point he's responding to is patently wrong, despite it's +3. This guy is provably correct. Mod him up.
Well, and then there are those of us, like me, that have learned how to handle guns safely and are still scared of them. I hate guns, I absolutely hate them. Still, I find the odd game of Doom or Quake to be fun. It's all about realizing what's reality and what's not.
Here in the UK, most video games carry the same ratings as movies: U, PG, 12, 15 and 18. And it is illegal to supply say an 18-rated video to anyone under 18 (the store can get fined £1000s. The same applies for 12 and 15 rated games (and of course movies). On non-government-rated games, the games industry themselves have their own ratings system, which most larger stores adhere to. I work in a large supermarket, and often have to sell videos and DVDs, and occasionally video games. If I were to sell to someone under-age, and it was discovered and reported, I'd probably get sacked and possibly fined. It's not a risk I'm prepared to take.
What about freedom of choice?. Is the government the one who should say what is correct and what is not regarding computer games?. Is their responsibility?. I think not. Are people that stupid that they cannot choose or tell their children what they can buy and what they cannot?. Isn't the rating enough? One more time, the responsibility is placed where it shouldn't be.
I think that the industry needs to work with game magazines and the gov't to set self-regulating standards for print and internet ads that, while advertizing an M-rated game, don't cross a PG line, when these ads are in 'family' settings. For example, printing Q3A will full-gore on screenshots, or showing the heroine in the skimpy bathsuit is questionable.
Work Hard, Rock Hard, Eat Hard, Sleep Hard, Grow Big, Wear Glasses if You Need 'Em.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And the Bible is filled with very negative messages; anti-gay, anti-female, anti-other religion, etc. Quake, Doom, Unreal, etc. show a little blood and guts, while the Bible tells you that everyone unlike you is evil and should be punished. Hmmm....
Have you read the bible lately ? One of the biggest messages spoken in the bible is acceptance and love for your fellow man. Your sterotype of christianity as a whole is disgusting. I admit, many of our religious leaders have interpreted the bible to mean these kinds of things, but these are merely interpretations.. please read the bible for yourself and make your own interpretation. But until you do, do not make generalities about a book that has inspired so many to lead good lives and has set a standard for morality that even the leaders of our country confided in.
-------------------
arcane for life
Knowing Congress, they'll probably comply with IDSA's request, in the interest of "protecting the children". As an avid gamer, I believe this is a crock of $#!+, but Congress is known to be unclueful about such things.
It might happen anyway, but perhaps a few hundred thousand letters from gamers might demonstrate that there's another side to this issue.
Some possible arguments (brainstorming for my own letter):
-Multiplayer games are essentially competitive sports, not much different from physical sports like football. They promote teamwork, cooperation, and perseverence.
-There is no evidence that violent games lead to real-world violence. In fact, many theorize that it does exactly the opposite, providing a channel for stressed people to let out their aggression in a safe way.
-Existing rating systems make it easy for parents to distinguish between violent and nonviolent games. For instance, the game _Soldier of Fortune_ bears a large red stop sign on the front of its box, containing a clear warning to parents. There is no possible way a parent could mistake this game for a harmless Disney adventure. SoF and other games also carry easy to read ESRB content ratings.
-John
I think someone's mis-read this... The ISDA is cracking down on the _marketing_ of M-rated games to minors, not the _exposure_ of them.
PC Gamer (and every other magazine of choice) is going to do a full 20-page spread on Doom III, paying special attention to all of the different body parts that go flying when someone gets gibbed. Just because Activision won't be paying for a 2-page ad for the game in that same magazine will not affect sales of the title one drop.
If a game company really wants to promote an M-rated title, they'll just buy a few spreads for some of their non-M games in return for a promise of some "preview" coverage, which is much more likely to be read anyway.
The game companies will just find more creative ways to promote their product without directly advertising them. The IDSA will claim victory, Lieberman will claim victory, the game companies will claim victory. Everybody's happy, and the public at large won't notice a thing...
I'm not taking sides. Just commenting. I agree with you. I've played every fps game ever made from Wolfenstein on up, and I'm only 19 now, so Wolfenstein must have been when I was in early middle school or something. I have been completely unaffected by the violence on screen, aside from those 5 murder convictions. :-). The only problem with your idea is that parents will never take that responsibiilty to keep track of their kids actions because parents are lazy bastards.
We need to fix the kind of people that have kids if we want to fix how these parents act toward their kids. This is a much deeper social problem than it is made out to be and video games are just a scapegoat.
Justin Dubs
Does the games industry want to be tarred with the same reputation as the cigarette industry? They will get it if they continue saying that they have to market violent QIII type games at children, right or wrong (rightly, in my view).
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
You know exactly what to do-
Your kiss, your fingers on my thigh-
I think of little else but you.
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
Let's deconstruct that.
>European
At least you got the continent right, that's better than most trollers.
>liberal
I guess.
>Pansy-ass
Well Mr Anonymous Coward, at least I have the courage to stand for my opinion and use my real name.
>Someone oughta pop a cap in your ass.
Words, words...
************************************************ ** *
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
anyone who is familiar with statistics should know the meaning of the word "outlier". basically, it's a point in a set of data which is quite obviously FAR away from the "normal" range of data.
all the fear about video games and movies and things causing violence are being spurred up because of the extreme nature of outliers.
to be more specific...
If the 1st paragraph of an article was something like this:
It is now the 1st anniversary of the release of the video game, featuring the most stunning, realistic, and gratuitous gore and violence ever seen in a video game. It has been played by people ranging from 6 to 110 years old. More than 100 million people have played this game [ok this may be a -little- excessive for a game, but it's possible; just go with it]. A month ago, a teenager killed 7 of his friends at school, and then shot himself.
The distraught parents have blamed the shootings on the video game the male played every night, as well as to the heavy metal music he listened to. As a result of this killing spree, the game has been banned in 6 countries and 48 states. Stringent regulations are to be enacted, and the developers are being sued...
------
now, while this is obviously fiction, you have to admit that it is slightly plausible.
Anyway, back to the point about the outliers. 100 million people played the game, one of which decided to go kill some people. No one who is emotionally stable and has had a decent moral education from family or even school (heh. like that'll ever happen) is going to go and kill people because he listened to Eminem or played a disgustingly violent game.
The only kids or adults who are going to kill people are individuals who have serious mental or social problems. However, no one ever wants to admit that their child had problems, or (heaven forbid) that they were ****ty-a$$ parents, so the blame has to be placed elsewhere.
And Now, this is REALLY where the outlier part comes in:
No one ever hears about the 99,999,999 people who played the game without problem. EVERYONE hears about the psycho kid who kills people. Obviously, the media never reports the fact that the parents never taught the kid anything, or that they were diagnosed sociopathic, or very visibly disturbed. The media, however, does report that the kid played this video game.
*BOOM*
So here are the problems:
1: The single outlying event is totally sensationalizd, completely ignoring the countless millions of people who were not affected at all.
