Slashdot Mirror
BC Scraps Mandatory Video Game Ratings
antarctican writes: "In their first intelligent move, the new government of British Columbia has scrapped
the mandatory video game rating system which was brought into effect last year. At last some sanity in this attempt to rid youth of these e-v-i-l influences.... *smirk* We can only hope others in positions of authority come to their senses too." But we must protect the children!
Arse Wanker Bum Bollocks Titties.
Get that groovy, monkey-love feeling with your SO???...
Party on...h
The movie industry is the same way. Sony/Nintendo/MS are the people who actually create the PS2/GC/Xbox discs, so they get to dictate licensing and royalties. And none of them will let you publish a console game with one of them if your game isn't ESRB rated.
The movie industry is the same way. Most theatres won't show non-MPAA rated films.
At least it's a legislative victory.
-Evan
I need those M ratings to find the good ones damn it!
Was Quake3 released in black and white only in Canada. No wonder they're miserable.
---
http://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml
I'm afraid this argument has been downgraded to a "think of the children" and can be safely disgarded
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"-Unknowen
Oh shit! Here we go again. How deep do you think the threads in this "conversation" shall go? Lets have a lottery! You know, kind of like guessing the the gender and birth weight of the next baby to arrive. Perhaps we'll get lucky and it will be still born.
'tain't got no sig
Hey, this only makes me want to move to canada even more. Not to mention BC has lots of pot.
Man, I havent used this account to post with in a long time.. I feel so c0re cause I just noticed how low my user number is.
GWB to President of Brazil - "You have blacks, too?"
I dont know if the ratings have really made a difference. I have bought several games previously that at the time I was not technicaly old enough to buy. Yet, nobody questioned me. So I dont see any major gain in having the ratings not mandatory anymore.
survival of the fittest???
Legally-blind guy at work, probably the nicest guy on the planet, is married, wife pregnant with #4.... All 3 of his current kids wear coke-bottle glasses... If I had some genetic defect, I would'nt be passing that shit on to the next generation... Some people are either too stupid to figure it out, or just don't give a shit...
This is far from their first intelligent move. They've cut taxes, put nurses back to work (they'd already offered them the highest wages in CANADA and the nurses still weren't happy), and, most importantly, gotten rid of the corrupt BC NDP and their horrible financial decisions.
"Save me jebus!" - Homer Simpson (btw, I'm probably talkin out of me arse)
Yet they should be fair. You mean to tell me you cannot come up with a game that would be considered innapropriate for young children?
Climb into my wayback machine.
The atari 2600 had a game named porky's. It wasn't based on porky pig it was based on a teen comedy movie that played heavily on sexualy deviant behavior. Apologies if I start sounding like the lesbo girls coach from the movie.
Anyways scene's included nudity, someone sticking their penis in a hole in the wall (only to be nearly ripped off by the female lesbo coach on the other side) and prostitution. Some of these elements were integrated into the 2600 game of the same name. It didn't look like anything XXX because the atari only did like 160x120 in 4 colors.
Take the wayback machine to present day.
The level of graphics today are coming closer and closer to reality. Now imagine a remake of porky's based on today's hardware. I wouldn't want my 6 year old nephew to play a game like that on his PS2. C'mon be real here, some material is really innapropriate for kids to see, imagine a game with japanese rape tenticle scene's in it (which I have seen DVD's of conviently placed next to the GAMES section) Video games can be just as addictive as nicotine, more so if there is japanese rape tenticle scenes and boobs involved. Sorry, don't mean to focus so much on those japanese rape tenticle scenes (sorta thing that sticks in your head once you have seen it) but I hope I made a good point.
What is the horrible deal with letting people know what to expect in games? I'm not a parent, but if I didn't follow games I know I could use a little help in knowing what to buy my children. These ratings only serve as an indicator of what to expect from the game, movies have been doing this for years. Ratings don't force anything upon anyone. It's just another label, what's the big deal?
I know more than you drink.
I have a (now) 9 year old son. I used to believe that it didn't matter what was in the games he played, he would be who he was, he knew right from wrong, and reality from fantasy.
In the third grade (8yo), he was given several very violent games which he quickly mastered and played as much as he could. He also started getting in trouble at school with fighting and writing violent compositions. As a test, we took the violent games away. Within a few weeks, the violent behaviour ceased, too.
Some months later I convinced my wife to try again, to see if he went back to acting violently if we gave him his games back. It only took a week and he was in trouble at school again. We took the games away and guess what? The violent behaviour went away.
I'm not sure at what age a persons personality is fixed, but it certainly isn't for youngsters. I back the ratings systems. We rely on them. I think BC is making a mistake.
I think it is the responsibility of a child's parents, not the government, to guide children onto a good road for their life. Bureaucracy never misses a chance to miss, and whenever bureaucrats try to gain control over something, it becomes a big, inefficient and ineffective mess.
What difference does it make that a video game or music CD says "Parental Guidance" or whatever? Most folks know that movies have a rating system, and I think most of the same folks don't know that there is a similar system for other forms of media. What is the government going to do, prevent children under 18 from purchasing video games? Newsflash: That doesn't work for cigarettes or alcohol. Why should it work for video games?
Besides, if the government tries to take control over video games, to protect our youth, then the next thing you know, they'll pass a law that makes it illegal for minors under 18 to play for more than an hour on a school day or something ridiculous like that. Again, don't you think the parents should decide what their children can and can't do? That's all I'm trying to say. I don't want to argue about details, like what some rule, law, regulation--or whatever you want to call it--says. I'm just saying that in most matters, parents should be responsible for teaching their children, and once they're old enough, the children should be responsible for themselves. We don't need the government sticking their noses into yet more aspects of our lives.
