Slashdot Mirror
Bully Gets In Trouble With School
The Miami Dade school district is moving to pressure Rockstar games over its upcoming game Bully. From the Next Generation article: "Last Thursday, a board committee unanimously approved the resolution. A full board vote is expected this Wednesday. Rockstar issued a written statement to the Herald, which said, 'We all have different opinions about art and entertainment, but everyone agrees that real-life school violence is a serious issue which lacks easy answers.'"
So instead of fighting the bully problem within their own school district, they're fighting a video game company?
What's the matter, James? No glib remark? No pithy comeback?
What will it take to make sure the First Amendment is no longer trampled here and there???? Here, the school district is acting like a bully...
So you want to take away the first amendment rights of the school board and members of the community instead? They aren't trying to prevent Rockstar from making titles, they are just exercising their rights as Americans and consumers to deal with something that they don't deem appropriate.
This reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon when Dilbert accuses Dogbert of being insensitive. Dogbert replies "you are obviously insensitive to my insensitivity".
Is it a good game? If it is then the content really shouldn't matter, if it isn't then all this hype is going to sell it even better.
A lot of slashdotters were probably bullied (I was) and although it may bring up some bad memories, we don't play GTA because we're secretly drug dealers, or black guys riding a bike through the street as we shoot people. We play them because they're fun, which is what games should be about.
People never complained Mario is full of drug refrences (You can't deny it, please don't try), or that killing aliens in Contra is too violent for children. Back when games were mostly aimed at kids (or geeks with an Amiga), we never heard any of this shit.. Makes me really wonder.
I'd love to meet these people complaining and go "Jump off a bridge" so they could tell me "no" and I could reply with "Well if I can't influence you in person how the hell are games ment to convince me when I have full control of them?
I like muppets.
'We all have different opinions about art and entertainment, but everyone agrees that real-life school violence is a serious issue which lacks easy answers.'
So is war, but that hasn't stopped people from playing games based on war for at least thousands of years.
Chess, anyone?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Again with the 'Rockstar Bully game will create bullies' meme.
For fucks sake; it is a game where you play a kid being bullied. If people play the game, they will understand what it's like to be bullied. If anything, that will reduce the number of bullies (and might even convert bullies who play the game and see what the're doing).
If I where Rockstar, I'd elevate the profile of that game by sueing legislators for defamation/slander/incorrect reporting/lying.
I'm just still amazed that newspapers and politicians can get away with not just distorting the truth but actively lying about something.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
I agree, but it should be noted that the games are rated (M) and that a lot of retailers (2/3, last I heard) do currently restrict the sale of M-rated games to adults.
The problem is that parents buy whatever their kids tell them to, then whine when they don't think it's appropriate.
As for bullies: I was bullied as a kid. Then I learned to fight and kicked the crap out of anyone in high school that tried to bully anyone.
If this game is as open-ended as GTA supposedly is, you should be able to be the anti-bully. But, then, GTA isn't really open-ended...you're never anything but a criminal.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Had this been the PTA group or some group sure, but the School Board is still an government entity and defiantly is allowed to make rules concerning appropriate content within its school. But it acting as a lobbying group and attempting to push local retailers to censor items is WAY beyond the terms in which a government entity should go.
Just my two cents: I was also bullied when I was young, but the important thing here is that the game will almost certainly get the highest rating allowed - meaning kids shouldn't be able to buy it in the first place.
Why wasn't Fight Club banned when adults could legally go see it in theatres? Surely it would have provoked an international emergency with sensible adults suddenly beating each other up in the streets.
The content of the game aside, these people are almost admitting that parents will buy the game for their kids anyway. This is totally the wrong approach, they should be campaigning to raise awareness of the game's content to parents so that they don't buy it for their kids, making sure they follow THE LAW.
They are not trying to push people around. They are pointing out that this product promotes actions that they feel are detrimental to their school and students. I think that by drafting this resolution, they are doing their due diligence to aid their students.