2: No one ever hears anything other than the fact that the kid played the game and listened to metal. Because people need to explain things, the only data they have to go on is the game and the music; thus that is the cause.
3: people become enraged because the blame (as always) falls on the same industries; hence they become open to submitting to useless laws which will a: hurt the 99,999,999 normal people and b: will not help the 1 unfortunately disturbed person.
well gee, this is a really really long posting...
well, to summarize quickly:
The single freak person out of millions is reported, blame is placed on video games because no one is willing to blame the parents or the schools, hence millions of regular people are inconvenienced and the disturbed individuals are left with the same problems anyway.
Thus
Society is screwed up because (at least in the US):
-no one is ever willing to blame the parents or the schools, because that's not P.C.
-because the blame is never placed where it is due, people expend freakish amounts of energy to quash and destroy things which are not a problem at all, like games and movies, and totally ignore the REAL problems, like improper parenting and school systems that are afraid to teach real morals, with the consequence that nothing is solved and innocent people die because no one ever seriously tries to help the ones who truely need it.
ok well i'm sorry bout the length of this, but this is an issue which i feel very strongly about, and i can't cut it short. If you actually read it, thank you, and hopefully i won't get modded down.
if you disagree, plz reply via email because i'd be most willing to have a serious debate with someone about this.
final note: i'm 17, and i've been playing violent games, listening to extremely deathy music, and watching violence on tv and in the movies since a tender young age. However, my parents have taught me from an even younger age that violence is bad, and that there is a difference between fake and real violence. So, while i laugh when a monster goes up in a fountain of blood or the badguy gets hit by a train, when I see real people being killed on the news, I feel physically ill. What frightens me most, however, are people who are never told that there is a line between real and fake violence, and (worse still) that there are people who do not realize that it is possible for people to tell the difference.
sigh.
ìì!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I have always had the opinion that laws should be made to protect people against other people doing nasty stuff to them, the most obvious one is that you may not kill someone.(ok, that one has some funny twists in the US, but where I live if I hurt an intruder in my house, I am the one on trial too :["couldn't you have hit him less hard?").
Anyway, it seems to me that these days, more and more laws are made to protect people from themself, like it's not enough to have "freedom with responsibility". Other signs are the increased monitoring in different forms of people everywhere.
What will we end up with, people acting irresponsible where they are out of reach of the laws or an area/subject not covered yet, prompting new laws tightning the grip further? I can imagine the thinking "there is no law against this or that so it must be ok", even if the thing they are about to do is a bad idea.
Do we want laws to tell people how to live? It's is the easy way out, the hard way is education. Like raising kids, the easy way is just "don't do that", you know you are going to get the question "why not", so let's not just make laws and say "because it say so", but take the time and explaing why putting your hand in the boiling water is a bad idea.
If you treat people like irresponsible individuals they are going to be ones, expecting someone telling them what to do. Look at the old Russia, "hey the goverment will give me a job, there is no such thing as being unimployed, even if I do a half-assed effort"
--------
Word of mouth isn't prohibited, and it can't be -- without both serious constitutional revisions and reinterpretations... and besides, IDSA doesn't speak gamers, just the publishers.
Also, reviewer sites aren't providing paid ads -- well, the reputable ones that aren't *just* annoying excuses for sleazy banner ads; they're providing editorial content. I don't see them being covered by this, either. This also goes for many fan sites.
Both of these media are VERY useful for getting out a message. Read the comp.sys.ibm.pc.games hierarchy on USENET, for instance, and you'll see a LOT of traffic discussing games, even games that haven't come out yet (Black & White, for instance) and ancient games (SPWaW), and games that don't have huge marketing machines behind them (King of Dragon Pass, Space Empires IV for two examples).
It may hurt Gamecenter.com's business model, if they rely heavily on publishing company ads -- but it won't necessarily hurt gamers or game publishing.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I think that the industry needs to work with game magazines and the gov't to set self-regulating standards for print and internet ads that, while advertizing an M-rated game, don't cross a PG line, when these ads are in 'family' settings. For example, printing Q3A will full-gore on screenshots, or showing the heroine in the skimpy bathsuit is questionable.
The point of the current bruhaha is that the game industry *did* agree to self regulated advertising standards.
Studies late last year have shown that they have not followed their own proposed standards.
So therefore ratings advocates have decided to put out this semi-draconic action for debate.
gregg
Work Hard, Rock Hard, Eat Hard, Sleep Hard, Grow Big, Wear Glasses if You Need 'Em.
This is a job many parents don't want to deal with. It's sad IMHO that we have such inventions as the V-chip, letting parents "protect" their kids with the touch of a button. Many parents don't want to have to make decisions on appropriate/not appropriate. Either they are too lazy or too scared of deciding wrong. They would rather watch <insert favorite reality show here> for an hour instead of spending five minutes discussing morals and values with their children. They blindly trust the ratings to shelter their kids from the big, bad, evil world out there.
This, of course, is just some parents. Many actualy view and discuss movies, tv, videogames, etc with kids instead of censoring them altogether. Security through obscurity works no better in parenting than in computers. (Yeah, it's a stupid analogy, but one most /. readers understand).
I think the ultimate goal of the IDSA is to prevent a new DOOM from being produced. We as FPS gamers should take a stand against this form of censorship.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
- those who think the gaming audience's opinion doesn't matter;
- those who would sue at the drop of the hat (and know that the actual perpetrators don't usually have money>
In the midst of all this, I ask if there has ever been an objective and scientific study of the alleged problem.- White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
A much better and realistic idea is to restrict the advertising to media (print and TV, not Internet) to times when a certain percentage of children under 12 are watching the shows. The rest of the population is subjected to incredible amounts of fake violence and sexuality on TV and movies. It makes no sense to allow teenagers to watch these movies and to also restrict games that portray the same levels of violence and gore. We need controls, but realistic ones. I wouldn't want young children watching pornographic videos, and yet that is a form of "advertizing" control.
Waaaaait a second there... Do you mean that abusive parents is not something we should get rid of, or are you claiming that it's just one of the many things (like art and history) we should keep our children from? I'm confused (or a little slow, depends on your view).
In any case, about the bible getting an NC-17 rating, it's time for (ta ta da daaa) Meaningless Facts That No-One Gives A Fuck About (I should really invent a shorter name for this). In Israel, when kids learn Torah in elementary school, they skip the naughty parts, which are taught only when they reach highschool. Really, it's amusing to find out that while I learned chapter (x) when I was 7, in chapter (x+1) there are laws about bestiality (I think they're against it).
And gee, for someone who is so picky about analogies, you sure apply a looser standard to your own arguments: I never suggested that "parents should be absolved of responsibility." However, I will suggest here that I believe that the children of neglectful parents should be protected by society at large as best we reasonably can. And even conscientious parents can't watch their children at all times. It's common sense and the post I was criticizing contained none.