Oh yeah... and yes, I do know what this story is about. I'm just trying to say that it's ridiculous that most governments have this urge to waste inordinate amounts of time and money trying to control things that really don't matter anyway.
The real problem atleast in my opinion with laws such as this is it continues to send the message that video games are something only kids do, im 17 and i play games, a teacher at my university often trades games with me! The point is: gaming is for all ages, and stuff like this being taken away is good for getting rid of the stereotype that only children play games, now if only Australia would let us play Mature games and introduce an 18+ catogory
Microsoft IIS is to webserving as KFC is to healthy eating
I beleive it is up to the parent to decide what is right for their child to play. If their parent decides it is okay for their child to play World War II online, then it is her decision and not that of the BC government. A follow up from the Times Colonist is availble too. This is one of many things that I am happy to see from the Liberal government.
Oh? So you think that violent video games = violent behavior at school?
Have you checked in any other factors, like what kinds of friends he has at school, what kind of behavior he normally has?
This is merely little more than anecdotal evidence. Prove some real facts.
It's interesting, really.
If you looked at the papers, you'd see that people are complaining about this. Saying stuff like "The industry is ineffectual, and all this bad stuff" etc. (Well, they're partially true, but that's another matter). This is simply political - BC has a pretty whacky political environment.
Of course, what no one realizes is well, why do *PARENTS* buy these things then? Parents are the ones who carry that money to buy these games (after all, they do cost $50+, and no kid I know gets an allowance that large unless they were extremely rich [rich rich, not "Canada Rich" which is what the government calls people making > $60k/year (Canadian - probably about US$37-38k)]. So if the parent is purchasing these games, they're just as fault as the game industry. And if the kid manages to save that much money, or has a job, they're more or less mature enough already to play these games.
It's just a cheap call to avoid involvement with the child. Perhaps there should be birth licenses, since it seems these parents don't even want to take a 5 minutes to read that little tag explaining the meaning of the little game ratings down at EB or where else. Or even spending time at the computer playing (*gasp*, what a novel concept! Quality time! I should patent that!) with their child.
I see no need for ratings, simply just look at the games you are purchasing your son. Obviously you can tell the difference between a violent game and a non violent game simply by picking up the game and reading it's back. Use common sense, it's not that difficult. I still don't see the need to waste taxpayers money on paying someone to sit around and play games and decided whether they are violent or not.
--
Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.
Just some slight criticism:
Video games DO contain some really messed up concepts. Ratine systems provide parents with info so if there IS a real threat to a young child, then the parent can prevent the interaction.
The alternatives are not as "free" as rating systems unless you are suggesting that anything that goes on a store shelf is fit for a child to get in their mind.
The bottom line I think is that the cynicism was pretty inappropriate, IMHOP. I don'thave time to research video games and I don't want to say,"Nope, no video games for you kids, you may pick up a really nasty one by mistake." They should have some video games! They should NOT have Gore-Blaster IV: Chainsaw edition.
The cynisims implys that incorrect views (or some very irresponcible views) are held by some people.
Sam
"Son, video games develop hand-eye coordination and make children into BETTER HUMAN BEINGS!"
- Professor Membrane to Dib, "Game Slave 2", Invader Zim
More info on the change available here -- forgive the reference, I'm feeling lazy (The Vancouver Province is a tabloid rag).
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
Its clearly a form of economic censorship with video games, music, and movies. Ratings, which are unfairly and arbitrarily decided by industry groups with no public accountability, determine how many people get to see said works. For a movie, NC 17 is akin to a kiss of death, silencing alternative and unpopular viewpoints. Its the same with video games, where ratings often determine which stores carry particular games. Parents and their children should be determining who sees what, through analysis of each case, not arbitrary industry forces.
;-)
I thought it was the funniest thing when I got IDed a couple of months ago buying fallout + fallout 2 at target. Sure, I'm a little young looking, but still
Taco, hemos and chris, and katz ratings?
That is the scale, you decide the best to worst.
If it is not on fire, it is a software problem.
You can tell if it's going to be violent or nasty most of the time. If it isn't, take it away from the kid.
If you're unsure, rent it first.
BC recognises it's the parent's role to look at what their kids are playing. One person's PG might be another's R, and vice versa. Nobody should be paying for a standardized system we don't need.
Don't blame Sony, MS, Nintendo, the MPAA, theaters, or record companies for the rating system being de facto ratings. It's not their fault.
The ratings are mostly harmless, at least to ideals such as free speech and free expression. It costs nearly nothing to put the ESRB rating on a game. But the benefits it extolls are enormous. Parents -- well, some of them, at least -- like the ratings. Those who don't could care less about the black-on-white tilted "E." But really, which kind of parent is going to scream if the label isn't there? From this view, it's a good PR move for the companies to have such labeling. For those who believe that companies should take the high road and refuse to crumbled under the public's (and, more importantly, their customer's) desires, PLEASE, do not go into business for yourself.
Second: Labeling shifts the burdern of suitability monitering from the parents to, well, no one.
* Movie theaters can refuse to allow teens into R-rated movies. Parents no longer have to pre-screen movies (either by viewing or reading reviews). Movie producers do not have to worry about the suitability of their content -- hey, it's labeled! Theaters are also usually under no legal obligation to deny access to R and PG-13 films.
* Since the TV ratings came to be, sexual content has skyrocketed. Why? Because TV producers push the envelope -- now that it is labeled (see above), parents cannot complain. No surprises equals no complaints.
* Remember how everyone shut up about the vulgarity of Two Live Crew after the "Warning: Explicit Lyrics" tag came to be? And remember how bands wore it as a badge of honor?