People want to call it censorship and such. But what about Rockstar? Are they not being irresponsible to some extent making games like this? Sure it is just a game, but considering the fire they have come under for their GTA games and such, maybe they should think twice about things like this.
Still, we are talking about their games, and I am sure they are happy about this. All the talk will move games off the shelves and Rockstar will make money. What do they care?
RonB
It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
Infinging on rights is not due diligence.
...is basically a call for vigilante justice by way of legal harassment.
Whether or not Rockstar is irresponsible, that's one of those things you're supposed to talk about, and work in the social sphere to shame, and to influence.
But not in the legal sphere.
The argument: "Sure it is just a game, but considering the fire they have come under for their GTA games and such, maybe they should think twice about things like this."
I think that by drafting this resolution, they are doing their due diligence to aid their students.
Instead of addressing the very real problem of actual bullies? Funny, I think that bullying existed before this game, so what would removing the game do? NOTHING!
People want to call it censorship and such.
You have a government body trying to remove content they don't like. Yup, thats censorship.
But what about Rockstar? Are they not being irresponsible to some extent making games like this?
No, they are not. They are making a game taht some people will find fun. Are car manufacturers irresponsible for selling a product that some people use to kill others? Or is it the person driving the car thats responsible?
Sure it is just a game, but considering the fire they have come under for their GTA games and such, maybe they should think twice about things like this.
Why? They want to make games that people will play. They did nothing wrong with hot coffee and aren't doing anything wrong here.
Still, we are talking about their games, and I am sure they are happy about this. All the talk will move games off the shelves and Rockstar will make money. What do they care?
They probably dont' care because they aren't doing anything wrong, and aren't making something that is harmful to people.
People like you really piss me off; you get all worked up about a video game, but where is your outrage when companies are actively polluting rivers, lakes and land? When they lie about side effects of drugs and receive nothing but a slap on the wrist?
...in the real world, bullies NEVER gets in trouble with schools.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
I disagree wholeheartedly. My son (and other kids) were being bullied by a kid in his school. I tried talking to the teachers, but they said that their punishments weren't having much effect and the kid's parents weren't interested.
So, I taught my son three rules:
I also directly informed the teachers about our plan (their one-word reaction: "good!").
That was two months ago, and after two good smacks in the snout (and one miss - my son missed and nailed him in the eye), the bully is no more. My son wasn't the only one to benefit, either: the other kids realized that this worked pretty well.
I made it clear to my boy that I never, ever condone him starting fights. However, neither will I ever punish him for defending himself.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I was excited when I read the title of this story and thought it was about a school taking a stand against bullying. Sadly, it's about a school taking a stand against a game about bullying.
I'd be more impressed by the former.
argumentum ad antiquitatem (Appeal to Tradition)
Nope. Read your link. Argumentum ad antiuitatem applies if and only if the argument is supporting a proposition based soley on the fact that "it has always been that way". Arguing that a game will not remove the problem, because the problem is an age-old problem does not commit this falacy. Although it does require proof that the proposed solution does not solve the problem. Incidentally, it won't. Bullying will not suddenly cease as a result of banning the publication of this game: the concern is simply that bullying may be considered more acceptable. This is a completely different issue.
hyperbole
Not hyperbole. Read your link. This is not an exageration, although it is not necessarialy the government that is trying to ban things they don't like. This game in general, and Rockstar in particular, has been subjected to immense abuse by a number of players who's agenda is not clear. A family in the UK - for example - goaded by an American lawyer claimed that their son - killed by a friend in a robbery to pay for a drug debt - was killed because the killer was obcessed with Rockstar's game "Manhunt". The fact that it was the dead son that owned the game (it is an offense in the UK for a minor to buy an 18 registered game) entirely escaped the notice of the family, the media and their lawyer.
straw man
Not a straw man. Car manufacturers are not held responsible for irresponsible use of their products. Neither are car manufacturers held responsible for the fact that their products are advertised in a fashion that may encourage irresponsible and unlawful behaviour in a certain segment of community. It is not a straw man because it is a direct correlation.
ad hominem
Not a logical fallacy but a statement of personal opinion not used to further the argument.