They'll just have to start making FPS games where you run around trying to pet fluffy bunnies. Then some guys will come along and create a mod where the bunnies become that rabbit from the holy grail, and you'll be given a holy hand grenade. Thank god for mods. I love counter-strike!
"0101100101? It's just jibberish. *looks in mirror, gasps* 1010011010@!? AHHHHHH!!"
I completely agree. A rating should be explained, as to give a parent a better idea of what they'd be letting their child see. However, I believe that this is already being done in newspaper ads for movies. The ad mentions what kind of content the movie contains, though not very verbosely.
The issue at hand is video games, though. I believe that such a system of detailed ratings is already present in video games, or at least it was. I'll just grab the box from Unreal Tournament...
Okay, on the front there is a mere "ESRB Rated M" icon, but on the back it says "MATURE 17+, ANIMATED VIOLENCE, ANIMATED BLOOD & GORE." It does explain why this game is rated as it is, though with the old RSAC Advisory system (which I like better) the game's content was rated with a scale. For example, UT only says "Animated Violence" which Rise of the Triad (An older game rated with the RSAC system) says "RSAC ADVISORY: Wanton and Gratuitous Violence" with a scale of 4/4 next to it. This, I think, is a much more descriptive system allowing the parent to make a better decision. A game with a 1/4 violence rating would probably be alright, but a game with a 1/4 violence rating and a 4/4 adult language rating would probably not be. Fallout, the 1997 RPG of the Year, has a rating of M, though only its violent depictions are mentioned. They do not mentioned that the violence can be turned down, nor do they mention the occasional use of adult language.
My point is is that a more descriptive system which better informs the parent would be better for both involved.
----
In stores like wal mart, you have to be at least 17 to buy rated M games. They even card you. They are already regulating who these games go to. What is wrong with these games? They don't promote violence. I mean, sometimes I really want a railgun in some situations. But how can they really control this without taking another chunk of our freedome away?
Just for the record, I don't publish games. This was a hypothetical.
----------------------
Not really. It's more just filled with the current beliefs of the time plus a whole lot of "love-thy-neighbor" messages. All that anti-stuff stuff came about from the stupid religious groups that interpret the thing incorrectly.
Exactly! It's a good thing we live in modern times where we're tolerant of minorities, other religions, faggots, pillow-biters, rug-munchers, fudge-packers, etc. Otherwise, something like the Bible would only provoke hatred of these groups.
I recall going to purchase Unreal Tournament, a game with fanciful violence but a ton of blood just the same. Some kids simply took the game up to the cash register and bought it (the employee completely ignoring the M (17+) rating). When there was a parent involved, they simply plopped down their credit card at the cash register.
I even pointed out that the game had a good deal of blood and violence to one parent, who was buying it for a kid who looked around 10. "There's blood in this game?" she said. They don't show blood on the front of the box. I pointed out the M rating that was clearly stamped on the front. "Oh. I didn't even know what that meant".
More education has to be given to parents and even kids that M rated games should only be viewed by adults. Hell, can you imagine if 10-year olds across the nation were all watching Hannibal without their parents knowing its contents? Nightmare city.
--------
Carmack is an elitist, pseudonerd bastard.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
I believe murder was invented long before the gun. Hunters in the Stone Age could get by without propelling a projectile at high speed, and in the Middle Ages the preferred killing weapon was the knife.
If Klebold and Harris had substituted "The Hundred Years War" for "Doom" in their tapes before they decided to destroy their schoolmates' lives, would the government then decide to try and delete all traces of the Hundred Years War from history books? Like the gun, murder was around long before the video game. If all guns and suddenly disappeared, murder by sharp object would skyrocket; if video games suddenly disappeared, real-life murder would likely go up.
Kids without proper parental support and guidance kill kids, and since its not politically correct to teach morals to kids in school nowadays, the only people to teach kids right from wrong is their parents. Parents who drop the ball, or just "dont have time" to talk to their kids about this stuff are fucking it up for the rest of us... or maybe the parents dont know because they were not taught this stuff when they were kids (not too long ago).
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
I still think it is great (not) that violence usually gets the rating 15+, and sex gets the rating 18+. No wonder that people think this strange about sex. Wouldn't it be better to have this the other way around, or am i just stupid??
Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
Also in news today: Congress decideds that R and NC-17 rated movies are "not nice". George W. Bush has passed a bill banning them so that it won't corrupt the youth of tomorrow.
Yes, do explain those things. I'm interested in knowing how you feel they apply in this context. It's been four days now and I've forgotten most of the discussion attached to this post.
You seem to need some assistance so in return, I'll gladly explain the importance of attacking an idea or argument rather than the person stating it:
Attacking the person directly indicates that you disagree with the argument enough that you must strike it down by any means neccessary. When rational avenues are exhausted or aren't decisive however, something must be done to distract the reader from inconclusive or ineffective arguments. This is where the change in focus comes in.
The feigned disinterest by way of inserting a yawning or sighing gesture is a classic, as is insinuating that the other party is of lower intelligence. However neither of these methods are terribly effective because they're quite overused.
This also works the other way around, where someone feels slighted and feels the need to retaliate. In this case they have a tendency to overlook the validity of their arguments, causing much the same result... only it's a side-effect in this case and not intentional.
I'll make a few examples to illustrate:
Analogies are for illustrating ideas. I'm sure you got the idea I was illustrating. Analogies are never exactly the same as you [yawn] pointed out.
Here's the yawn I mentionned, covering for an inconclusive argument. It's especially ineffective here because it seems forced.
As for the argument itself, analogies are indeed for illustrating ideas and do not have to be distinctly the same but they must be consistent in logic and scope. I got the idea you were illustrating, but that was where the problem lay; It was a poor comparison for an analogy. It seemed more like a metaphor due to the inconsistency between both halves, but metaphors aren't a very good basis for arguments.
His argument was based on his own idea of the effect on him. That's stupid. Are you defending it?
Here's a two in one. The veiled insult, and the reversal. The statement "That's stupid" is ambiguous in that it could be a direct insult of intelligence or it could be referring to the argument itself, in which case the supporting evidence behind the statement is missing. The reversal comes in the form of an accusation.
Unfortunately for the argument, you ignored the fact that I said he absolutely should have followed policy, and then asked me if I'm ultimately defending the fact that he ignored policy... This is circular reasoning.
Now, if you mean to ask me if I'm defending his right to make that argument, then you're damn right I am. He may not be right, but he's entitled to his opinion.
And gee, for someone who is so picky about analogies, you sure apply a looser standard to your own arguments: I never suggested that "parents should be absolved of responsibility."
This is another insult/accusation pair. These are a very common method of adding a sting but you really must be more careful with your argument afterward because the pair is no replacement.
My statement about parents and responsibility was a disclaimer for my statement preceeding it, not an argument in of itself.
I didn't invent the concept of using analogy in support of arguments. Some guidelines must be followed or the analogy will result in a flawed argument; it's not a matter of personal preference or "pickyness".