The exception to this is video/computer games. Quite simply, the ESRB rating came soon after the advent of console gaming -- within a few years. Well, at least within a few years of graphics good enough to be considered vulgar. They were a response more to other labeling -- not so much do to objectionable video game content.
This goes to show that the market demand for labeling exists -in and of itself-. The industries in question do not require them for the sake of limiting speech. They require them because it makes for a better -- that is, more sellable -- product. And they are right.
Sorry, Mortal Kombat.
Your argument is valid for (optimistically) 90% of parents. But for the other 10% money spent on early prevention, intervention is a real bargain compared to the costs of violence in society. Kudos to the Dad who was able to see what was happening and admit he was wrong!
I applaud you.
It's not the ratings that I take offense to, it's the parents who rely on them completely who create a bad situation.
Parents should have an active involvement in what their kids are doing, and you are doing just that. You made your *own* decision.
Most parents I've seen are content to let pop culture raise their children. They're lazy. I think that's much more sick than any kind of violence in the media. It creates a bad dependence on others. When someone else takes offense to something you think your kid *should* be exposed to... Well, you know the rest.
Personally, I think that you should not let ratings define your decisions. I think you should keep making the decisions yourself.
This is exactly what the opposition to ratings is all about.
I say to you: Bravo.
Leprachaun: Now ya know what to do... burn the house down!
Ralph: Mmmhmm!
Leprachaun: Now ya know what to do... burn them, burn them all!
Appreciate it.
I live in BC, Canada, and as far as i understood the law, it prohibited the sale of violent video games to minors. By scrapping the law, now it is the exclusive responsability of the industry to police itself.
BUT i've never quite understood how banning the sale of video games to minors would prevent them from playing the game. Wasen't that the original intent of the law -- to stop kids from playing violent games?
Yes, we only sell tobacco products to those of age. Does that prevent kids from smoking anyways? Hell no. More often then not it's in the early teens that kids start smoking.
Take it one step further - you can pirate any game online with minimal hassle. Now it's no longer a tangable, physical object to buy (like cigarettes,) but rather pirated software.
Get real. This law wouldn't stop kids from playing games. If anything, it would probably cost the game companies sales. Since little Billy Bob can't buy the game from Future Shop (now Best Buy, i guess,) his only option is to pirate it online.
Ya, for sure. Far and few between are people who can admit they are wrong!
--
Some weasel took the cork out of my lunch.
I used to think ratings systems were bad. It all changed once I became a parent.
'Same speed C but faster'
...that this anecdote was completely made up, and justified with, "Well, it's okay to say it happened because I'm really sure it's what would have happened." ?
It's pretty damned rare behavior for parents to reintroduce what they feel is a bad influence to see whether it actually causes problems.
Like the other day I was frustrated in heavy traffic and actually thought about locating a railgun or BFG...
Anybody want a peanut?
Nice to see you use your child as a science experiment. Are you a Nazi per chance? That's a horrible thing to do do to a child just to prove something to yourselves. Tell me, how long can you hold a plastic bag over his head without him gagging?
At that time many articles were written about how violent video games push kids to crime. After the Sept. 11 attack, I saw an article who also blamed violent video games because apparently the author believes that the gamers are reluctant to go to war because in games such as Quake and Unreal Tournament you always end up loosing at least one game.
Now for the shocking part. Please keep in mind that governments don't take their own decisions. Their decisions are based on what most of the voters want and what the pressure groups wants. In my experience, only 10% of the population is really against censorship. I thought that most slashdotters were against censorship to, but I got surprised when they were encouraging the government to stop WinXP from being published. Stop being hypocrites.
being a former salesman in retail i can say that parents sometimes dont know about the current ESRB anyway. many times parents would buy an M game only to return it an hour later because it's not appropriate for their 10 year old. (I usually followed these up with a short intro to the ESRB system, and draw their attention to the "M - Mature, Ages 18+" box)
so for some, ratings dont matter. they'll just buy, and return if's too much for their kid.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
I GOT IT!!!!!!!!!!!
blahslbhaowjflkjicvjlkasjdfoinwlknfsd
I work at Toys R Us in Vancouver, in the electronics section, and really the Ratings were the biggest joke. Some had a Mature(18+) and *technically* we were supposed to ID kids buying them, but i saw some games that were worse and ok for the kids to buy.
TOtal crap
haha ha ha hhe has hehh aa hhah aha ahha ha hahha
.....
loser
I really think it's time that we all need to make a real effort to protect the children...
Protect them from growing up in a world of censorship and enforced lowest-common-denominator morality.
I have no problems with ratings. They give parents a guide as to what might/might not be appropriate for their children.
What I'm 100% against is not selling games because of their content. It should be up to the buyer what is "too much".
Remember the strip where Calvin's dad explained to him how they calculate the weight limit on bridges? He said they drove heavier and heavier trucks across it until it collapsed, then they rebuilt it exactly the same way and set the limit at the weight of the last truck that made it across.
Why don't we establish a video game's rating the same way? Let a control group of six year olds, seven year olds, eight year olds, etc., play the game for a month. Then set the minimum age for playing the game to one year older than the oldest child driven by the game to commit a violent and/or sexual offense.
Or would that be wrong?
I find it fascinating that I'm usually the oldest person playing on my favorite Counterstrike server and I'm 19. Most of the people playing are between 12 and 16. Ratings don't seem to matter to them very much, as they didn't matter much to me when I played Wolfenstein the first time in 3rd grade (or Doom in 6th grade).