Perhaps, before you resort to simply calling out alleged logical fallacies, you should learn the first law of reason: it is not permissible simply to claim that an argument is a fallacy. It is your responsibility to explain the error of reasoning in the person you are arguing with. Stating "Straw Man" to an argument stating "Are car manufacturers irresponsible for selling a product that some people use to kill others?" is not sufficient. It is your duty to state precisely the error of reasoning.
Since you've read wikipedia, you should also have read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies
And I quote:
"The presence of a formal fallacy in a deductive argument does not imply anything about the argument's premises or its conclusion."
Doing otherwise is known as the Fallacy Fallacy: the assumption that a conclusion is invalid because one or more of the arguments made to reach that conclusion is invalid:
"All cats are mamals"
"My pet is a mamal"
"ergo, my pet is a cat"
In this case, the logic is wrong, but the conclusion is - in my case anyway - perfectly valid.
Hahah, I could write an essay on logical fallacies entirely based on your post.
I wouldn't recommend it.
The ways of gods are mysteriously indistinguishable from chance.
I fail to see the legal aspect of this. I do see citizens banding together to voice strong concern and opposition to problems they see. This is how a democracy works. Citizens have the right to express their views and yes, they even have the right to organize boycotts. It amazes me how people who shout, "You are removing their rights!" are essentially saying people shouldn't have the right to decide where money goes. A community decides they don't want violent games promoted within their community so they pressure local businesses to avoid the violent games. Local businesses, recognizing it makes good economic sense to avoid the games, do so. In these cases businesses continue to have the right to sell such games, but through the free exercise of democracy they have realized that they will do better if they do not carry the games.
But let's have a quick lesson in rights. Rights do not give you permission to do what you wish, and to hell with everyone else! Rights are given equally to everyone and one person's rights do not supercede someone else's rights. We work in balance as a free society. Many of our laws reflect the balancing of rights. Speed limits exist to protect everyone, slowing down those who would claim that it is their right to go as fast as they wish. Many drug laws, while recognizing the harm drugs can do an individual, often pay more emphasis to the effect drugs have on community. Your rights do not mean you can do anything you want without regard for its effect on society. From that basis, I'm among those who would not oppose actual legislation to limit the amount of violence in games, movies, and yes even music. No rational thinker has any doubt that there is a causative link between media violence (those of you who will quickly shout out about correlation and causation can see which category I place you in). A society fixated on fantasy violence will become a society enacting more and more violence. There are many factors at work that are completely sabotaging our society, violence in media is just one aspect. It is not the only problem that should be addressed, but it is a problem and it does need to be addressed.
People might cry out to allow any human action, defending their cries with some appeal to human rights. Their actions accomplish the opposite. Rights are about community, not simply about an individual. It's a perspective that says, "Everyone in our nation has these rights" rather than "each person has these rights". It's a subtle difference, I admit, but the former perspective works to balance rights so that rights actually mean something, and the latter simply creates anarchy when ultimately there will be just one dictator rising above them all, asserting his own right to domination.
I love my sig.
They are not trying to push people around. They are pointing out that this product promotes actions that they feel are detrimental to their school and students.
They appear to be trying to push Rockstar around. Are they "promoting" bullying? I don't know. And for that matter - unless you're on Rockstar's staff - neither do you. Does GTA "promote" car-jacking? Does Burnout "promote" deliberately causing pile-ups? Does Moto-GP or Gran Turismo "promote" driving at ludicrous speeds on public highways? Well, I guess it depends upon what you mean by "promote".
