Is the Game Media Being Oblivious?

MaryAlan writes "The National Summit on Video Games, Youth, and Public Policy was this weekend, and almost no one from the game media showed up. In fact, the game industry seems to pretty much be ignoring the whole event. There's an article up on GamesFirst, which attended the summit, that criticizes the mainstream game press pretty hard for not attending. Apparently only one game journalist showed up. From the article: 'The video game media owes it to our readers to come to events like this and listen, come here and think, and come here and base our editorials on the reality of what's being said instead of an interpretation of the talking points that are published afterwords. Too many of the people discussing these issues in forums do so based on the works of the game media, and too few in the gaming media are spending the time to make it justified.'"

Comments

Guess they didn't learn

[Mateo_LeFou]

From the online poker sites' experiment with passively-watching our legislators do their thing.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[Anonymous Coward]

No, there are no real reporters in the game media. Those working in the game media are either in the pockets of the game publishers, or themselves without personal interest or experience in covering events where they would apply reportorial tradecraft (i.e., interviewing people they do not know). It's laziness, inexperience, and graft.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[HappySqurriel]

It really doesn't matter if the gaming companies attend or not because they are not going to be listened to anyways ...

This is very similar to what happens whenever an Oil company shows up to an environmental meeting, which believe it or not happens quite often; oil companies hire dozens of environmental scientists to ensure that they're doing as little environmental damage as is possible. (On a side note, most environmental damage is done because of govenmental decisions; oil is shipped from Alaska rather than piped through Canada because the US govenment's regulations, and shipping is prone to accidents). No matter what evidence they demonstrate to show that there is no connection between CO2 and global warming nothing they show will ever be listend to.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the Gaming Industry could show up to an event like this and have God as a witness and no one there will listen to them when they say videogames do not cause children to perform violent acts.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[DragonWriter]

No, there are no real reporters in the game media.

The word "game" in this sentence is superfluous.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[HappySqurriel]

I can't speak for the Alaskan pipeline, but here in Alberta the Oil pipelines are owned by companies that are seperate from the oil companies; they tend to ensure that their oil pipelines are well maintained (in school I worked at a welding gas warehouse and we, on average, had 100 welders come in a day to pick up materials and head out to fix sections of various pipelines).

The fact is that shipping oil is far more risky than using a pipeline under similar levels of maintainance; there are tons of examples of poorly maintained oil tankers that leak tons of oil in transit and are just waiting to burst. Also, when oil pipelines have leaks, they have a localized effect and can (mostly) be cleaned up afterwords; obviously some soil will become toxic waste but there are new cleaning methods every year that get closer to resolving these problems.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[stunt_penguin]

Bullshit.

http://www.edge-online.co.uk/
Click the subscription link and be enlightened.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[RvLeshrac]

I guess you missed PartyPoker's huge push to get people to join the Poker Players' Alliance ( http://www.pokerplayersalliance.org/ ) and send letters to their congressmen, eh?

Sure, they COULD have done what most industries do and buy the votes... but that wouldn't solve the problem, it would just make it go away for one congressional session. Then they have to start buying senators and representatives all over again.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[Mike_K]

No matter what evidence they demonstrate to show that there is no connection between CO2 and global warming nothing they show will ever be listend to.

Because you should definitely listen to cigarette companies when they tell you cigarettes are not only safe, but also not addictive.

Seriously, though, I was with you up to that point. I am not an expert in the field, but I have gone to listen to experts speak about the subject. From what I understand, there is no "evidence". Evidence requires experimentation, and we're living in the only known experiment RIGHT NOW.

But there are lots and lots of observations that point towards CO2 being a factor in global warming.

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the Gaming Industry could show up to an event like this and have God as a witness and no one there will listen to them when they say videogames do not cause children to perform violent acts.