Now, what I find ironic is the Counterstrike servers that don't allow swearing or porn sprays. So on these servers, you can watch a lifelike character's head getting blown away in full 3-d detail, but you can't express your disgust at the wall-hack cheater who capped you when you weren't looking, or show the newest fake nude photo of Britney Spears you found on the net by typing Britney into Google's image browser. I say if you're going to desensitize today's youth to death and violence, we might as well desensitize them to swearing and porn.
I mean, there is sort of a double standard with violence. When I worked at Blockbuster, a lady came in with her kids and they got the Matrix. She asked why it was rated R and checked the back to make sure there was no nudity in it. She was perfectly comfortable letting her kids see the graphic scenes of pure violence, but heaven forbid they see the semblence of a nude figure at such an age.
I dunno. I think we just all live in a very crazy world. I'm glad I'm too much of a nerd to ever get a girl and have kids.
What occurs to me though, is perhaps support of ratings systems by parents is more of a call for help from the parents themselves. The people with teenagers today are among the first generation who were raised on TV, former latchkey kids whose own parents were rarely there. Thus, with no role model who could offer guidance in the transition from childhood to the real world and all it's horrible truths, they also do not know how to guide their own children and are scared to death about making mistakes. A rating system offers them a quick, easy way to say 'No Johnny, see it says you have to be 18 to play that'. Unfortunately, they are passing down this lack of parenting skill to their children, who will find themselves dependent on an 'authority' to decide what is and is not appropriate for them to see, read, hear or play, and eventually what is approriate for their own children.
Arbeit Macht Frei
The ESRB ratings that are in place now give parents a choice. This government rating system would have taken it away from them, and enforced a style of parenting on the people of British Columbia. It also would've kept such games out of the hands of adults by making the games too difficult for retailers to carry.
There's nothing wrong with ratings like the ESRB, but there IS something wrong with ratings that have so much power behind them that they take away people's rights to choose what they and their children see. This rating system made the government the parent of not only every child, but every adult in British Columbia, and that's just wrong.
Provincial parties are usually very different from federal parties. The Saskatchewan NDP is pretty decent, but the federal NDP has no hope of getting my vote.
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
I think his methods, while not scientific, were a bit better than anecdotal evidence. He introduced an element, removed it, re-introduced it, and re-removed it. But if you need corroboration, as another parent, I will concur with his conclusion. My daughter watches a cartoon with someone hitting someone else, and she attempts to hit someone as well. She sees a movie with some Karate in it, and she attempts some Karate herself. It's such an obvious (and immediate, and easy to reproduce) cause-and-effect situation, that we no longer allow our kids to watch even "family" TV stations without some limitations.
People mirror their environment. It's called the "theory of social proof". It used to be called the Werther's effect. Go learn about it sometime.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
This is an off topic post. I'm only posting it so that someone with mod points will waste them on me and mod me down, rather than use their points on an on topic post. I love cheese.
Sheila Broflovski:
Just remember what the MPAA says: Horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words!
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
In the strip, Calvin's dad was bluffing an answer in order to maintain his ego and to not let on that he had no clue how they derived the maximum bridge load. It is an undisputably impractical method. That being said, what level of detrimental effect is considered unacceptable? What would you consider to be a violent/sexual offence? Would you take the oldest child who murdered someone? Or would you take the oldest child who hit someone at school? Or would verbal abuse, agressiveness, and excessive beligerence be enough to merit rating the game one year higher? The simple fact is, if a game is unsuitable in content for a certain age, it does not have to drive them to murder in order to produce a detrimental effect on them. I'm afraid, "Yes, That would be wrong."
What's in a Sig?
1. Why is linux better than windows? (assuming you have money) keeping point: (YOU DO HAVE MONEY TO BUY WINDOWS)
i'm like you. I like pizza. I like the beatles (but some songs are overrated). I like video games. Playstation 2 is awesome, X-Box looks awesome, but may not have the games that the new nintendo has. I want to know when I can have a DVD burner, and when I can chip out my PS2... I am one of your kind... But WHY WHY!!!! Why is linux "Better" than Windows...
-JT
Maybe you just suck as a parent. That or your son's a retard.
I'm surprised that video games are only ever rated according to objectionable content. They should be rated according to addictiveness as well! Becoming addicted to a fantastic game (RPGs in particular are famous for this) and ignoring schoolwork, friends, and the real world, can have just as detrimental an effect on a child as the content of the game they are playing will on them. I know I've experienced first hand what happens when one only lives to play a certain game and lets the world revolve on past....
What's in a Sig?
Exactly right. Does anyone really care, since it is only providing "advice" to people purchasing it - you can take it as seriously as the Bible, or completely ignore it. Your choice.
At least the system was only a ratings "advise".
Here in Australia, You CANNOT purchase games that are 'recommended' [BS] for an age level higher than your own. Technically, it's illegal for a 14-year old to purchase Half Life (although retaileres don't generally ask for ID, so its fairly easy to circumvent).
What's worse, the highest rating is MA15+. Anything higher than that is pretty much banned, as far as the law is concerned.
I understand and agree with your course of action in your presented scenario. I would just like to make sure it is understood that what happened with your child does not necessarily happen with all kids.
:-). Anyway, I've seen LOTS of martial arts movies. I've studied martial arts. Since a young age.
I grew up watching "violent" cartoons like road runner, g.i. joe and transformers as well as non-cartoons like A-Team, Kung-Fu and more.
Also, since a young age I've been a huge fan of martial arts. Jet Li is, of course, my favorite.
However, I have NEVER EVER been in a fight. I've never even hit anyone. I never will. I've never been in trouble at school for anything other than talking-back and heavy duty slacking. I'm a lazy son of a bitch, but not violent, not at all.