"Where shall the word be found, where will the word resound? Not here, there is not enough silence." -T.S. Eliot
However, I do think that limiting advertizing is questionable. I think that the industry needs to work with game magazines and the gov't to set self-regulating standards for print and internet ads that, while advertizing an M-rated game, don't cross a PG line, when these ads are in 'family' settings. For example, printing Q3A will full-gore on screenshots, or showing the heroine in the skimpy bathsuit is questionable. Of course, I could demand that they don't publish beer ads in sports magazines, since I'm sure kids read those too...
Free speech will win out in the end, and fortunately the game industry has the porn industry which has fought with congress alot on these established fronts to make their point.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
screw that, are you kidding? hit the "parent" link and you can read the context yourself. Then, if you truly do not see the relevance of basic statistics applied to his original anecdotal argument, I'd be most happy to edify you.
This is another insult/accusation pairI do see on rereading how I interpreted what you wrote differently than you intended. But what I wrote was hardly an insult, and nor was it particularly an accusation unless suggesting that someone's argument is weak is an "accusation." Anyway, after reading this long-winded fulmination, not nearly the insult that you deserve. My original point was on target, and my followup to you was both concise and accurate. You continually stray from the thread, this time with your meta-personal attack claiming personal attack. If you can stick to the subject ("video games and violence and ratings and responsibility") I'd be happy to prove to your satisfaction that I'm both smarter and better educated than you.
--
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
There's several things that need to be said here..... The government is trying to charm the paranoid parents....and that's succeeding. The ratings don't mean a thing to any person uninformed....and no one cares enough to enforce the ratings. I bought a Mature game when I was 12...the clerk didn't care that my mom was there...they saw money...and the deal was sealed. No game has ever been rated A-O Adults only...although I've seen some games that should have been. Bottom line is that if a parent has a problem with a game...well, that's THEIR problem. The gaming industry does need to back off of the REALLY violent stuff i.e. Quake III, Turok III for N64 That's just too realistic. I hope this adds a new enlightenment to this thread.
~DarkVisor64
And while we're at it, let's ban all of those rated X movies. We should keep anyone from mentioning the existence of Porn, and take all commercials for those icky 1-900 lines off the air.
Somebody is fearmongering. "Oh, no, we better do something about this." The entire scenario is utterly unrealistic. The "pack our children in cotton" brigade still hasn't gotten any further than to get ratings on anything, including music, movies, and video games. The whole "freedom of speech" thing still holds on art items like video games, just as much as it does for movies.
Mythological Beast
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
When I was 15, somebody called the cops on me and my friend when we were shooting a bb / dart gun at a target (that came with the gun) in a clearing at the corner of my neighborhood recreation center. The police officer pulled up and drew his gun on us. I dropped the gun (which he would later say in his report "looked like a real .45") as soon as he pulled up, but he was so convinced that we were armed (when our hands were up in the air) that he felt it neccessary to walk toward us yelling for us to drop the weapon. His gun was 2 inches from the bridge of my nose when another cop pulled up. He put down his gun but I was scared shitless.
Buy hey... I'm a black male... just another day in the suburbs...
X
Dissolve... Resolve... Evolve...
In the example you cite, it's the computer store's fault, not the publisher's; IIRC, id Software has been good about rating its products at least since Doom, if not Wolfenstein and before. I don't know about Maxis, but if they do, the blame again lies with the sales clerks, and also with the kids.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Yea, for reals. He'd be at the church and we'd connect over a spare church phone line for deathmatching with doom. The only game he wouldnt touch was heretic (for obvious reasons). He said theres nothing wrong with killing demons if you're a pastor. I found it quite cool.
Also not all warnings are ignored. For a period of time I worked at a blockbuster video and our store manager used to consistantly make sure none of us customer service reps would rent out the games unless the child was a certain age. (despite the fact i didnt believe it mattered)
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
I hate to say it, but I think begin totally naive of the "real world" is worse. I know 2 kids at haven't been exposed to videogames as much as the rest of us. They're home schooled (not their fault) and every time they come over, they immediately latch onto the nearest electronic game, be it PC or N64. The really sad thing is that these 2 kids will stay up all night playing any game, preferably the more violent ones. They are drawn to the blood, not the content of the game. If their parents gave them a playstation, maybe they'd be better adjusted. Its becaseu thye've made the games into some forbidden fruit that they MUST HAVE. The creepy thing is the fact that they have rarely ever experperienced gaming and they overdose on it. Its not healthy to let your kids live a sterile cushioned life. Eventually they will go to a place where people use words like "crap" and "hell" (I hear they even say there) on a regular basis (its called college) and they'll flip out. And by the way Nintendo doesn't make good games anymore. Buts that a totally different rant. In conclusion, put the Bible back on the shelf, take the pacifiers out of your kids' mouths, and let them see the world as it is.
Yeah, but whayt about condoms? that's really what family planning is --distribution of condoms. The third world is having an epidemic of aids; condoms help stop, or at least slow, the spread of the HIV virus.
Thankfuflly, the EU decided to replace many of the funds taken capricously by "W" Bush.
Don't even get me started on his energy policies or his ideas for charity.
-Om
Speeling is reeely guud.
------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
To me it would depend on age. For the average teenage male wanted say Quake3 I wouldn't care if he bought it or not. Now I would have some objection if he were say 5...
Now most parents don't even care what the hell their kids do, while working retail I saw a parent buy Soldier of Fortuen for their 7 year old (before it was possible to 'tone down' the violence in that game if I remember right)... Heck most parents don't care if their kids scrape up your car with rocks (neighbor kids did that to my new car once, I had nice badly shaped flowers etched into my paintjob) or evem care if they piss on your leg (though they might feel bad enough to look away)... Most people in this screwed up country shouldn't have had kids in the first palce as they are not capable of taking care of another life, nor do they want to...
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
--I assume full responsibility for my actions, except the ones that are someone else's fault.
Are you a parent? If so then you shouldn't be allowing them to play violent games in much the same way as you shouldn't allow them to watch the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Ever hear of parental responsibility? Why should I as a 30 year old be deprived of something I consider fun because parents are too bone-idle to do their jobs?
From the fine article:
Print (including game publications): Ads for Mature-rated games may not be placed in magazines where 45 percent or more of the readers are under 17.
And what do they suppose would happen to the readership demographics of those magazines that had a sufficiently "mature" readership to run the ads? Would more of the younger crowd start reading the otherwise boring magazines?
Hmm.. I can see it now. 13 yr old kid trying to convince his mom that he only reads Ultra-Violent Gamer for the articles and not the advertisements.
(trolling for Katz) Maybe the nice folks at Wave America could add posession of "those magazines" to their list of potentially dangerous behaviors that will earn their snitches free sweatshirts or those nifty red armbands with white circles containing that ancient Indian (subcontinent) symbol for good luck and protection from evil spirits
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
When I was 7 I played wolfenstine, Doom when I was nine, and and Doom II when I was eleven and I'm fine. I know more people that have violent tendencies who didn't play these video games at young ages, than those who did.
