Slashdot Mirror
ESRB Retorts to NIMF
The ESRB has has released a statement condemning the National Institute for Media and the Family's analysis of the gaming industry and the ESRB. Specifically, the ESRB questions the group's research and bias in issuing the original damning analysis of the ratings board. From the article: "On points where the ESRB's methodology was questioned, the ratings board said that the real reason for the relatively low number of Adults-Only titles was a publisher-level determination to modify game content to avoid the AO label, which will usually prevent a title from being carried at retail."
So basically, the NIMF is upset that the free-market determined that adult-only titles aren't worth selling rather than NIMF getting to decide it for them?
Don't Christians comprise something on the order of 80% of the population of the U.S.? It seems to me that if these 'concerned citizens' actually took the time to parent their children, the issue of violent video games corrupting our nation's youth wouldn't be an issue...but it's ever so much easier to abdicate responsibility to a group who claims they're 'looking out for the children'. <sarcasm>Heck, all you have to do is read the first sentence of the tenth annual MediaWise video game 'report card' ("Risk to Children Continues to Grow") to know that these people are genuinely concerned about the safety of our little ones.</sarcasm>
Fellow Christians, I offer you a challenge: Quit trying to legislate morality, and start teaching it instead. Quit trying to lead by coercion, and instead lead by example. Look to the beam in your own eye before you try to remove the mote from your brother's eye.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
So let me get this straight that fewer titles rated AO is bad or is it bad that there are not more titles that get the AO rating. They have me confused. I thought they wanted fewer AO titles. hehe.
Adults Only is a pretty bad rating to have on your game as it severly cripples your potential shelf space. Looks to me like the NIMF wants the ESRB to start handing out AOs like candy. That's just a bad idea. Watering down what AO stands for will just lead to more stores stocking AO titles and will lead to the need for some sort of Super AO category.
I dont understand why people constantly want to put the gaming industry in a seperate category for entertainment. AO games probably shouldnt be sold in stores, i mean, do you walk into your local suncoast video store expecting to see "Ass Parade 55"?
I will agree however that the real problem is that the AO rating isnt deserved for the most titles that its given to. GTA:SA even with the 'sex scene' (that didnt even show nudity) doesnt require an AO rating. Games with topless nudity or even sometimes full frontal nudity shouldnt require an AO rating, this isnt porn, its nudity. You dont see blockbuster not selling rated R movies with nudity in them do you?
I think the only solution, and the ESRB needs to really think about, is changing the Mature and AO rating into something different, maybe even splitting them into three or four categories or maybe even having both ratings pulled into one rating.
I'll say this again, excessive blood and nudity do not need an AO rating. Hardcore sex is really the only thing i would even consider giving an AO rating too, and these games dont belong in game stores anyway.
obsession is never good, no matter what religion. Especially when the obsession is all about how other people should be allowed to live their lives.
No, if these people are examples of God's finest... sign me up for a trip to hell.
Whereas the essence of your post is correct, I find it irresponsible of you to target Christians in your post. The simple fact of the matter is that whereas most people might identify themselves as Christians, the majority of them probably don't live up to the standards that they claim Christ represents.
Personally, I'm agnostic. So, why do you not also direct your challenge to me? The simple fact is that parents regardless of their religious beliefs or identification should be should be held to the same level of responsibility. Whether the parents are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, agnostic, or even athiest, personal responsibility and the need to properly raise children in moral and ethical values is totally unrelated to their religious beliefs. All parents should be challenged to lead by example, not just Christian parents.
Now, I understand that NIMF is a Christian group, but to target your challenge solely at Christians is irresponsible - some might argue that it's mildly inflammatory as well. I'm sure there are parents in other religions who would love to legislate morality as well, and that's just as wrong. One need only look to non-Christian theocracies in other parts of the world to see what life is like when morality is dictated by law. So, from that perspective we're in complete agreement; however, all parents should be teaching their kids right from wrong, regardless of religious beliefs - or lack thereof - or the target of said teaching, be it video games, TV, movies, music, etc.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
Yea, but what if the parent is Satanic or a Scientologist even, do we really want them teaching morality! :)
Yea its flame bait, though for a bit of fact I know someone who used to be in Scientology who states that a big part of their teaching is that morality is whatever gets the best result for you and you should strive to bend the rules as much as possible to succeed.
No, it's certainly valid. I wouldn't consider it to be flamebait, although I will confess that it does expose a chink in my argument's armor. :) Morality and ethics in many ways (if not exclusively) represent how you would treat others. So, someone who has good ethics and morals should be looking out for the betterment of others if not all, whereas the examples that you give are religions that from my understanding are self-serving and irresponsible with respect to others. So, would be be able to truly expect them to teach their kids right and wrong within societal norms?