Anyway, just some anecdotcal evidence to provide some perspective. Have fun,
Justin Dubs
Granted - You can probably guess that Aliens Versus Predator will be a bit more greusome than the Sims, but the information on the box is not totally descriptive. It's quite useful to have a vaguely objectiveand immediate opionion on who this is suitable for
I pretty much agree with you on why preventing minors from purchaseing doesn't prevent most from playing it. I just want to point out that, from what I've read, of the people who have started smoking in the last few years the majority of them are in their early twenties (I think this was even a BC study I was reading... might have even been in the sun... I'm not sure). It certainly is true a lot of young teenagers do smoke despite not being able to buy cigarettes but a lot of teenagers don't smoke due to the banning of cigarettes sold to them. Of course your point about games not being tangable, unlike cigarettes, is dead on.
You'll also be happy to note that the BC Government's ISP (PLnet) has IP-level and DNS-level blocking in place.
Not such a bad thing, but PLnet provides internet connectivity for every school (primary, secondary, and some post-secondary) and other government entity in British Columbia.
You'd be surprised what they block with their "red screen of death" too. Apparently all it takes to get on this list is a single complaint.
Being a B.C. resident, I had the opportunity to listen to a radio call-in programme which discussed this act of government. Two things were very much apparent. Firstly, the older the caller, the more they supported tighter control over game sales. Secondly, females were far more supportive of those controls. I'd say it's pretty likely those people have had little or no contact with video games of any description. Whereas they doubtlessly watched countless cowboys slay hordes of savage Indians in the cinema of their youth, they have little tolerance for similar violence in new media.
My suggestion? Rather than behave like a bunch of old woman, we as a society should encourage parents to be aware of the games their children play. Would a parent take a kid to see an NC-17 movie? No. Video games are little different. Caveat emptor.
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Let the parents know what the game contains - violence (to what degree?), sexual situations, alcohol, religion, whatever. Don't slap on a 'teen' or 'mature' rating - let them decide whether the content is appropriate for the children.
Not all 13 year olds can handle the same content, and you know not all teen-rated games have the same 'harfulness' to even the average teen, let alone an individual.
Addictiveness is not defined by isolated incident but by the way a population react to a product. Most people will react addictively (more or less depeding on their biology) but they will all react addictevly within set parameter. OTOH you are speaking of isolated incident from people which *had* particular weakness. Which is not a real indicator of addictiveness of video game. A real study would involve a big population of gamer. And seeing how those rare isolated incident are, I would guess that it would prove that video game are as addictive as reading, or other old fashioned gaming.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I just got my copy of wired today, there is an article about autism in silicon valley on the rise. One of the statements posed by the author was that these children gravitate towards games, they lack the social ability to read people's intentions on their faces, ect.
So what is to stop a game company from producing a game that is "addictive" towards people with these biological pre-dispositions. You can add Attention deficit, Obsesive compulsive, and all sorts of other people with disorders that are pre-dispositioned to like games. No different than Phillip Morris fine tuning the amount of nicotine in each cig (drool)nicotine yum.
It may sound like conspicary but it's probably allready been thought of. Atari could have been conducting psychological profiling of gamers to understand how to create a mass marketable game with addictive qualities. It's scary to think about i'm going away from this post now.
"Oh Lord, I seem to be English too."--Randy Giles.
government of British Columbia...".
Actually, this is about their fifth intelligent move.
From abolishing photo radar, to allowing competition
in auto insurance and privately funded health clinics
the Liberals are on a roll.
I'm considering coming out of exile and returning
to Lotus Land.
Ojing
The main influence I've always thought children need to be protected from are people in positions of authority, especially those with an agenda and an utter disregard for the rights of others.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I saw this little kid playing gta3 on a ps2 at a LAN party (well, LAN gathering) the other day, and he seemed to be enjoying him self. After playing for a few hours i found it to be a fun and entertaining game for all the family - You could beat police officers (pigs) to the ground with a base ball bat and the repeatedly kick them until they oozed blood. You could 'jack cars and run down old people and even sniper inocent pedestrians from accross the street. On the way home, i considered flaging down a car, 'jacking it and going on a rampage, but then i remembered what the game taught me: Killing is all good an fun, but theres only one of you, and plenty of pigs, so unless you plan on killing yourself, you'd better not screw with them.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Couldn't agree more.
More information is rarely a bad thing. Those who claim it is are often covering something up...
Food is FORCED to list its indgediants (I know, a SHOCKING violation of the rights slashdoters hold dear). Hope to see BC reverse its decision on this as well.
Why do so many on slashdot want to deny the right of parents to make a choice for THEIR children. Just because you like your kids doing gory MK3 finishing moves doesn't mean every kid should.
Rating make it straightforward for folks to take a look at a game and have an idea of where it falls in the violance catagory.
Mandatory ratings are not a good thing. But that's only because an industry should choose to self-regulate. Ratings are appreciated by more than just parents trying to filter their childrens' entertainment; there are people that prefer to play less violent games, or perhaps would be disturbed by sexual content, or occult symbology (if they were a religious nut or something).
Surely giving the consumer more information can never be a bad thing.
Yet all of this simply illustrates the point that PARENTS are the only ones who will control what kind of games their kids play. Laws aren't going to do it for you.
Or both...
Getting in trouble for writing violent compositions? Get him out of that damned public school, and send him to a school where he'll simply be graded on skill and merit, or asked to redo the assignment and the viloence problem will be brought up with his parents. The ratings system, isn't going to change what games he is given, that's YOUR job. You need to be your kid's moderator, not the government. A 9 year old doesn't even have the money for a video game, so it HAS to go through you first.