-Compenguin
Well I hadn't thought I'd comemnt, but I've decided the following statement needs my comemnt...
<I>I am sceptical that a gun is the best tool for self-defence. Did you read the article in the Economist? Of course, I don't believe that this is the final word or anything. I know Lott has sent a letter disputing the claims. But the Economist tend to do very well researched articles. I just don't see how having a gun is going to stop somebody from shooting me. If they know I might have a gun, isn't that just going to increase the likelyhood they make sure I don't get a chance to fire it, for instance by shooting me in the back without warning? If they have a knife at least I can run, but few people can outrun a bullet.<I>
See the problem I have with that statement is that a criminal will have a gun no matter how hard they try to keep them out of this country (hell we can't keep drugs out, how do you expect to get the guns out?)... So what will this mean? This will mean if a criminal (criminal in this case meaning anyone who wants to break the law)truly wants to hurt you will probably still have a gun. Oh & forget cops, cops are reactionary here... normally by 30 mins to a hour (well after you dead by gunshot), once someone bothers to call them because they heard a gunshot nearby (that's if they bother to). So what will you do? Well you can pray he doesn't decide he wants to kill you or you can kiss your ass goodbye as he probably doesn't care if you live or die because you are limited to everything <I>except<I> a gun (you might add knife to the list of dissalowed weapons as soem states disallow real knives)... If you are at least able to carry a gun you will at least be on even footing in a deadly situation & have not just given the criminal sole power of life & death over you (or put it this way: would you rather be considered a threat to a criminal or a target?)... This is something that I at least do not wish to do...
<I>I believe you mentioned somewhere in another post that you disapproved of too much sex in the media (or did I confuse you with somebody else?). That is such an alien concept to me. If you have to censor something, I really prefer that they allow sex (a natural, pleasure giving, life affirming act) and ban violence like they do in Sweden, instead of the other way around like in the US.<I>
I had to add a couple cents here to... I'd actually rather see nudity be allowed myself (I don't think we need to see more sex on TV they already imply just abotu everything), but US culture has been prudish since the tons of realigous wackos (I call them this because some, well most, were pretty silly about what they did different than everyone else though I couldn't care less how they choose to live their lives as long as their beliefs aren't forced on me) came to this rock to get away from their torment for being different... Bannign violence though is harder than you think, that would mean getting rid of: soccer, hockey (well boxing on ice skates is a better term anymore), boxing, & football... all of which are extermely violent (well ok 'normally' no one gets seriously hurt in football, but...) sports. If they ban my video games I'd hope to hell they get equal time loosing their sports...
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
Call me crazy... but I thought it was the parents responsibility to decide what is appropriate for a child to play with, not the government...
the last time I checked the parent was bringing home the money to pay for these games no one forces Mortal Kombat or Half Life on you.
and if the kid down loads an ISO of the game from that evil internet it's still the parents responsibility to know what there kid is doing on line. Parental ignorance is not an excuses to censer every thing in the world.
Praise Causey...
Most stores have changed their policy on such things and now require you to present ID when buying games. For example, I'm a pretty young looking 22 year old, picked up Q3-Team Arena in a Target a few weeks back, and was carded for it at the counter. It's a great idea that is now in use by many stores, like K-Mart and Electronics Boutique.
video game manufacturers are the criminals for belching out their bile and filth to young, impressionable children
Sorry buddy, but this is where your wrong. You're going to tell me that it's the software manufacturer's fault for making a game that's violent. Nope, it's the ignorant parent that allows thier kids to borrow $50 to go buy a video game at the store without caring enough to supervise their discresion. That's the real problem.
--The space between my ears was intentionally left blank--
I don't think I've ever bought a game just because it had some hot babe or something in an ad I saw for it. Games are like movies, they sell by word of mouth.
100% Ad free. The Linux Pimp
--It's Pimptastic!--
When was the last time you learned of a game's existence for the first time through TV or print? Maybe this is generalizing, but it seems to me that there already exists a nice word-of-mouth network among the people who play these sorts of games (Quake, Unreal, etc). This makes me that this kind of regulation would have much of an impact on the spread of the game. (The marketing-production connection is another thing, of course.)
The coolest voice ever.
Look maybe some companies are adding blood to their games because it sells but no more than other companies are adding 'boobies'. But if you think about it it's no different than the motion picture industry and last time I checked you can advertize a rated R movie on TV. But that's not even my main point. Look at games like HalfLife, Quake, MetalGear Solid, and a tremendous number of others. These are fun games, and they are not marketed to seven year olds their target audience is 18-21. And they aren't even exceedingly bloody. I remember a time right after your well mentioned Mortal Kombat came out that games were made bloodier just for the sake of being bloodier and they didn't sell. Even look at today's top selling fighting games. They are not based on Fatalities or the intricate ways that people rip eachother appart. For example look at Bushido Blade (a great game in my opinion). Its main selling point was the fact that there were huge interactive levels and tons of different weapon combinations to choose from. My final point is a rating of M is an umbrella rating, just like an R rating for a movie. A movie can be rated R for swearing, drug use, nudity, violence, or something called adult themes (which really means complex plot). Video games can be rated M for many of the same reasons. Why should we stop the marketing of a game like Ultima Online, Everquest, or Asherton's call because it was rated M (I was going to say Final Fantasy 9 but apparant that got a T). Or how about Fallout or Myth, the list of great games goes on and on. (oh and as a PS Nintendo rapidly discovered that they really couldn't make cutsey games... look at the failure of the N64.)
We will, however, leave you with this thought: we're chilled to the bone by the lengths to which the IDSA seems to be prepared to go to appease the U.S. Congress and the Federal Trade Commission.
The article in its chilled indignation completely ignores whether or not limiting minors' exposure to violence is a good thing.
I hate to admit it, since I enjoy a bit of violence in my movies and videogames: I'd like to believe that we can all handle any type of stimulus at any age, but it seems that study after study shows that kids exposed to violent media absorb that violence like sponges - acting it out in a myriad of ways against their peers.
It seems a bit journalistically irresponsible to automatically take the side of the videogame industry's profits when there are other issues involved here.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
From the article it looks like gamecenter is trying to make this look worse than it is. They are saying that games won't be produced because they can't be advertised; however, nothing that is being proposed prevents advertising, it just limits it.
This doesn't mean I agree with the IDSA. I think they're idea to limit game advertising is very un-American. Gamecenter should report on what is actually happening, not try to make things look worse than they really are.
In the words of Eminem, 'Where were the parents at'? The clerk may be to blame, but the responsibility ultimately lies with the parents. At the age of 12 my parents didn't watch me 24 hours a day but weren't stupid. After all you just have to look at the packaging on Quake to see that it isn't really suitable for young children. Mine would have been straight back to the shop shouting the odds about selling products clearly marked as not for children to me. But then my parents aren't irresponsible and bone-idle, expecting everyone else do the parenting for them.
