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Goalmaster3000 writes to tell us Joystiq.com is reporting that Jack Thompson has rescinded his offer of a $10,000 donation to charity if a video game were made to fit his model.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.

Comments

Ugh

[Enigma_Man]

The fact that the guy thinks he needs to explain that his request was satire just means he didn't understand that what he got back was infact satirical. You might say he's being sassed, and doesn't even realize it.

-Jesse

Re:Ugh

[syle]

People don't say, "I will donate $10,000 to charity," as satire.

Wait wait wait

[ifwm]

A lawyer lied, and people are surprised?

I can believe it.

[neuro.slug]

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.

Re:I can believe it.

[ari_j]

The problem is that he isn't Swift. Very few people can write satire that effectively. Unfortunately, the people who can't are those who keep trying.

I think that there is a case for promissory estoppel here, under contract law. If his satire were good, then maybe he could get away with calling it that, but his satire sucked really bad and it should be treated seriously as a result.

Re:I can believe it.

[Ykant]

The problem is that he isn't Swift...

Curiously, this sentence is just as accurate with improper punctuation...

Negation of a negative

[matr0x_x]

So a satirical response to a satirical comment gives us what...

Ah, the irony!

Satire People

[brokenarmsgordon]

Well, I can see his point. Political statements are more important than people.

Idiot

[BartulaPrime]

So, he thinks we weren't bright enough to realize his "satire"? Well, at least we're bright enough to know the difference between video game violence and real-life violence. Otherwise, we'd be bunny-hopping our BMX bikes over his front yard fence and blowing him away with my machine gun.

This man is a moron

[Tomchu]

I saw the entirety of a back-and-forth e-mail conversation that a 14-year-old gamer had with this moron. It was hot on the heels of the Hot Coffee debacle, and the kid was actually very well-spoken. He brought up excellent arguments, rebutted points made by Thompson, and continued to press his original point.

Thompson kept trying to weave out of the argument, and eventually ended up calling him names, telling him to grow up because he was just a pathetic child, and other crap unbecoming of an attorney. The kid completely won the argument by not only proving that gamers were not just idiotic 14-year-old kids, but also because Thompson resorted to mere name-calling when he couldn't win his argument.

What a fucking moron.

Re:This man is a moron

[Headw1nd]

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"

STOP GIVING THIS GUY FREE PRESS.

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Ah yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Jack Thompson, increasingly, resembles nothing more so than one of the least competent of slashdot's trolls.

MAN 1: I am going to kill you and rape your family!
MAN 2: ...
MAN 1: What, don't you know satire when you hear it? You have no sense of humor at all. Idiot.

Typo

[RancidMilk]

"Jack Thompson Rescinds Offer" Should be: "Jack Thompson steals $10k from Charity"

Depends on Performance

[debrain]

In general, this is a 'contract to the world', an offer of reward on completion. It's often called a "race across the desert", a unilateral contract with neither consideration nor quid pro quo. The first one who completes the contract gets the reward. If revoked prior to completion, you generally have no recourse. If that is not the case, there are two common ways to sue, or offer as a baseline for negotition, for failure to fulfill his end of the promise.

First, if you complete the contract first and give sufficient notification of such, and it is prior to his unilateral revocation, you can argue that he breached the contract. As the first person across the line, you are typically entitled to the reward. Breach of that may entitle you to estop the contract. In other words, entitlement to fulfillment of his promise.

Second, if you say that you relied on his contract and had sufficient reason to believe that the contract would be fulfilled (i.e. there is precedent for this type of contract, e.g. auctions for services to be rendered; or it would be unreasonable economic policy to not enforce payment because your reliance on his statement was reasonable and it would be poor form to permit his type of statement when it incurs your type of economically inefficient reliance), you might be able to sue for your costs, your lost opportunity, or his benefit.

Jack's game scenario

[Profane MuthaFucka]

I can't believe that Jack Thompson offered 10 grand to charity if a game where animals hump your leg was made.

Oh, it wasn't that at all? Well, you know if someone had fucking LINKED THE ORIGINAL THING THAT JACK WROTE then I would have known that. Goddamn.