Derek Greene
ChrisD=Chris DiBona, hardly a new guy. Been around for a long time.
Derek Greene
Calvin's Dad is a patent attorney. As such, he has to have a pretty good science background (e.g. a BS in a hard science or engineering, a ton of credit hours in physics, etc.) in order to pass the patent bar.
;)
He probably knows _exactly_ how they determine the maximum bridge load. He just enjoys abusing his parental authority. Remember the one where he tells Calvin that most children are bought at Sears, and then assembled at home, but that Calvin was the blue light special at K-Mart? "Almost as good, and a lot cheaper."
I've got to say, it does sound like an awful temptation.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Those duck-humping wankers that were in power in BC for so long are gone. I'm not one for politics.. but those jerks screwed up *so much* in the last few years.
Now, maybe they can turn my beloved province back into somewhere I can actually work for actual reasonable money and I can move back home.
It was to regulate the sale of these items to minors.. not to regulate minors from using them.
A parent is still legally free to purchase a game for their child, and let them play it. Just as a parent is still free to take their child to an R rated movie. (Funny, though, I've seen a movie theater manager actually arguing with a lady that she shouldn't be taking her child to Terminator-2)
Regulating smoking *DOES* work. there are less teenage smokers now than there used to be.
No matter how you slice it, though, excessive regulation is a waste of money, and they are bang on. If parents can't control the video games their children play, they aren't spending enough time with their children (or their children are smart enough to do it anyway).
The original intent of the law was to prevent kids from buying the games, ie: to force the decision on the parents.
That's grossely inefficient.
You are asking every single parent to review, in full, ever single game, movie, and tv show that their child comes in contact with. It's noble, it's doable (seeing as you're probably already highly interested in what you're kids are doing), but it's grossely inefficient.
Don't get all high and mighty on me. I'm not asking that someone do my job as a parent. I'm asking that someone make my job as a parent a bit easier, so I can cook dinner instead of watching over my son's shoulder for an hour trying to figure out if the game he's playing is too violent (and that's *after* it's been bought), or hunting down a reputable review of the damn game before he buy's it.
The whole advantage to society is organization and reducing dulication of effort. You aren't helping.
He probably knows _exactly_ how they determine the maximum bridge load. He just enjoys abusing his parental authority.
Then again, Calvin isn't exactly the most attentive audience when it comes to listening to explanations. Like when he asks his dad what causes wind, and his dad answers "Trees sneezing." Calvin asks, "Really?" and his dad says, "No, but the truth is a lot more complicated." Then next panel shows Calvin saying to Hobbes, "Boy, the trees are really sneezing today."
I totally with you, but.....
:).
This is a straight A student since kindergarten, too. Still is.
I thought the composition was pretty good. But, he had been instructed specifically, on more than one occasion, no violent subjects. No guns or bombs or people getting decapitated.
If we had time to home school, we probably would do that. I'm somewhat anti-public schools anyway. I believe my son learns more about math, science, and computers at home than he ever will at school. And I'm far from convinced that the other stuff he learns is always good. Especially the "social skills" he learns on the playground. (Some of the guns, bombs and decapitations might be justifiable:).
The real value of the rating system is not that it prevents stores from selling the games to minors. Kids that want them will get them, if they are allowed to, I have no doubt about that. What the ratings do, at least around here, is define, upfront, a limit on which games are acceptable and which are not. When the line is drawn that only "E" games will be acceptable, it makes it easier on the child because he's not told No over and over and easier on the parent who doesn't have to say No over and over. That reduces stress around here
You don't end up with unacceptable games on christmas lists (and grandparents buy that stuff without looking at the ratings). Then you've got to exchange it (with an argument about why he can't play it first). The ratings define a useful line in the sand and I hope they stay, at least here. I don't live in BC and they're free to do as they wish.
As for the money, he does have the money to buy a game occassionally. Grandparents give him money and I pay him to mow the lawn and do a few other chores so he will have his own money. Yes, we do control how he spends it, to some extent, but that goes back to the stress issue:
Son: I want QIII.
Dad: No! (blood pressure starts to rise)
Son: It's my money! (blood pressure starts to rise)
Dad: No! (blood pressure goes up a bit more)
Son: Why can't I spend my money how I want? I earned it! (son gets angry)
Dad: No! (blood pressure goes up a bit more)
No, the ratings are not a perfect solution. The ratings themselves aren't always correct. But it's an attempt to do it right and it's better than nothing.
So, you're playing mind games with YOUR child? I find that very hard to believe, and if it is true, i see that as an incredibly cruel thing to do on a growing kid. The consequences on his future can be incredibly devastating and what you did proves nothing, because there are inumerous other factors that can influence him.
People used to think of comics as "evil" to the children and they even banned some. Guess it's happening again.
Erm, I think you mean "jizz" mags. If BC wants to take away my "Bass Player," I'll just stay in Ontario :)
Oh, WTF is "SoF" ?
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I wouldn't call it mind games. More like on the job training. You are oversimplifying a complicated situation (and justifying it by claiming it is complicated). You sound very naive.
Who's calling the games evil? You made that up.
The US has one of the strongest economies in the world, primarily because it uses force to back it up. Anything that could threaten US economic interests is either destroyed or knocked down with military power, or squeezed shut with trade embargos. It is just the way things are, right or wrong, but don't attribute everything to capitalism.
However, capitalism, while part of the puzzle that has helped the US end up where it is, has also caused the loss of their citizen's personal liberties and rights. Corporations make a joke of their election and parlimentary process, by the mere fact that they are allowed to influence it to the degree they can.
Furthermore, the US owes a lot to the fact that they lost so little in WWII compared to others involved in said conflict. This led to their dominace on the world stage, and they've used everything they can to remain there.