No one out there can prove that video games lead to violent actions. But I'm pretty sure I can prove that there are a lot of deaths that never would have happened if kids couldn't get a hold of guns. (Not really things like Columbine but more of things like kids shooting themselves and their friends because they find daddy's gun stored in his dresser drawer, or someone who gets angry and kills another person in a heat of the moment thing [note speed and effectiveness of guns])
Is it possible all these people wanting to regulate our games just have never experienced a bout of good old fashioned blood lust? Perhaps they are like virgins who extoll the virtues of a pious life until their 37th birthday when then explode in a weekend marathon of sex with prostitutes, catching an array of sexually transmitted diseases. Maybe it's safer to buy Billy a box of condoms, a copy of Unreal Tournament, and sit him down for a heart-to-heart before letting him explore his nature in a safe and controlled environment.
What about games that haven't been rated by the ESRB? As i recall they charge quite a bit of money. What are the restrictions on them.
-Compenguin
I trust the Bandura study more than I trust any recent meta-analysis study.
For those of you who aren't familiar with behavioral pyschology/the Bandura study: http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/bandura.html look for "bobo doll studies"
-bugg
Uh, No. Making the sale of video games to anyone under 21 a criminal offense? Maybe youth are impressionable, but we're definately not stupid. I'm probably a lot more mature about some of this stuff than some of my "peers", but if you really consider what is happening, it has nothing to do with the sale of the games AT ALL. In fact, we live in a damned society. You want to protect your kids from everything? Lock them up in a chamber 24/7 and hire a catholic teacher -- Hell, even the Bible could be considered "filth" if used in the wrong context.
Seeka
I think the key word here is realistic.
Nobody can tell the difference between a realistic toy gun and a real gun when it's pointed at them. This can cause some unwanted side-effects, like kids getting shot, and it is a logical step to restrict realistic-looking toy guns. AFAIK, all toy guns have those bright-orange caps on the end so that anyone can see that it isn't a real gun. They're not restricting the production of all toy guns, just requiring them to not be as realistic.
That's not to say that I like the idea of kids playing with guns (even toy ones), but that's another story.
----
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Games are one of those things that get sold based on word of mouth, reviews, etc. I never bought a game because of an ad on tv or in a magazine. I either buy it when I browse the video store, or because I heard it is good. Also, if they indeed manage to somehow stop kids from buying these games, the internet traffic in pirated games will increase.
There is some infromation (English too) in the web page of Finnish Board of Film Classification (www.vet.fi for Goatsex paranoids). The system is based on idea that the importers have the responsibility of setting the age limits.
There are five categories: Everyone, 7+ years, 11+, 15+ and 18. Now, only 18 is an *absolute* limit (BTW: it is as well the drinking/driving/voting limit here too). The 18 marking means that no-one under 18 is allowed to *buy* such a game and stores are not allowed to sell them for minors. The other limits are only recommendations.
The BoFC will not supervise activly the age limits, but can call a game for checking and enforce a limit. If the Board sets a limit, it will become absolute too. E.g. If the Board sets a limit of 15 years, the shops can not sell the ame for persons under 15.
Some recent age limits are: Mechwarrior 4: 11, 1/2-life 15, Q3: 15 years. Not too bad, IMHO.
-P
I hate people who quote
The US is on a role to censor all that it can nowadays presenting the notion that things which are not under direct control of government are somehow threatening to the well being of the US.
The CIA posted a speech by Louis Tenet, their director about one of the threates facing the US' superpower status, which went like this:
Mr. Chairman, we are in a race with technology itself. We are creating relations with the private sector and academia to help us keep pace with ever-changing technology. Last year I established the Information Operations Center within CIA to bring together our best and brightest to ensure that we had a strategy for dealing with the cyber threat.
This is part of the same government the is getting its servers defaced every other month, and not because their clueless, but rather because they use these istances to push for more power and funding.
Along with partners in the Departments of Justice, Energy, and Defense we will work diligently to protect critical US information assets. Let me also say that we must view our space systems and capabilities as part of the same critical infrastructure that needs protection.
Speech can be found here
Here's a solution for this threat, DON'T POST CLASSIFIED MATERIALS ONLINE, which they don't so what exactly is this threat? Someone DDoS'ing a webserver? 15 years ago when they only had the SIPRNET amongst themselves this wasn't an issue, they still use SIPRNET but now its an issue?
Violence will always be violence and will always exist and whether video games, movies, music promotes it is never truly known, all we hear about are studies, and polls which claim this is the case, violence is fueled by games, music, etc. I never took any polls asking me questions, have you? Where are they getting their information from? has anyone took a quick look to think about this, who exactly is it thats answering these questions, and who gave them the right to decide for the majority of the people?
Lacking the control they would love to have, the government will attempt to control as much as they can while they'll turn around and their explanation will be "Its for your own good", well to be honest I'm more concerned about getting better funding for schools, building housing for those in need, drug rehabilitation vs. incarceration. Not for my tax dollars to be spent by political bigwigs chasing the people at Bonsai Kitten because they think its immoral. Why haven't they done anything to sites like Defacation Vacation which posts pictures of women getting raped, killed, etc? Surely a life of a human would supercede a kitten?
The same government is claiming that Cuba is our worse enemy, are you serious? Cuba? Give me a break Uncle Scam, Cuba is so crippled the only threat they could pose is if they stopped smuggling Cigars to those in Politics under the table.
We can't forget the Osama Bin Laden incident where he's using crypto and stenography. Whats next are they going to go after Spam Mimmic for jumbling up words?
anyways enough rambling I have better things to do
"When I was a Buddhist, it drove my parents and friends crazy, but when I am buddha, nobody is upset at all"
I think its about time that parents became more responsible for the content their child sees. Parents get what they deserve when they set their child down in front of the TV and put a controller in their hands. The government or any other regulatory body has the right to determine what is appropriate for my kids.
"pr0n": An anagram of "porn," possibly indicating the use of pornography. - www.microsoft.com
Uh, it *is* off-topic.
I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners. - Berke Breathed
Look, I played Wolfenstein, Doom, Quake, etc starting when I was 13. The games have had no effect on me. I am scared to death of guns. If I ever see one in real life, I will not even be able to pick it up.
There will always be people in the world who are weakminded enough to try to solve their problems with violence. This has very little to do with video games, movies, or television. Do you think that people somehow get confused about the danger of guns when they kill someone in a video game? No, they don't. Do you think they get desensitized? Not in real life. Yes, I am less sensitive to video game and movie violence, profanity, and sex than I used to be. That, however, has nothing to do with real life. I am very much opposed to violence in real life. I am not a proponent of using profanity in public, especially in the presence of children. I am opposed to having a society that is too sexual.
So, you tell me what has happened to me as a result of playing video games.