I don't mean that to be flamebait, as much as it sounds like it. Seriously! It's just that those religions from what I understand (and I confess that I have not bothered to research them) are more of a "do whatever I feel like doing because it's good for me" mentality. So, I would not expect them to be concerned with video game, music, or TV ratings or warnings. I could be wrong, though.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
I'm more interested in the MILFs. For every prudish NIMF in the world there are at least two hot MILFs that are just begging for it.
Whereas the essence of your post is correct, I find it irresponsible of you to target Christians in your post.
All I'm doing is targeting the people responsible for the problem.
The simple fact of the matter is that whereas most people might identify themselves as Christians, the majority of them probably don't live up to the standards that they claim Christ represents.
Which I believe was the substance of my previous post.
Personally, I'm agnostic. So, why do you not also direct your challenge to me?
Because the fundies are the ones who want to legislate the morality....not the agnostics.
The simple fact is that parents regardless of their religious beliefs or identification should be should be held to the same level of responsibility.
No argument here...I just find it galling that fundamentalists can preach about what is best for America, but throw up their hands and admit defeat when it comes to actually doing what is best for their own children. If I was a better Christian, I could probably come up with a relevant Bible passage here to illustrate my point, but as it is....well, perhaps a more bible-savvy reader could help me out here.
Now, I understand that NIMF is a Christian group, but to target your challenge solely at Christians is irresponsible - some might argue that it's mildly inflammatory as well.
I certainly hope it was inflammatory...that was pretty much the whole point. In essence, I'm challenging the fundies to put up or shut up.
I'm sure there are parents in other religions who would love to legislate morality as well, and that's just as wrong. One need only look to non-Christian theocracies in other parts of the world to see what life is like when morality is dictated by law.
Exactly. And that's precisely what keeps me awake at night.
In conclusion, when I challenged Christians to lead by example, I certainly didn't mean that exclusively...I only targeted my fellow Christians for two reasons. One: because, frankly, they're the problem, and two: as a Christian myself, I feel I have both a right and a duty to help guide my fellow Christians back on course. Of course, not all Christins are guilty of this, and this offense isn't confined to the ranks of Christianity, either...but Christians are in the vast majority here, and it's a fact that the movement to legislate morality in this country is being spearheaded by them, so they are who I addressed.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
My grade 1 teacher, I should have used that one on you!
Okay. I can do the "breaking up the response into multiple segments" thing as well. (Someone refresh my memory on that term, please.)
All I'm doing is targeting the people responsible for the problem.
Nice blanket statement. There is nothing to indicate that NIMF is 100% Christian. I have no doubt that all major demononations are represented within, regardless of the percentage.
I just find it galling that fundamentalists can preach about what is best for America, but throw up their hands and admit defeat when it comes to actually doing what is best for their own children.
Oh, come now. That's a cop-out. We see this all over the place. Politics, religion, business. Such hypocrisy is not relegated only to fundamentalists. Every person who is reading this thread can cite an example where s/he witnessed such an action. In fact, I sincerely doubt that any of use are guiltless of doing that as well.
I also have to challenge your statement that they are a Christian group by design. Their About Us page clearly states The National Institute on Media and the Family is an independent, nonpartisan, nonsectarian, and nonprofit organization that is based on research, education, and advocacy. They do not identify themselves as Christian. They identify themselves as being not restricted to any religion or denomination. The fact that they might be predominantly Christian is by the nature of 80% of the U.S. being Christian. So, again, I see no reason for you to be targeting Christians in your post. The issue of video game violence/sex/etc. is one that people from all religions are concerned about. Not all people, just all religions.
Exactly. And that's precisely what keeps me awake at night.
Melatonin. 3 mg about 1 hour before bed time. Works great.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
This has been covered before (from a different source): http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/30/ 1742213&tid=10&tid=219
Nice blanket statement. There is nothing to indicate that NIMF is 100% Christian.
Nice straw man. There is nothing in my posts that claims it is.
Oh, come now. That's a cop-out. We see this all over the place.
If you had actually read through my last post, you would have seen that I am not portraying this as a purely Christian issue. Here's the last paragraph again for you:
I also have to challenge your statement that they are a Christian group by design.
And I have to challenge your insinuation that I made such a statement. Funny how you can do the 'breaking up the response into multiple segments' thing, but not in this instance, since I never made such a statement for you to quote.
Melatonin. 3 mg about 1 hour before bed time. Works great.
And you top it all off with an insulting, offtopic, and flippant remark. By now it's painfully obvious that you're a fundie masquarading as an agnostic, so your mindless, off-base rants about me 'targeting Christians unfairly' doesn't come off as the self-serving pablum it actually is.
