Slashdot Mirror
B.C. Officially Proposes Video Game Regulations
CitizenC writes: "The British Columbia Attorney General has now officially proposed
legislation for a government sponsored classification system for video and
PC games. Stomped spoke with a spokesperson with the Attorney General's
office today for more infomation about the proposed regulations; read the report here." Basically, the proposed system (only proposed, note) would require video games be rated, much like movies are. Phwew! At least this is Canada! Nothing like this could ever affect us down here in the land of the free, home of -- Oh wait. Yes, it could.
That's all well and good, but for every child who would react similarly to how you did, there would be a child who would go back to smoking and drinking, even if they initially found it distasteful.
There's reasons besides moral ones why we don't give children ready access to smokes and booze: they're much harder on a child's growing body then they are on an adults. Pr0n's a different story, in that it's not directly harmful. The argument could be made, I suppose, that it's mentally damaging, but that's left up for the psych majors to decide.
I'm basically libertarian in most of my viewpoints. I believe that adults(not children) should have the freedom to choose, die, drink, smoke, do drugs, etc. I don't believe these freedoms should be granted to minors. Rating video games is not the end of the world people. We have ratings for movies here in the USA and many of you would consider this ok.
There are better things kids could be doing anyway. With age, comes maturity and more responsibility. We don't let minors drink, smoke, or watch porn. Why should graphically violent games be any different. If parents want to buy those games for their children, then they have the right to do so. If a parent wants to rent an "R" rated movie for their teenage son, then they have that right. All that was suggested here is a rating system, not the end of game consoles as we know it.
I'm sorry, but does anyone else notice that timothy has been complaining about everything he can at every opportunity? Especially Microsoft, but everything in general.
HELLO. Movie Ratings aren't a bad thing! Why are ratings on video games a bad thing? Responsible parents will like a system like this because their kids will obviously want to play games, and parents usually have no clue as to their content.
Have you looked at the video game rating system we have here in the states? It's pretty nice. It comes with a Letter rating, as well as a summery of items contained in the game that contributed to that rating. I, as a 21 year old gamer, even find this system useful for myself. It takes less than an inch of package space, and doesn't affect game play whatsoever.
SO WHY THE HELL ARE YOU COMPLAINING? I mean, Christ! It's not like they're storming into your house, pointing a semi-automatic weapon at your head, and READING the ratings to you. It's a fucking tiny little label on the packaging!
Get a Grip! Seriously. Complaining about stuff doesn't make you a "Cool Kid", it just makes you irritating. Especially when it's over trivial shit like this.
If it was a large-scale violation of basic rights, I can see complaining. If it was a move by the industry to stifle the consumers, or force their hand, then I can see bitching. But complaining about a fucking rating system? Jesus Christ, you need a hobby.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
I agree, but one thing I want to be sure of is your definition of children (a vague word in our language). If "children" means "pre-teens", then I'll say "yes, I agree completely". Otherwise, I'll say "it's too late".
Seriously. If the "child" you're referring to is 15 years old, and playing a video game causes them to develop violent tendencies, then something has already gone seriously wrong in their development.
Regardless, a rating system by itself is good. Restricting the higher-rated games is censorship.
The enemies of Democracy are
Look, there are similar ratings on movies, OK? I know that those ratings are totally s****ed up in the US (like, you can show as much blood, gore and violence as you wish as long nobody says 'fuck' and you can't see a bloody inch of a tit), but that the system is s***ed up in the US doesn't mean it is s***ed up everywhere. Have you seen `The baby of Macon' by Peter Greeneway? Would you let just any kid wander into the movie theatre to watch this movie? You could give countless examples like that.
I am the last person to think that games are the cause of violence and various killings in the US. Not taking care about ones children definitely is. Obviously, a kid playing Quake with his parent, who will take the kid after the game to talk it over and explain a few things is better off then a kid playing day and night Civilisation III, because his parents don't give shit about him. But, you see, making a classification of games is for the parents who care. If the parents don't nothing will help. When I was a kid, I had no technical problems getting my hands on anything which was forbidden: from matches in my early years to XXX and violent videos a little later.
Best regards,
January
Meahwhile I do NOT believe that Doom caused Columbine, I believe that it is common sense not to give an 18 rated movie to an 8 year old. AFAIK young children are quite impressionable, and they will try to find role models; giving them violent/unsuitable ones is a bad idea. For people who are more mature; those in their mid to late teens, such material is most probably fine.
A rating system for games probably isn't such a bad idea in a way, since it would prevent kids from obtaining unsuitable material.
NOTE: I am not saying that violent movies and games are bad (although they may be unnecessary in some cases), I am saying that it is a bad idea to give such material to a young child. This is what a rating system can prevent.
Basically, the proposed system (only proposed, note) would require video games be rated, much like movies are.
/* And you'll never guess what the dog had */
Where exactly is the problem with this scheme? What is wrong with marking a disgustingly violent game like Soldiers of Fortune as such?
It's not like those who will buy the game anyway couldn't, and letting parents know what kind of content is to be expected in a game is certainly a perfectly justified proposition.