No matter what you do, there will always be seedy people who seek violence or graphic pornography or whatever else. Please don't take things away from me because you are looking for something to point your finger at. Perhaps you should point to the fact that there are no restrictions on procreation. We have some of the worst members of our society producing offspring. They grow up with alcoholic, violent parents. Often, they grow up with one parent and grow enraged at a parent who abused or left them. Perhaps we should look at why our society does not frown upon things like adultery and divorce.
This is one of the problems that I've found with the America (MPAA) movie ratings system. I live in Canada, and most American commercials I see are rated 'R'. In Canada, we have an 'AA' (Adult Accompanyment) rating, which restricts people under 14. Movies rated 'R' in Canada are rated 'R' for good reason, whereas many 'AA' movies are rated 'R' in the U.S. This additional step between PG and R is, I think, a much better system that allows for a bit more freedom for our adolescents.
----
What the hell are you talking about?! Joe Lieberman is one of the biggest censorship advocates around. He would've been your vice-president. Yes, technically he's a democrat, but he was fairly right-wing at that.
This same BS would be happening if Gore were in the white house. Maybe not some of the other stuff, but this would. The problem here is the misinformation of the current media. I think we all know about the false connections in all these school murders (well, at least the ones where white kids got killed) between the killers and video games and film and music that later were found to be completely made up. The news is reporting what people want to hear, and people want a scape goat, so they're blaming "unsavory" items of entertainment and killing their first ammendment rights.
It's really, really sad, but it's not caused by republicans.
I worked at a video game store for a bit as a cashier, and whenever a kid bought up Unreal Tournament or Q3A, I just let the kid buy it. If the kid was with a parent, it'd be just the same.
Why? First off:
- It's not MY job to be enforcing morality on your kid. YOU should take the responsibility to get off your lazy ass and download a demo of the game and determine if it meets your moral criteria.
Second:
- The ESRB's ratings are whacked. CHRONO CROSS was given a "T" for "Mild animated violence" and "Suggestive behavior". I can't find any "suggestive" behavior other than Harle's "Oh la la Serge, you look sexy!" behavior.
In contrast, Lunar 2 (for the SEGA CD, not the PSX, which was corrected) was given a "K-A" rating, despite the fact that it had some nudity, blood, and swearing. In the PSX version, it was given a "Teen" rating, which is all good, but
THIRD:
- I've played Doom, Quake, Quake 2, Half-Life, Unreal, and Wolfenstein 3D since I was 10. Now, does this make me a psychopathic killer? Did it encourage aggressive behavior?
Absolutement pas. I'm a calm individual who tends to shy away from the crowd. Yes, I'm desensitized to violence, but is that necessarily a Bad Thing?(tm)
Ummm the republicans had nothing to do with it. Remember the name Tipper Gore? She started the whole music censorship movement, and guess what party she was for?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Uh, the PMRC was an organization invented by Tipper Gore and some of her cronies in DC. (Probably about the same time that Al was inventing the internet)
If they're looking to keep dangerous content away from minors, they have plenty of other targets before they get to video games. For example:
If someone reads "Happy shall he be, he who taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones" (Deuteronomy) and bashes their babies into rocks, they're considered crazy. If someone who plays Doom and listens to Metal shoots up their high school, it's the entertainment industry's fault.
If you want to talk about protecting your children, you put an NC-17 rating on the Bible and prevent children from buying it or you're going to shut up.
There is a similar rating system in Germany, so you Americans might want to turn over here and see about our experiences with it. Games like Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein are rated "18+" and cannot be advertised or sold to minors.
i-d software knows about this and makes some sick fun of it. When Quake came on the shelves, they made advertisements about it months in advance, featuring "happy family" scenarios of a cute family all playing Quake on their computer, a typical 60's advertisement idyll, all smiling, all wearing sweatshirts with the Quake logo. Of course they knew that Quake would be labeled 18+, but they also knew that the rating would come only a few weeks before the actual launch. And until then, they made this faux ad campaign.
Anyway, I doubt that the German rating system has worked. Nonetheless, it exists and it might be helpful to look at it to compare.
------------------
------------------
You may like my a cappella music
why do we need to play quake III anyway? my fav game solitaire is enough for the world:-)))) And it even comes bundled with my favorite OS, Windoze!
I agree... This is all a bunch of conservatist bullshit... It's like the damn abortion arguement: Republicans are both for and against death.. That is, They're against abortion, but have no problem throwing a murderer into the poison chamber.
Seeka
However, I prefer to look at it this way: the government, in this case the IDSA, is attempting to be parents to our children. In my mind, all the parents out there should be up in arms; the idea that someone would try to TAKE AWAY some of your God-given influence on your child's life should trip every alarm in a parent's body. I'm engaged, and I'm looking forward to the time when I'll have kids . . . and this infuriates me. The government is ASSUMING THAT I'M AN IDIOT AND CAN'T TAKE CARE OF MY OWN FLESH AND BLOOD.
And for all the Anynomous Cowards out there who are saying that this "Isn't as Horrible As It Sounds," listen up: since when have you seen a movie, play or other work of art that was profound, spoke to the human condition, was deeply moving and carried a rating of PG or less?
THAT'S RIGHT, YOU HAVEN'T.
The human condition is bloody, full of sex, violence, betrayal and other horrible things. GET OVER IT. Even Disney movies contain these (though they're not usually depicted onscreen). I'm not saying that children should be exposed to these things at an early age. In fact, I'm forcefully opposed to this. HOWEVER, you cannot function as an adult without being able to handle these things.
I do want to note that I'm not placing video games up there with Milton, Homer and Shakespeare. However, I am saying that video games are treading a path toward becoming a medium for telling stories, not just releasing emotional stress. In this, there is a great, as of yet undiscovered tool for passing on values and teaching lessons: why? 'Cause kids love to play video games. If the plot's good and the game is well designed, then the lesson will be learned and passed on. But by placing blatant restrictions on games rated M by the ERSB, the creativity and imagination that could lead video games in this direction will go somewhere else.
InvalidOp
This is being pushed by *Lieberman* - he's a Democrat, bucko.
It's like the damn abortion arguement: Republicans are both for and against death.. That is, They're against abortion, but have no problem throwing a murderer into the poison chamber. Uh, yes. There's a difference. Murderers KILL people. ugh. (I am 'pro-choice' though, because I think the gov. should get their noses out of other people's business. This goes for Dems and Republicans.)
I don't care about the dangers, father. I just want to be good. I want for the rest of my life to be one act of goodness.
Chaplain:
Question is, weather or not this technique really makes a man good. Goodness comes from within. Goodness is chosen, when a man cannot chose, he ceases to be a man.
Alex:
I don't understand about the whys and wherefores, I only know I want to be good.
Chaplain:
Be patient, my son. Put your trust in the lord.
Alex:
Instruct thy son and he shall refresh thee and shall give delight to thy soul.
Chaplain:
Amen.
Minister:
How many to a cell?
Governor:
Four, in this block, sir.
Minister...
Cram criminals together and what do you get? Concentrated criminality. Crime in the midst of punishment.
