Slashdot Mirror
Jack Thompson Rescinds Offer
Goalmaster3000 writes to tell us Joystiq.com is reporting that Jack Thompson has rescinded his offer of a $10,000 donation to charity if a video game were made to fit his model. Recently a group of GTA modders cooked up a scenario to fit the bill but apparently Thompson is claiming that his piece 'A Modest Video Game Proposal' was intended as satire that the video game community was not bright enough to grasp. Perhaps Thompson was just afraid he was going to have to sue himself? Update: 10/17 20:02 GMT by SM: It appears that the Penny Arcade crew has taken the next step by donating the promised $10,000... in Jack Thompson's name.
With a name akin to Swift's famous "A Modest Proposal", I can believe that Thompson thought it to be satire all along. However, the bit about promising to donate to charity was uncalled for.
Well, I can see his point. Political statements are more important than people.
He is nothing but a common troll. He lives on attention. YOUR attention. Stop giving him page hits; stop giving him political capital; stop giving him the time of day.
Really, why is it necessary to point this out?
No kidding, what an ass. Who jokes about giving $10,000 to charity? I mean, if he'd offered it as a direct prize to the winner, that's one thing - but claiming you're going to give it to charity and then renegging? No wonder the NIMF wants him to never mention their name again.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Well it sounded legit to me. Of course in this day and age people have forgotten about "Put up or shut up". It sounds like the put up part has been breached but thankfully the "shut up" portion remains. Hopefully that part will remain.
Thompson resorted to mere name-calling when he couldn't win his argument.
Then:
What a fucking moron.
IMO you need to work on your consistency.
It wasn't satire. If you read half the things he writes (by the way, his site www.stopkill.com looks severely cripple lately. Any explanation?), you'd understand that this man could actually be quite violent given the way he reacts to intelligent defense of game(r)s.
I honestly thought the guys who made Postal2 would make his game and put on the box 'Jack Thompson's (insert title)' just to call him out. It wasn't a joke to him, he wanted to know if the game industry would make itself the target instead of cops, hookers and other gangs/inmates to see if gamers would start killing eachother instead of a second grader bringing a gun to kill a fellow student. The man is honestly sick and twisted in a very bad way.
Perfecting Discordia
www.stevenvansickle.com
I'm over here on the other side of the Atlantic, so perhaps that's why I haven't heard of this Jack Thompson fellow. Who exactly is he, and why should I care what he has to say?
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
People don't say, "I will donate $10,000 to charity," as satire.
/syle
In all fairness to your valid point, the difference here is that the grandparent substantiates the fact that the guy is a "fucking moron," whereas Thompson's name-calling was apparently unsubstantiated and resulted solely from being unable to rebut the arguments of a 14-year-old kid.
It's the difference between saying "I can't stand up to you in an argument, so therefore you are an idiot." and saying "You can't stand up to a 14-year-old kid in an argument without resorting to ad hominem attacks, so therefore you are a moron."
The emails sent from the 14 year old, can be found here: http://croqaudile.com/?article_id=10299 There is also a great wikipedia article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_(attorn ey) ) that relates his history, and well, exploits.
It seems he probably originally did mean it to be satire... He was thinking "Do this outrageous thing that you won't do, and I'll donate $10,000". It turns out it's not that outrageous, and it was easily done. He thinks it's outrageous, because the theme is killing people that are supposed to be "on our side", but he doesn't realize that it's just a game, and games can go beyond the realm of what is acceptable in "real life" and still they themselves be acceptable.
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
I think this deserves a name -- let's call it the Slashdot Fallacy: The erroneous equation of one group of people with another group of people merely because the two groups happen to cohabitate on a certain website.
So it's the same people who are taking one position and then another? Do you have links to comments to back that up?
See, that responsibility is important and all, but the nuclear family is a relic of the past age. If the parents you mention fail to be concerned enough, we as the metaphorical village get stuck with the sociopathic loser for the next 30-60 years. Their responsibility becomes our responsibility.
Also keep in mind that nothing in American society comes close to the "it takes a village" philosophy. Our society is still nuclear-family at its core, and will not be changing any time soon.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
I think that one of the responses given here were pretty accurate ... you are a fucking moron yourself. I'm not trying to present an argument to an opposing party. This is not a debate. I'm just re-iterating a past event in my own words.
Naaarf.
I used to think Linux was cool -- then I turned 14.
I have to agree with you 100%.
