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.
What people fail to realize is that you're not a bully in the game. Here's the game synopsis:
As a troublesome schoolboy, you'll laugh and cringe as you stand up to bullies, get picked on by teachers, play pranks on malicious kids, win or lose the girl, and ultimately learn to navigate the obstacles of the fictitious reform school, Bullworth Academy.
And since when was this "real-life school violence?" Last I checked, this was a video game.
I was bullied as a child, and the thought of kids playing as a bully really turns my stomach.
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?
This is the "think of the children" mindset at work. You are outraged and ignorant. That's a hell of a lot more dangerous than any game, especially when school boards are full of people just like you.
2. We have a legally enforcable age rating system for games in the UK which seems to work reasonably well and, to some extent, has taken the heat out of the violent games debate over here (San Andreas is rated 18, so Hot Coffee just wasn't an issue). Isn't the problem with introducing a similar age rating regimen in the US the fact that Walmart (and possibly other stores) will refuse to stock adult rated games thus effectively preventing their distribution and making them uneconomic to develop. I may be mistaken as I don't live in the US to find out first hand, but it's always seemed to be this, rather than any point of principle, which causes the game industry to object to so strongly to age rating laws over there. If the retailers would be a little more reasonable maybe this wouldn't be such an issue?
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.
I've played this game before. It was 20 years ago, and it was called Skool Daze, and it was perhaps the best game there had ever been at the time. Utterly, utterly amazing.
I've thought for years that Skool Daze could be remade today and be something special. If Rockstar's description here is accurate, I'm really, really looking forward to this game.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
How about, before going all out on a game that enacts it, you take care of the real fucking bullies that abound in your schools? Perhaps if you, ya know, punished them for their bullying, the intensity of such would decrease.
Instead, almost every teacher or other school faculty (except the cliche cool janitor) who sees bullying just turns a blind eye as long as someone's tooth isn't knocked out. Maybe if we actually did something about it, we wouldn't have to worry as much about games like this, or people shooting up schools. I can't say I condone Rockstar's game, but there are more immediate (and local) ways to stem this than to try and pressure them.
Yes, I was bullied in school. Thankfully, I didn't get the worst that could happen, but it was still enough to seriously drive me to a point of doing some shooting of my own. The problem is that the bullies turn out to be jocks, or the son of the mayor, and the principal is afraid of punishing them, because heaven forbid our football team lose another game, but it's a-okay that people fail remedial math.
Our schools are messed up because people have the wrong priorities. They push social achievement (sports, arts, etc.) and defer money to that over intellectual achievement. Not that schools sports or band is a bad thing- but when it's taking away from the real purpose of a school, which is education, then they become a problem.
rant rant rant
The purpose of blaming Rockstar is to direct attention away from themselves, and it's working. If it wasn't Rockstar, they would be blaming Bush, or Harry Potter, or anything else but themselves for how they are taking our tax dollars and failing our children.
Ah, but to be on the other side of the bullying! The glory! The Fame! The Naked Cheerleaders!
This is clearly a geek's game.
1) How about respecting the right of self-defense of victims of bullying. How about congradulating the victim for beating the hell out of the bully when the bully picks a fight and brings violence instead of the school rather than suspending the victim. Strangely, feminists who scream OMG HE'S BLAMING THE VICTIM!!! whenever someone suggests that a rape victim partially instigated her rape by dressing like a whore in a very bad section of town while drunk at 2AM, are eerily silent about this which is the ultimate "blame the victim" card. Yes, little johnny or susy was violently assaulted by a bully, but the pushed the bully back so that makes them bad too. That's how the schools see it. You get repeatedly punched and kicked in the face, but if you touch the aggressor, you're now suspended for fighting. Fascism, brought to you by America's "education system."
2) Expel the violent and disruptive students.
3) Enforce the rules fairly, even if the parents are insanely rich or part of one of those untouchable, Always Noble Protected Classes Whose Shit Never Stinks Especially In Front of An Oppressor Class(tm).
4) Finally, and I know this will be the most controversial one, how you about show no love to the wannabe thugs who attack the black and hispanic kids who actually want to learn. If the thugs want to keep it real, they can do that on someone else's dime, on the street where they won't harass the minorities who want to be something other than street trash.
You think you've got problems? I've been playing The Sims. Now I can't stop myself from cooking, watching TV, going to work, and attempting to build relationships.
This game should be banned!
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?
Say Rockstar came out with a game in which you're a Nazi, trying to take over Europe.
Godwin. You lose.
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.
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.