In conclusion, log off before you hurt yourself.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
You apparently need to go back and look at your posts. "All I'm doing is targeting the people responsible for the problem." You make a declaration to Christians that you challenge them to be parents then follow up with the statement that you're targeting the responsible people, then expect people not to make the correlation that you are accusing NIMF of being a Christian group or at worst that only Christians are responsible for this surge in refusing to take parental responsibility? Wow.
Actually, what's painfully clear here is that you're so used to people agreeing with you that when someone challenges you you completely lose all sense of rationalization. Your completely immature statement about "logging off before you hurt yourself" is just proof of this. I expect a better repose from children, not from a supposedly articulate adult. The last paragraph was what is referred to as a "joke" or "levity". (It also works, by the way.)
People disagree. It's the real world. Get over it.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
First, you say "All I'm doing is targeting the people responsible for the problem." But then, you say that the people you actually think are responsible for the problem are the fundies. So why did you address your original post to the 80% of the population who identify as Christian in any way whatsoever, rather than the tiny minority who are actually responsible for the problem?
You make a declaration to Christians that you challenge them to be parents then follow up with the statement that you're targeting the responsible people, then expect people not to make the correlation that you are accusing NIMF of being a Christian group or at worst that only Christians are responsible for this surge in refusing to take parental responsibility? Wow.
I expect others to read through my entire post and rationally discuss the contents. You, however, seem more comfortable cherry-picking individual statements, taking them wildly out of context, and making wild suppositions based upon wholly indefensible 'correlations'. Yes, I did say that "All I'm doing is targeting the people responsible for the problem." This is because Christians comprise approximately 80% of the population, and it is Christian groups that are responsible for the push to legislate morality here in the U.S.. Note that I didn't accuse NIMF specifically of being a Christian group. If you'd actually take the trouble to read my posts, you'd see that, but then your 'argument' would fall apart, wouldn't it?
I also expect others to debate me without distorting my position, but I see you aren't up to that, either. In my last post, I pointed out two of your distortions, and invited you to support them with fact. Since you didn't bother to address either, I'll repeat them:
Either provide quotes from me substantiating these claims, or admit that they are baseless and retract them (preferably with an apology).
Actually, what's painfully clear here is that you're so used to people agreeing with you that when someone challenges you you completely lose all sense of rationalization.
I'm not the one distorting my opponent's position to further my own personal agenda.
Your completely immature statement about "logging off before you hurt yourself" is just proof of this. I expect a better repose from children, not from a supposedly articulate adult. The last paragraph was what is referred to as a "joke" or "levity". (It also works, by the way.)
I see...when you do it, it's 'levity'...but when it's done to you, suddenly it's 'immature'. Somebody call a whaaaaaaaaaaaambulance.
People disagree. It's the real world. Get over it.
Adults expect you to discuss things rationally. Get over it.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
The simple fact of the matter is that whereas most people might identify themselves as Christians, the majority of them probably don't live up to the standards that they claim Christ represents.
I thought that the whole point of Christianity was that no one can live up to the standards that Christ represents.
I also expect others to debate me without distorting my position, but I see you aren't up to that, either. In my last post, I pointed out two of your distortions, and invited you to support them with fact. Since you didn't bother to address either, I'll repeat them: * You claimed that I said the NIMF was 100% Christian. * You claimed that I said the NIMF was Christian by design. :)
Whether you meant it or not, it really did come off as you implying those things. Probably not intentional, but thats at least how I read it also, and I did read all of the post. Overall, besides for the arguing about who implied what, I really do think you both are right for the majority of your posts. This is kind of an interesting argument, as at first I thought the OP was just flamebait, and really liked the second posts stance. Then the follow up post made me believe the OP didn't really mean what he said how it sounded. Can't we all just get along?
Maybe I've been missing it, but it's a rather ironic poor choice of title to choose to represent themselves isn't it?
GrpA
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
I know you can't do this on the internet, TripMaster, but there is a little thing I've started to doing to people when they're stupid infront of me in an arguement.
I slap the shit out of them. If they attempt to have me arrested, I will profess that since I am ordained, and a Discordian Zen-Buddhist Master, I was giving them religious counselling by slapping them. I.E., trying to snap them out of their rut.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
I think a lot of those games, Like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, should have an AO rating attached to them. Who cares about whether or not this limits their shelf potential, some of these games go over the edge when they condone killing cops and prostitution.
Right or wrong is not the issue, what is the issue is that certain content should be kept out of reach of minors. You wouldn't put a porn video right next to Barney's Big Adventure on the shelf just to satisfy the porn distributor's "right" to exist on the shelf, would you? I'm not suggesting to ban the making of such AO games, I'm just saying rate them for what they are and do what you need to do to keep them out of minor's reach, don't water down the rating just to make a few bucks.
Health Insurance Quotes
It wasn't although the game was rated E for everyone it was rated for 17+ so why all this argument to raise the year by one?