He emailed Penny Arcade looking to vent his spleen against one of thier comics that played apon his request and the issue of video game violence. In the email he included his phone number. Can't remember if it was Tyco, but one of the board members called him to discuss the offer and clarify some of the vague points of his offer. He demanded to know how they received the phone number, threatened to sue them if they called again, and chewed the guy out on the phone.
Jack Thompson lost a child and blames video games. In the above actions, all he would have had to do is describe the pain of losing his child and state that he believed that video games played a role in his circumstance. He would have had a lot of sympathy and support from the people playing games, instead he treated all players a fringe psychopaths, and presented himself as a supreme *sshole. He doesn't know how to court the market, he's treatening to go to war against it.
He never would have donated $10,000. He thought it was a safe bet, because he thought the market was so controlled and fragile that it would have acted with the same rigidity as the *IAA and NEVER ALLOW such a game to be made. If he was going to spend that money, he would have done it a long time ago by sending it to his representative (with a letter wrapped around it, telling of the painful loss of his child and the circumstances under which it happened).
Far be it for me to point out the obvious questions of whether a father who is so quick to explode might have led a destablizing influence on his children. He may have been a model citizen before the incident, but today he's just a foaming at the mouth lunatic who's mad, and probably not to discriminating at who he hurts to received "justice" from the videogame industry.
I'll grant that, no problem. But can someone describe for me the "narrative context" in Postal 2 which justified such actions? Or even Manhunt , which, god help me, I actually paid money for and played all the way through.
(If you never played Manhunt, the idea is that you're a convict secretly rented out to a snuff film producer to take part in a game so shocking and post-modern that it was considered a classic of short story literature in 1947. You get extra points for exterminating your hunters in as gruesome and vicious a manner as posible.)
So to recap, no love lost for Jack Thompson, but Tycho should be a little more honest when it comes to the really disgusting games out there.
Or have a short fuse and do not feel like debating the issue any longer with that specific person. It does not take long in a discussion with someone to realize they are not open to your opinion or ideas and they are not going to change their views regardless of what points you bring up. In a real organized debate in front of an interested crowd, you can continue to pound the points home and although the direct person you are debating with may not change or even acknowledge your points, there is a chance that you can get people in crowd to understand them. The incentive to continue a debate under some circumstances is much less if the surrounding crowd is small or non existent and you are debating in a non live event in front of people like email or over the phone.
For those of you that do not agree with what I just said above, too bad and I think you are all dirtbag losers.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Slashdotters seem to think video games have no effect on people. Thompson sees them as horrible killer-trainers. Personally, I fall somewhere in between.
I love playing Halo. It's exciting and fun, and the "violence" is pretty mild. I have played Unreal Tournament and GTA (older versions), but gave them up because to me, they were too sadistic. They didn't make me want to kill people, but they made me a little more inclined to be a jerk.
It's the same with TV. If I watch a show like "The Shield" or some pissy reality show where everybody hates each other, I get a little bit into that angry, "screw you" mentality.
Think about your personality and attitude. Me, I'm very laid back, because my dad is laid back. I like goofy jokes because my dad does, and my friends growing up did too. (I also watched Monty Python.) I can see how these influences shaped the way I am.
Most of us spend several hours a day using some kind of media - music, TV, internet, video games, etc. Just like the people we're around, these virtual friends DO shape our mentality, somewhat.
I will never be a homocidal maniac, regardless of what I watch or play. But I do know that seeing examples of people who laugh, who love and forgive each other - whether those are real people or on TV - makes it easier for me to do the same. Exposing myself to hours of anger and selfishness makes me likely to replay those thoughts and words. Just because I'm an adult doesn't mean that everything is equally good for me.
Does anybody else see that?
http://www.penny-arcade.com/news.php?date=2005-10- 12
Gabe was talking to Jack via email, suggesting a charity which would have liked to received the money, which Gabe is active in promoting. It is backed by gamers, but isn't pushing videogames (any more than other toys) upon children.
Jack noted that Gabe's phone number was in his email, and took it upon himself to call Gabe and personally chew him out and threaten Gabe.
Interesting comments, and completely off-base.
A man can be both pro presonal responsibility (eg, parent blamers), and anti-track your movements (if I understand what everyone above is saying correctly) without any inherent contradictions. As a parent, I strongly feel that it is my responsibility to society to make sure that I raise my children to be well-adjusted, generally law-abiding, and otherwise good people. At the same time, I feel that some of the tools that might make this easier (gps cell phones is the example above, but not the best) are not necessarily a good idea, since they can--although they don't have to--have the effect of encouraging parents to be lazy--I call it the "congress will fix it" syndrome.