I think that by drafting this resolution, they are doing their due diligence to aid their students.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. But in doing so they're attempting to prevent people who are within the "target audience" - who are not young school chidren - from being able to get a copy of the game. Their reach is too broad.
People want to call it censorship and such. But what about Rockstar? Are they not being irresponsible to some extent making games like this?
No. No, and again: No. Jet Set Willy - if you ever read the instructions - is about a man sneaking into his estranged wife's house to burgal it to retrieve what Willy believed was his property. Was Mathew Smith irresponsible for releasing this on an unspecting public? "Elite" permitted - and encouraged - the player to plunder traders using piracy as a means of effecting material gain. Same question. And again with Adventure: there was no requirement to calculate the tax burden, or to declare one's findings with a tax authority. These games were clearly a tutorial on tax-evasion, robery and burgulary for future generations. Except, of course, that they weren't.
Sure it is just a game, but considering the fire they have come under for their GTA games and such, maybe they should think twice about things like this.
Why?
GTA was a phenomenon. It is a fantastic series. It's compulsive, it's enjoyable, it's bloody. It's great! Your statement impliess that Rockstar should never consider making another GTA game, or that Rockstar is guilty of the accusations levelled against it - but why? I love the game. I don't rob, pimp, deal in drugs, use prostitutes, or kill prostitutes to get my money back. I don't get my kicks out of doing any of these things in real life, but find it incredibly amusing to do in the game.
I also find it extraordinarialy funny to try to do an inverted turn under the golden gate bridge in a number of flight simulators - usually resulting in my plowing the plane into said bridge. I also used to find it amusing to drive a car the wrong way around the track in Indionapolis 500. Or to make a living as a pirate in Elite.
But I'm not a pimp. I'm not a murderer. I don't find the idea of smacking into an entourage of Indi-500 cars particularly appealing. I don't want to make a living stealing from shops, homes or ships.
Games do not make murderers. They don't make pimps. Game companies make games. They make the interactive versions of videos. If parents can't grasp the fact that their children are buying the computer game equivelant of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, that is the fault of the parent - not the game manufacturer.
I don't want see a future in 10 or 20 years time where the only game I can play is "PacMan" (a muderous game where the players character uses an obvious advatage - the PacPills - to murder the other four artificial persons and confine them the oblivion - albeit temporarialy). I don't want this future because I'm not 6-years old. I don't want 6-year old entertainmant. I'm 31. I want 31-year old entertainment. It's not my fault if other people can't see the difference.
The ways of gods are mysteriously indistinguishable from chance.
Congratulations, you've been sucked in by the Jack Thompson hype. Bully is a game where you fight against the bullies. But don't let little things like facts get in the way, will you?
And this is exactly the reason why school boards are up in arms against this game: they don't want anyone standing up to the bullies, because that challenges the social order that exists in America's schools. Bullies have long enjoyed power in America's schools, and teachers and school administrations and school boards have done everything they can to preserve this status quo. Students suffering from abuse by other students have always been pushed aside and ignored, because school in the USA is NOT a place to learn, but to be brainwashed into a social order where intellectuals are second-class citizens and everyone is brainwashed into conformity and taught never to question authority, no matter how stupid that authority is.
This game challenges everything the US school system is built upon.
RTFA.
This isn't a legal challenge to the game at all.
It is, in fact a social challenge.
The school board has resolved (hence the "Resolution") to communicate their misgivings about the game. They've resolved to communicate their misgivings to the manufacturer, to their local retailers, and to the citizens of their community.
They are, in fact, doing exactly what you say they should do: mount a social opposition to the game. They're making their case. The community can consider their case (and Rockstar's if it chooses to make one; and the retailers' if they choose to make one), and either reject the school board's arguments or support them.
This is exactly the kind of non-government-censorship process we all want to see take place in our communities. Not only that, but it's entirely appropriate for a government agency such as a school board, charged with the welfare of the community's students, to voice its concerns to the community and attempt to influence the community to address those concerns.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.