However, I'm wondering how they are going to go about checking out all possible game situations, looking for violence. They's need awfully good gamers to be able to process the quantities of Quake clone being published these days.
Maybe they're hiring?
/* in its mouth... */
/* And you'll never guess what the dog had */
/* in its mouth... */
--Larry Wall in stab.c from perl
Is this a reason to get upset?
Ratings are nothing new really. And they are very usefull for those parents that do want to consider non-violence in the upbringing of their kids. By giving ratings, you simply give a choice. What's wrong with that?
If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
I was part of the protest when this issue first got raised. Someone (YES, A SINGLE PERSON) called the Attorney General's office to complain about Soldier of Fortune. Now I particularly dislike SOF, but I felt I needed to speak out. I spoke to the mainstream press, along with the actual organizer of the event. The organizer, Iambe, a columnist for UF, amongst other things, spoke to the attorney general's office, and they promised they'd be sane about it. It looks like they took what we told them to do (just implement ESRB), and perverted it in the usual Canadian government way , IE, try to ban or tax or "license" things it deems objectionable. My biggest complaint about BC is the extreme lengths the government will go to be "Politically Correct". At least they didn't try to institute their own review board like their first idea. Man. Such idiocy.
-- Perl Hack, Web Hack, SQL Hack, Guitar Hack
I support the idea of a ratings system for video games. With all the talk now about how parents aren't paying enough attention to their kids, I think it's important to provide some tools for parents to supervise. Granted, something like filterware which doesn't work and actually hinders more than it helps is a high profile example of a flaming failure, but I think this would be better. Many parents trust their kids to the ratings system, and I hear relatively few complaints in that area except by kids who aren't old enough to see R movies (I was one of them too ;-)
This system would help parents decide what to let their kids buy, while still letting that college student check out Soldier of Fortune. What's so wrong with that? If we're going to be casting blame on bad parenting, then shouldn't we help the parents to be good parents without hindering free speech? Remember, a mother can still buy the latest Playboy DVD for their son if they want to, the ratings won't hinder their video game buying abilities any more than it will their movie buying abilities. It'll just help them make better choices.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
This reminds me of the hoopla regarding those "Explicit Lyrics" stickers added to albums. When they first came out ('86 or so), the stickers actually added to the appeal of purchasing the album, since, if you were a teen, you were "dangerous" for having such "edgy" material in your possession. Now, after approx. 15 years of having these stickers, nobody pays attention to them. Think these new ratings will follow the same cycle?
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. - "Big Al" Einstein
"Come on now... your child playing violent video games does not cause him/her to become a killer/rapist. Bad parenting/lack of good parenting is a much bigger factor"
That is the / cause of all the problem with kids these days: most partents aren't worth a shit anymore. Parents either by necessity (thanks to the record tax burden), or by choice (gotta have not one but TWO BMW's in the garage) are both working and that means kids don't get the supervision they used to.
Naturally parents don't blame themselves, even though they are at fault. It is 100% the parents fault for basically abandoning kids to be raised by TV and video games. Is it any wonder that kids are more succeptable to influence by media now than ever before?
Parents shift the blame to TV, video games, the Internet, etc (the very things they abandon their children to be babysat by). Why? First to pass blame. Second, for convienience.. To them, its perfectly acceptable to place restrictions on EVERYONE ELSE'S liberty to gain the convienience of not having to supervise their own children.
The consequence of 20 years of bad parenting (my generation and my parents generation have to be the WORST parents in the history of the world) will be a set of laws that have no effect on the kids at all (laws restricting my access to things never stopped me when I was a kid from getting what I wanted to see, though there weren't many inthe 80's) but they WILL have a chilling effect on free speech and expression on those kids when they become ADULTS.
Unfortunately, I can guess as to what the next phase will be. I'm sure somewhere, some unprincipled lawyer (oxymoron) in allaince with some brainless Soccermom group is getting ready to try to sue the video game industry out of existance.
It's time to quit harming the rights of adults to protect children. Children will become adults someday, it's a biological fact.
As each year passes and another hysterical Soccermom group gets another law passed, the children of today are going to be less and less free as adults tomorrow.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
I don't understand why this is such a big issue. British Columbia Attorney General Graeme Bowbrick is not suggesting that the video games be banned, he is suggesting that there should be a rating system for the games ("government sponsored classification system").
I love playing video games myself, but I have played a few that I would deem unsuitable for children of certain ages. There are issues such as violence, foul language, etc.... I wouldn't want my 12 year old child (supposing I had one) going to a restricted movie, just as much as I wouldn't want him playing a graphically violent video game.
I don't think that the BC Attorney General is suggesting that we start the equivalent of a book burning club, just that we provide more information for the consumer. The ability to make a more educated decision about the product that you are purchasing is a bonus in my mind. As long as the rating are consistent, then I can see no harm in this proposal.
For all of you crying violation of civil rights, get a life. Not everybody buying these games is old enough to understand the contents of them, nor understand the effects of the contents. Let the parents and those of us that are over the legal voting age make these decisions...and kudos to those that want to help us do this (and provide us with the necessary information to be able to make educated decisions about it).
It's not about censorship, it's about awareness.
Sincerely,
A Canadian from British Columbia