That said, I am probably not as anti-tech as some people seem to be. A technology that helps a concerned parent do their job can be a good thing. But it can also be a bad thing for parents who are already shirking their responsibilities.
I do agree that many folks would be upset about parents searching their kids' rooms. I suspect that most of those who do are either kids or are young enough to remember what that was really like as a kid. I never had marijuana in my room (that I know of), but I had some other things that my parents didn't really appreciate (my mom, bless her heart, is one of the "Dungeons & Dragons is an evil evil game, and will corrupt your soul" types--I am an avid gamer; we still have discussions focused on that disagreement), so I know what it was like. I still plan to make sure I know what my kids have in their rooms. Why? Because that's part of knowing what your kids are doing. Do I plan to make a big deal of it? No. I will let my kids know that a certain level of privacy will be afforded, but that at the same time I need to know what they are doing in my house.
Will I get them GPS-enabled cell-phones? Probably not. In fact, I am unlikely to buy them anything so grandiose as a cell-phone. If they want one when they are older, then they can pay for it. That way when they talk for 3000 minutes on a 700 minute a month plan, they can foot the bill, not me. That will teach them responsibility much more quickly than having a gps-enabled phone. The goal is not to track their every movement--that just teaches them to lie, cheat (including leaving the phone somewhere they are not), and otherwise get around your pathetic attempts to know exactly where they are at any given moment. I would much rather teach my children that actions have consequences, and that life is not likely to hand them a free ride.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
I hardly see why. The poster was not using his obscenity as evidence in a debate against Jack Thompson, rather instead he was stating it as a conclusion concerning Jack Thomson. The first is an ad hominem fallacy, the second a valid opinion, given the evidence. To reiterate, the poster was not using "Thompson is a fucking moron" in an argument against something Thompson was doing/saying, but rather was concluding "given these behaviors, I feel it it safe to conclude that thompson is, indeed, a fucking moron"
When an RFID-school-pass, GPS-cell-phone, or junk-food-in-schools story appears, the thread are dominated by comments denouncing the Orwellian tools, calling for parents to butt-out. Yet, in threads like this one, when the shoe is on the other foot, the comments swing the other way, with almost no one blaming the violent games themselves, and instead demanding that the parents take responsibility and get more involved.
I'm on the "parents need to take more responsibility" side of every argument you provide. Parents need to spend less time on the rat race and more time raising their children. Period.
Orwellian tools: Better parenting doesn't mean fooling themselves into believing that remote monitoring tools will replace actual parenting, so don't bother with the threat to privacy and security until you've actually raised your kids. The few problem kids after actual parenting have failed can have their movements monitored at your favorite local juvenile detention facility (you think I'm joking, I'm not).
Video games: Parents need to 1) spend time with their children and provide them a sound ethical education (before they're 12. if they haven't got it by then, it's too late); 2) put in some effort to be aware of how their children are spending their time (TV: which shows? Video Games: which games? With Friends: which friends and doing what? etc.) and 3) please not purchase violent video games for their disaffected teens. How did this become so difficult again? You don't need the second SUV or the second largest house in your subdivision. Get your priorities straight and put your family ahead of your total adjusted earnings.
But if you were the story were to suggest a parent secretly search their kid's room for marijuana, suddenly the thread would be overwhelmed by posts demanding that the parents butt-out and "let kids be kids."
Marijuana: while they're in my house, they're subject to my rules. Those rules include "No illegal drugs inside the house." I'm not particularly upset by marijuana use per se, but I do get very antsy about federal property seizure guidelines which make my home forfeit at the discretion of the seizing officers. I'm not going to randomly toss bedrooms, but if I have reason to believe that there are drugs in my home, I will spend some time trying to find them.
Regards,
Ross
It doesn't matter if it was satire or not anyway. This game doesn't count - his original "challenge" requires a nationwide boxed retail distribution by summer of next year. The game was going to be created - of that no one should doubt. It is unlikely that a publisher would publish it, and more unlikely that any retailers would carry it.
But even if all that took place, it doesn't matter - this entire debate is being orchestrated by him. When he stops talking, there's nothing to fill the void - there aren't any pro-game people working the press. When he is talking, the debate is always about how bad these games are - not about how good they are.
The upshot:
If the gaming industry wants to gather public (not just gamer) support, they need to stop reacting and start acting.
This particular challenge is one he can't lose no matter how the industry reacts. "Are you still beating your wife?"
-Adam
So telling people to harass someone is "informative" and a good way of proving our point(s)?