Again, no one is doing controlled experiments, so there is no evidence. But, just as food for thought, US Army found that their soldiers were more willing to shoot people when they trained with life-like dummies for target practice. There probably is a link between watching and acting out violence in a simulated world, and lowering the stigma of performing violent acts. The interesting thing is that we live in one of the least violent societies in history, so we expect that stigma to go significantly higher, perpetuating the cycle.

m

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[timeOday]

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the Gaming Industry could show up to an event like this and have God as a witness and no one there will listen to them when they say videogames do not cause children to perform violent acts.

Does the game industry have any research to support the assertion that games have no effect? If not, claiming such a thing will prove nothing but their greed.

It is time for the game industry to get beyond "well I played them and never killed anybody!" Either they should try to prove it, or fall back on another argument, such as emphacising freedom over absolute safety.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[HappySqurriel]

Because you should definitely listen to cigarette companies when they tell you cigarettes are not only safe, but also not addictive.

Seriously, though, I was with you up to that point. I am not an expert in the field, but I have gone to listen to experts speak about the subject. From what I understand, there is no "evidence". Evidence requires experimentation, and we're living in the only known experiment RIGHT NOW.

What I was saying is less "there is no global warming, listen to the oil companies" and more that "only one side of the issue is really getting listened to". No scientist disputes that we're not at a historical high temperature (the earth was warmer durring the middle age warm period), the earth hasn't been increasing at an unprecidented rate (there have been decades where the world has increased at a more rapid rate), and there is no direct connection between greenhouse gases and the temperature increase that we have seen; it has, however, been demonstrated that the temperatures are closely related to solar activity and that Mars in undergoing a period of global warming.

Basically, I was using Global Warming as an example of how there is usually no real discussion or information exchange on political issues; usually people have made up their mind before they go to a conference and look for validation of their beliefs. If tomorow God said that global temperatures were increasing because of Solar Activity (which humans have no impact on) there would still be Millions of people who were trying to meet the kyoto targets; at the same time if there was conclusive evidence that CO2 was the only thing effecting Global Warming there would still be Millions of people who claimed that lowering greenhouse gasses was pointless.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[Dunbal]

Does the game industry have any research to support the assertion that games have no effect?

      Is there any research that proves games do have a negative effect? Apart from asking people's mothers, I mean.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[paralaxcreations]

Soldiers trained to kill by the military were more willing to kill in a combat situation when they practiced on dummies! WOW! It must be the lifelike dummies that make them want to kill in the first place, not the "break down and rebuild" technique the military prides itself on to make otherwise peace-loving people soldiers.

What's more likely? Kids play video games and thus want to kill their friends and acquaintances in real life...OR...kid has very few friends, is picked on a lot in school, is abused or ignored by his parents, has the self esteem of a pea and plays video games BECAUSE of all the above reasons and then goes to school and kills 15 people (shitty frag count, btw).

I really don't understand what is so hard to understand about mentally unstable people becoming killers. Change a kid's environment, put funding into programs that make a kid enjoy waking up in the morning, put a TON more money into education, get better teachers who do something besides make the kids feel stupid (have had more than a few of those all throughout my school years), and take domestic abuse reports a little more seriously and maybe- just MAYBE you'll find that kids don't resort to violence.

When I was in High School I had come very close to doing what these kids seem to be making a habit out of. Luckily, my friends and family saw how depressed I was getting, and within 2 months I was enrolled in programs like marching band and drama where I was with other like-minded people, having fun, forming relationships (both romantic and non), and I was pulled out of that hole. Coincidence? I tend to think not.

In many respects, High School can be thought of as both Boot Camp and Prison tied into one. It can also be full of fun and games. It all depends on where on the social ladder you fall. Congregate with like-minded individuals, work on a goal that will provide a sense of accomplishment, and you'll find yourself enjoying the experience much more. Kids just need the proper motivation to do it.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[Swanktastic]

There is a term for this type of political extortion: Mud Farming. It comes from the story of a farmer who owned a plot of land next to a dirt road. Each night, he'd plough up and water down the road, then wait for cars to get stuck. He would then, of course, be ready to pull them out of the mud with his tractor for a tidy sum.