Governor:
I agree, sir. What we need are larger prisons and more money.
Minister:
Not a chance, my dear sir. The government can't be concerned any longer with out-moded penalogical theories. Soon we may be needing all of out prison space for political offenders. Common criminals like these are best dealt with on a purely curative basis. Kill the criminal reflex, that's all. Full implementation in a years time. Punishment means nothing to them, you can see that. They enjoy their so-called punishment.
Excuse me.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Ah.......okay, I think I can talk coherently now.
Hmm. Since when do impressionable children have the money to buy a computer, much less a gaming machine AND Quake 3/Diablo/The Sims? Quake 3 itself costs $60. The gaming system could cost upwards of $2000. What? Oh, the parents bought it for them. Oh, I see. So the parents aren't paying attention or taking responsibility for what their kids are doing? They sound like the criminals to me.
But as far as having games regulated like movies...raise your hand if you have ever skipped past the idiot running the ticket at a movie theater because you wanted to see T2 or something worse (rating-wise)? Come on...raise 'em high...that's right...so I guess that regulating movies doesn't work after all. HMMM. So your suggestion that we regulate games like movies (what you actually meant was regulate them like cigarettes and liquor...but wait...that doesn't work, either...there are always ways around this sort of thing) won't work either.
Anyway, I hope that your post was in jest. Because it sure made me laugh.
InvalidOp
I'm sorry, but your comment holds no weight. There are movies with a PG rating that can be profound and deaply moving.
My case in point is "The Straight Story", directed by (believe it or not) David Lynch. It's PG, and is a touching true story of a 73 year old man who travels from Iowa to Wiscon to visit his estranged brother. This was PG, I remind you once again, and it was nominated for a Golden Globe award and Oscar.
I empathise with what you're TRYING to say, which is, I think that a rating like PG restricts the ability of the director to make the movie the way they see fit. Often times movies are made with a rating in mind, so the writer and director can't do what is best for the story sometimes.
What I think is a more fair statement to make is that movies with an R rating have much more freedom of expression, making it easier for a better story to be developed. It's not that a PG movie CAN'T be moving or profound, it's just not as easy.
Fuzzy Knights: New RPG Strips Tuesday and Friday!:
http://www.fuzzyknights.com
I've been here for a while. At slashdot that is. I've read a lot of articles here about censorship. I've read a lot of comments about censorship. Here's what I've noticed:
1) People NEVER EVER read the articles.
2) People react to the word censorship as if the government wants to break into your house and rape your children.
3) People feel that kids are resilient to ANYTHING and showing them horrible violence every day of their lives will not have any effect on them.
4) People REFUSE to accept that video games should be censored even though they may have killing or nudity (fake or not) but have no problem with keeping kids out of R or X rated movies. For some reason that protection isn't needed cause our sacred computers are involved and they are perfect.
I think that in general slashdot people are very techno-oriented. Very hell-bent on freedom at any cost. Very close-minded and bigoted. And I think I need to stop reading here so much. The highest moderated comments on these kinds of articles are always the ones that make me want to choke the life out of the poster... (almost always).
Justin Dubs
The IDSA truly is evil. No other entertainment industry has ever been this chicken. They're going overboard to avoid shadow regulations which would most definitely be unconstitutional.
You can find R-rated movies advertised on TV and in publications outside the demographics thresholds they've set. You can find Eminem songs on MTV. This is taking "protection of children" to an absurd extreme, especially in light of the total lack of objective connection between video games and violence.
The gaming industry will end up like Hollywood. If your masterpiece is likely to get an NC-17 rating you can't make it unless you're willing to gut it because no one will touch NC-17 films. Eyes Wide Shut, Natural Born Killers, and many other films get hacked to death to get an R rating. Our film industry has lost the ability to make anything controversial because no distributor will touch NC-17 material. Now gaming, after a youthful period of great creativity, is headed down the same path, only even faster. Hope you like Mario, because he's all you're ever gonna see again.
Ha ha ha.
:wq
If you want to talk about protecting your children, you put an NC-17 rating on the Bible and prevent children from buying it or you're going to shut up.
Damn right. More people have been killed and tortured in the name of Organized Religion than any other cause. And the Bible is filled with very negative messages; anti-gay, anti-female, anti-other religion, etc. Quake, Doom, Unreal, etc. show a little blood and guts, while the Bible tells you that everyone unlike you is evil and should be punished. Hmmm....
....the government is trying to play mommy again, how cute. Will they never learn? I'm sure the ACLU will be on top of this soon.
http://www.aclu.org
Jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
These types of regulation are absolutely rediculous. I seriously doubt that M rated games are having a detrimental effect on today's younger population. Violence is in human nature and you can't blame it on video games. Back before video games how many kids used to go outside and torture small insects for fun? Come on, it was part of growing up for most young boys. Or, you could just look at Roadrunner cartoons where ol' Wile E. would get crushed by an anvil or fall from a cliff. Did anybody ever think about the ramifications that kind of violence could have on kids? Hell no.
I'm kind of worried about the fate of the video game industry entirely if regulations such as this are passed. Quake, UT, and Halflife and all of it's various derivitaves together probably count for over half of the video game industry. (I'm not sure of the numbers but I'd be willing to bet my life savings on this. All $20 of it.) I've been playing violent vodeo games since back in the days of Mario. (You jumped on people's heads for Christ's sake. That's pretty violent.) I've been playing M rated games, or games that would have had an M rating since back in the days of Doom when I was probably 10 or 11, and I've come out no worse for the wear. In fact, I am probably one of the least violent people you will ever meet. It's not the games. It's the parents. Similarly, it's not the ISDA or Congress's place to try to keep these games out of kids hands. It's the parents. We as a society should not have to rely on some outside regulations committe to help us raise our children. This simply shows how lazy and complacent the American populace has become when it comes to child care. The prevalent attitude these days is to just sit them down in front of the TV and ignore them. How sad.
One more thing that I wonder about is R rated movies. Are the same kind of regulations in place for movies meant for mature audiences? If not, why is the video game industry then targeted in such a way?
Frankly, I think that regulations like this stink, and that if they pass I might finally have to write that letter to my congressman that I always talk about.
--------------------------------------
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
I think most of this legislation was drafted during the Clinton administration. And would have most certainly have passed with a Gore / Libramin Presidency remember these 2 were very into the idea of big government censoring things for the children.
Bush on the other hand seems to be hands off on this whole censoring issue...
Bush is more interested in fucking up the environment...
Yes I know he called the internet "dark and evil" or something like that.
But actions speak louder then words. Bush's has appointed Michael Powell to head the FCC, and Powell has publicly stated that the government should not tell parents how to raise their kids and the FCC will not be in the business of deciding what is appropriate to broadcast. To further illustrate this point the FCC has now dropped it's obscenity case against Howard Stern.
I know the FCC is not the FTC. I just think what's happening in FCC shows how Bush seems to have a hands off approach on the censoring issue.
Praise Causey.... www.thecauseyway.com