Given what we know about his replies already, lets not drag ourselves to his level. The egomaniac craves attention, and guess what examples of the things those "evil gamers who oppose me do" he is going to bring up next? And we already know that he doesn't want to have a civil debate or discussion, so why even bother talking to a brick wall?
He also has been on a losing streak lately, and now you have to add more fuel and "creditability" to his fire. He may be nuts, but encouraging people to harass him just makes us look bad. Even more so when we are reduced to his level of "acting civil."
Seriously slashdot, enough with the spamming/calling/Ddosing of people we don't like; please grow up and be more mature about dealing with things like this. I don't have a problem with informative emails(i.e. non-emotional and informative complaining about company X's defective product or really restrictive DRM), but this one is really asking people not to be civil with the intent to hammer him. Stuff like this and intentionally Ddosing sites(i.e. needing to check the RIAA's site several times, "just to make sure it is still up")make no real progress with the issue at hand.
I'm just curious why no one has contacted his Bar association. From what I'm reading in these various transcripts, if they are indeed accurate, he is violating several of their ethical guidelines, particularly with his threats. In the very least, several complaints made against him to the Bar would require a review of his actions and the reflections they are making on the legal profession in his jurisdiction.
He would be taken quite a bit less seriously if his teeth were removed and he was no longer able to legally practice law.
From the Florida Board of Bar Examiners website:
"The primary purpose of the bar examination is to ensure that all who are ultimately admitted have demonstrated minimum technical competence. In order to be admitted in Florida, an applicant must have proof of good moral character and must successfully complete the Florida Bar Examination."
In the admission requirements are then the following items:
"What is disqualifying conduct?
Pursuant to Rule 3-11 a record manifesting a deficiency in the honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, or reliability may constitute a basis for denial of admission. Any of the following may be considered by the Board to be a basis for further inquiry before recommending admission:
* Unlawful conduct
* Academic misconduct
* Making or procuring any false or misleading statement or omission of relevant information, including any false or misleading statement or omission on the Bar Application, or any amendment, or in any testimony or sworn statement submitted to the Board.
* Misconduct in employment
* Acts involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation
* Abuse of legal process
* Financial irresponsibility
* Neglect of professional obligations
* Violation of an order of a court
* Evidence of mental or emotional instability
* Evidence of drug or alcohol dependency
* Denial of admission to the bar in another jurisdiction on character and fitness grounds
* Disciplinary action by a lawyer disciplinary agency or other professional disciplinary agency of any jurisdiction
* Any other conduct which reflects adversely upon the character and fitness of the applicant
Additional details about the Florida Bar, the exam, and how to file complaints can be found at http://www.floridabar.org/
While I think it was not fair of him to offer a donation for what he later called satire Jack Thompson made it semi clear that it was in fact a satire. While the violence was over the top his suggestion wasnt. However if you paid attention in high school or college you may have heard of a work know as "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift. One of the early and most well known satires about Swift suggesting that Ireland suffering from Famine and poverty should eat and sell their children for food. Note the title of Jack Thompsons proposal "A Modest Video Game Proposal." For the record I am not siding with Jack Thompson but I'm not the smartest man in the world but when he claimed his work was ment to be satire I put 2 and 2 together so I would hope someone else has. Also I would bet the someone here may have already pointed this out but with upwards of 300 posts I'm not going sift through them all. Look it up or read it here. Its short and sadistically funny. http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch/Courses/95c/T exts/modest.html
It seems that with this man logic doesn't work.
I think that there is a perfectly, ahem, logical explanation for this. If Mr. Thompson is seen consistently saying things that are absolutely false, it makes him appear crazy. Mr. Thompson knows this. Being a lawyer, he knows what is needed to prove someone guilty of slander or libel. If a person consistently makes untrue statements, it is actually harder to prosecute them for these charges, because it is harder to prove that a person who acts like this actually knew that he was lying. It's the only way to avoid being sued by nearly every videogame company and trade organization in the US. For another example, see someone like Bill O'Reilly.
When you look at the state of the world, how can you not become a radical, liberal anarchist?
Rockstar has lawyers of its own, as well as an entire PR department. I'm sure it would be fairly simple to put out a press release praising Jack for his charity and saying that if he feels the game is satisfactory, Paul has strong feelings toward the fight against childhood leukemia (or somesuch), and if Jack likes, he can choose any charity that works toward its cure. In fact, Paul might say, that Jack's idea has moved him so that he would like to make the same donation.
Hell, even if Jack refuses and attacks Rockstar for misinterpreting him, Paul could apologize, say he misunderstood, and make the charitable donation himself.
[insert witty quote here]