I found this description of the original hoo-hah:

  Essentially, the game involves Osaki Kim, a father whose son was "beaten to death with a baseball bat by a 14-year-old gamer." The guilty party was "only" sentenced to life, even after finding a connection to video games and the murder, so O.K. (as Thompson abbreviates) goes on a killing spree to avenge his son - he kills the publisher (Take This, a not-so-subtle reference to San Andreas publisher Take Two), followed by all parties involved in the trial, merchants of GameStop-like store and arcades - and, of course, any cops that get in his way.

You're welcome.

Re:Tycho

[brentodd]

Tycho and Gabe just donated $10,000 to the Entertainment Software Foundation in Jack's name.

Media: what's good for me?

[Nerdposeur]

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?

Re:Minor Corrections.

[Iriel]

Oh I know, actually Gabe told Jack that $10,000 is pretty weak from a famous Miami lawyer when their charity has already raised half a million (in money, toys, etc.) in two years from the gamer community. That's what pissed off Jack. Then Jack accused their charity of being hollow because they're supposedly some flush-with-cash game company and that Jack's donations mean more in the ethical sense. When Gabe (Mike) emailed him back to clarify that they are not flush-with-cash at all, Jack called back and spent the entirety of the conversation screaming because Gabe asked him if Jack would have to sue himself for proposing such a horrifically malevolent game. Part of the way in the conversation, Jack hung up.

Check out the transcripts of emails between Jackie T. and Scott from VG Cats. It's even worse.

If this guy wants to play with fire, I suggest somebody put up a site to publish all of Jack's threats and verbal abuse (plus nonsense) and see if he gets institutionalized. I seriously think that man is pathologically violent.

Here's the original forum

[Khyber]

http://croqaudile.com/?article_id=10299

Enjoy it. I know I did.

Re:Contact him

[not_potable]

Wow. I actually just spoke with this man, at the number above. He asked me who I was, and I made the mistake of saying that I wanted to ask him some questions about his proposal to the (oops) "internet community". He then started raising his voice, saying that he made this proposal to the "gaming industry", not a bunch of modders working out of their basement. I couldn't get a word in edgewise. He told me to get a dictionary, and hung up. Ever the cool-headed one, he.

Email Transcript

[MoonBuggy]

Here's the brief email conversation I just had with him. My messages were short, and I fully admit they could have been more crafted or articulate, but I asked what I wanted to ask to satisfy my own curiosity while remaining polite. I tried to put forward direct questions in the hope of direct answers. It appears I will not be having any further contact with him:

Mr. Thompson,
I have a single, simple question to ask, and I would appreciate if you would take the time to answer; how do you justify your position of moral superiority in the debate on violence in computer games when you bear in mind that Penny Arcade, some of the most vocal proponents of the industry you are against, paid the promised $10,000 to charity in your name when you refused to do so?

Yours, Greg Tebbutt

The answer is a) I never refused to do so, b) I haven't heard from Paul Eibeler to what charity he wants me to send the money, and c) the terms of the proposal have not been met. I never said I was kidding about the offer.
They made that up.

The item at Penny Arcade about this is false and defamatory and it is actionable. I told them to take it down or else.

You got any more stupid questions?

Thank you for your quick reply. Although this may be considered a "stupid question", I would like to clarify the point: will you outline where the modification at http://hellfish.gtajunkies.com/Jt.html falls short of your expectations, and commit to donate the money when the shortfalls are altered? If you are not willing to do so, would you please explain your reasons?

Greg Tebbutt

I did. No te I have have not heard from Mr. Eibeler. That makes two sets of stupid questions. In this game, two strikes and you're out. Don't bother me further

I do not intend to 'bother you' with this reply, and as you evidently do not wish to debate I will not continue this conversation further, however for the sake of completeness it would be helpful if you could direct me to where I can find the correct version of the comments that I appear to have missed on the subject of the 'hellfish' GTA modification. I ask in order that there is a fair representation of your feelings on the issue if I post a transcript of this conversation online.

I told you not to bother me again. you're obviously impaired

Bold and italics mine, used for clarifying who said what.

I'm honestly not sure if he means that he did commit to donate the money, or that he did give reasons why he won't. I'm also not clear on why he says that he hasn't been contacted WRT which charity to pay, then says that the terms of the proposal weren't met (and therefore implies he won't pay until they have been).

DON'T CONTACT HIM!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.