You need to repair your Obvious Sarcasm Detector.
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
I think a rating system can be good and bad. Many many games are rated wrong, some are rated up, some down. A rating system should not be enforced by the government so only someone over X years of age is allowed to buy such and such game. Instead it should be there as an option for most game companies to adopt the ratings as well as a decision for the parents to use them.
I think the problem is that most parents choose to ignore the ratings that already exist, and I doubt that the situation would be improved by government mandated ratings.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Your son doubtless considered it punishment when you took his games. He probably believed he had to be good if he ever wanted his games back.
It usually takes a second spanking for a kid to recognize the pattern of cause and effect. Once he realized he was never getting his beloved games back, what else did he fear you might have taken away if he had continued misbehaving?
Deprivation punishments are pretty standard parenting. If you took away his bike and the violent behavior stopped, would you assume bicycles are the cause of violent behavior?
I'm not saying violent entertainment is suitable for children. Quite the contrary, I think letting an 8-year-old child play violent games is completely irresponsible. They show neither consequences nor acceptable justification for violence, they're Violence Because Violence Is Fun games. But your anecdote is not indicative of a causal link, and certainly not a valid argument in favor of video game ratings (in your case you knew exactly what your child was playing and had control over what he was playing, even the most appropriate ratings would have added nothing).
The best rating system is one where you have to put a rating on a product, but they're only advice for parents.
This link says that a person's personality is fixed at age 25. Scroll down about halfway to find the direct quote.
In the U. S. A. that would not be wrong as long as some corporation could make a buck off of it!
Wake up people. We know that exposing someone to a single message repeatedly changes that persons behavior. Our whole society is built from that assumption. We call the processes advertising. It does not matter if you are selling violence, soap, or beer, it works.
My observation of the Liberals in Canada is they tend to take up any position on the political scale that isn't dominated by anyone else. In places where the decidedly left-wing NDP is dominant, they adopt the right-wing. In places where the right-wing conservatives are dominant, they take up the left-wing. In the national arena, they seem to be mostly left, favouring social programs and spending. They seem to remind me of a chameleon for some strange reason.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
I live in BC. The liberals are a joke. They were formed from the remains of many other corrupt conservative parties and have been colluding to oppress anyone who doesn't make at least 100,000 a year.
The are going to raise tuition (AGAINST ELECTION PROMISES). They are bringing a Training Wage which is 75% of the minimum wage (BTW in BC you cannot live off of minimum wage unless you live in your parents basement and they don't charge you rent).
They are cutting welfare ESPECIALLY for single mothers.
Their excuse for getting rid of this legislation is that it was "anti-business" which is the worst possible reason ever.
They gave away tonnes of their money in tax breaks to the very very wealthy while ignoring the fact that we are in a recession and our medical system needs funding. THEY FORCED THE NURSES back to work. THE NURSES DID NOT AGREE TO WORK. The nurses are underfunded and understaffed. Money that could have gone to them was in turn given to rich.
DON'T BELIEVE ANYONE WHO CLAIMS THE LIBERALS HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB. These people are born w/ a silver spoon in their mouth and Millions in businesses that their families own.
The BC Liberals are nothing like the federal liberals.
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
So stop paying for everyone else. Create a poor, frustrated, and very large and well-armed underclass. Make it clear that the government as exists will offer them neither aid nor succor, and the only way they will make a better lot in life is to get rid of that government and replace it with one that cares.
The death of social programs is the main ingredient in the textbook recipe for a communist revolution.
Be sure to smile while you salute the hammer and sickle, comrade. It'll sure have been worth saving pennies on the dollar that would otherwise have gone to food step programs.
Okay, let's pretend for a moment that you're disturbed by sexual content. You go to the movie theater, and as you're standing outside you notice that the movie they're showing is rated PG-13.
Should you see it? Does it have sexual content? How can you tell?
The ratings systems in current use don't tell you what's in the content, just what age some bureaucrat thinks it's appropriate for. That PG-13 movie could have got that rating for swearing, or violence. Or it might be all about sex.
Ratings tell you nothing at all about what is in the content the rating applies to. If you want to be able to select based on actual content factors, don't ask for ratings, ask for content descriptors. If you want encoded content descriptors - V for violence, S for sex, etc - sure, that's nice, ask for it. But don't tell me that you can successfully use ratings to find the content you want.
Neither the movie ratings system nor the video game ratings system tells you anything about the content of the material being rated.
Parents who use ratings to choose video games (or movies) are failing to fulfill their parental responsibilities: they are deligating the job of choosing content for their children to someone else. Moreover, they are allowing someone else to decide on what factors to base the decision without having any knowledge of their child.
And if you really believe that "ratings don't force anything on anyone", you're obviously not thinking about the effect it has on the people who create the material being rated. See my previous posts on the subject.
I would wholeheartedly agree, but I would add that I don't think that anyone's personality is ever 'fixed'. Cos if it is, maybe we should throw away the key when we lock anyone up.
Kids are, however, very susceptible to peer pressure and (just about any) external influences, especially those we wish they'd ignore....The permanence of the effects of these influences is another debate.Mind you, Kipling once wrote 'Give me a boy until he is 7 and I shall give you the man.'
Perhaps he was onto something.--This isn't a man who is leaving with his head between his legs.
What better way of protecting our children than giving them the skills to methodically slaughter terrorists that games tend to provide?
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
God save our queen!! That's the most embarrassing sig I've ever seen. As a Canadian, I'm ashamed. Man, get a life! We need to dump the queen as fast a possible; having a monarch as the head of state is a *ucking joke!
'Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.' B. Pascal
Since we are into anecdotal evidence :
(a) I played video games as a kid. Lots of video games. I still play them. FPS were a dream come true for me. But, anyway, I play lots of video games. When I was a kid, I was a wimp (ok laugh). I don't hit people. People don't hit me.
(b) I know a parent, really nice woman, who has a 12 year old. His dad is a prof. They play Red Faction on their home computers. The kid loves following his dad with his sight on the dad's head, and laughing at his dad. His parents are the nicest people around, and I love the kid who is really really cool. (How do I know about this? His mom loves telling me the stories, and invites me to deathmatch her son.) The kid don't hit people. People don't hit the kid.
So, draw your own conclusions.
I've never seen videogame content scarier than what's on the airwaves. Good on the Libs for not wasting any more time on a bad idea. But lets get real, folks, the Slashdotters don't want to read about our pathetic local politics.
But for those weirdos who do, the videogame issue is DOA, here. There are only three recent development in BC with international ramifications. Our softwood lumber industry has been bitchslapped with illegal tariffs by crazy foreigners, err, Coalition Partners. In other law-breaking news, the ruling Liberals have illegally refused to acknowledge the official opposition, breaking with centuries of legal precedent. Finally, the Vancouver Police have recently acknowledged that most minor drug offences are no longer enforced.
Moderators: if you don't live in B.C., shut the hell up.
/., and screw you guys for posting it here. If you think I give a flying fuck about video games in my province, think again. I couldn't care less whether some trailer-trash fatbitch in Surrey or WhiteRock doesn't want her snot-nosed kid playing a FPS. She's probably living common-law with some welfare case drunk, growing pot in the basement while she collects disablity for being a fat CUNT.
I've been living in B.C. for the last 6 years, I came here just as the Land of Milk and Honey was drying up. This province has only one thing going for it -- the weather. If anyone ever tells you that Vancouver is nice and whatever, they are FUCKING LIARS. Fuck B.C., and Fuck the Liberals, and Fuck the NDP. Fuck any one who wants Unions and Home Schooling too. Vancouver is NOT a metroplois, and is NOT a center of culture. This city may have a pretty view and moderate climate, (tho it pissses rains all winter) but thanks to the socialist NDP that was really a bunch of self-serving hacks that neither fostered business nor social reform, and only existed to fatten their bank accounts like no other corrupt goverment in Canadian history, this province continues to stagnate in a backwater swamp of blue-collar, left-wing social welfare, absurdly high taxes, and substandard government services.
FUCK B.C. This whole video game thing is a non-issue. That's twice this topic has been on
Anybody who lives in the Lower Mainland knows exactly what I mean. The warm weather and sea trade routes attract every kind of human waste you could imagine.
Crazy people come here because they don't freeze their asses on the street in the winter. Welfare cases come here in droves because the other provinces are cracking down on slothful freeloaders. Crack and Heroin addicts have commandeered and entire stretch of the Downtown core. This isnt your regular Skid Row, kiddies, it's a friggin epidemic. THIS IS LIKE NOTHING ELSE IN THE COUNTRY. Almost everyone of these people has HIV, AIDS or tuberculosis. Land of Milk and Honey indeed. Why it was ever called Lotus Land is beyond me. Should have called it Poppy Land. Or Coca land. The division between rich and poor here is ridiculous. Armies of cracked-out squeegee kids, wiping the windows of armies of Lexus drivers.
Vancouver has all the big city problems and none of the benefits. The rest of the province is just a series of gas stations and strip malls on the Trans-Canada Highway, posing as cities.
This place has far worse problems than fucking video-game rating systems. We have laws that prevent you from driving, drinking, and getting a piece of ass off the street. So what if I have to show some ID to shoot up some 3D bad guys. I have to show the same ID to watch 3d bad guys kill each other in a theater, so who cares.
The Liberals are a bunch of right-wingers, and I hate right-wingers. Liberal is supposed to be left-of-center, and they are NOT. Privatise health-care? Get fucked. Kick all those goddamn blue-collar seasonal trade workers in the ass for me, I certainly don't get to bitch for 6 months a year about how my benefits didnt come in yet-- becasue I have to work all year around!!! Get a regular job you mustachoed friggin lumberjack.
This province needs high-tech, but you won't be seeing it. All our schools are LITERALLY full of Asians and Mexicans who will leave as soon as they graduate. All our resources are leaving the province. We sell our raw goods to the world for a penny and buy back slave-labour-finished products for a dollar.
FUCK B.C. Calgary is looking pretty good right now. Flatlanders were always so much friendlier that the snotty West Coast hippies anyways.
(posted without +1 bonus)
I 100% agree with the AC poster as it's quite likely that this is the reason for the child's good behaviour. Hell, I remember when *I* was a kid, and I'd be on my good behaviour just to get what I wanted from my parents.
I did get into trouble at elementary school sometimes, and I did play games like Pacman, Space Invaders, Gyruss, and other ultra-violent oldies. Why oh why didn't anyone ban these games so I could've had a normal, non-violent upbringing? (heavy sarcasm for those who didn't catch that)
Oh, and during those times I got into trouble, it usually came from standing up to a bully. What are the circumstances of YOUR kid getting into trouble at school?
Being someone who spent the early half of his education in school and the latter half home-schooled I understand. My point is however, he's you kid...you still have the say. Private schools are still an option by the way. Homeschooling costs just as much believe it or not! :-)
Derek Greene
I don't think you understand... Haven't you ever heard the song "The Maple Leaf Forever"? It was pretty much our national anthem until O Canada was adopted. The Queen as Head of State has nothing to do with the song. What's wrong with having a monarch?
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!