In politics, it goes like this: Give money to my campaign, or I'll go after your industry. Although I don't necessarily agree, many political analysts feel the Microsoft Monopoly case occured not out of public concern, but due to the simple fact that MS was not spending enough money on lobbyists or campagins. The tech industry as a whole during the 80s-90s spent orders of magnitude less %-wise of their revenues on impacting political legislation. Mature industries like the automotive, steel, lumber, oil, etc. industries have learned to "pay the piper." The high tech industry has finally come around, and the result has been much more favorable attention from our legislators.

The video game industry finds itself in the same quagmire. Young, fast-growth industries often do. Management is focused more on putting out product than seeing "the big picture." It takes a slap on the wrist to learn. We don't see legislators going after the movie and music industries, after all.

Many would say this is due to the public's fear of "new things for kids." In part, I agree. But, the mechanics of the process of legislation involve two things: money and public opinion. Unfortunately the video game industry is losing on both fronts these days.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[IdolizingStewie]

I expect it from Lower 48ers, but you live in Alaska and you don't know the difference between "the" pipeline (ie. the Alyeska Pipeline) and an infield pipeline? I'll give you a hint. The ones in the field are a lot smaller, and the damage is much less than it would be. I was astonished that happened, as a matter of fact, because I spent half my summer on the BP side of the North Slope, and I was always passing maintenance crews inspecting pipeline between camp and the rigs. GP is correct, the oil companies are much, much more environmentally conscious than they are given credit for. (disclaimer: I interned for an oilfield services company last summer)

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[HybridJeff]

Evidence does not require experimention, your definition is flawed.

evidence (v'-dns) pronunciation
n.

      1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
      2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
      3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[timeOday]

"Prove" is a very high standard, so probably not. "Support," yes. Here is the very first google result for "computer-games children violence", which is 5 years old but references a meta-analysis of 35 studies which had already been performed. And these studies are mentioned on Slashdot from time to time. Of course, people are very quick to discount studies they don't want to believe. Let's assume the studies are only somewhat rigorous. Even so, are there some equally rigorous studies disputing these results? I know there are some touting other benefits of games, like cognitive skills. But enough work has been done on a link to violence to raise it as an issue.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[Mike_K]

Evidence does not require experimentation, your definition is flawed.

That's somewhat true. Once we've determined that certain observations are tied to certain events, we can use start using these observations as evidence of these events. But until we understand these correlations, the observations are just that: observations. Not evidence.

All three of these definitions require prior knowledge of correlation between events: burglars break windows, understanding facial expressions, witnesses aren't always liars.

m

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[Sj0]

Well, my entire generation has played video games, and the murder rate has gone down.

As an aside, isn't it strange that for some reason, the people who want to ban video games because they're dangerous and might possibly show a slight statistical increase in violence tend to be the same people who call it a 'socialist nanny state' when you're talking about regulating food safety or the environment or something that could actually save thousands of lives at once, contrary to this video game tripe, which could allegedly cause a few dozen murders here and there over time?

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[Arcane_Rhino]

Hey asshat (god I like that expression), name one. It would be nice to know so we could boot "the bastard" out of office.

In fact, other than your desire to express your hatred of... "the right-wing" - (with the ominous, da da da dum), it is the entire Alaskan congregation that is to blame. State and Federal, Republican and Democrat, all bend over for oil - or have you forgotten that Tony never collected the taxes from the Oil companies that were owed under his administration?

The BP exec specifically said that NO laws required them to conduct a pig check of the pipeline, so they didn't. No specific corruption, just general malfeasance.

Nice try on the partisan dig, though.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[Castar]

I'll ignore the offtopic bit of your post, and just say you've got your analogy wrong. The article isn't lambasting the game industry for not showing up, but rather the gaming press. That's a little like the sports press not showing up for the congressional hearings on baseball steroids. It's a story that's important to the industry that they cover - more important, surely, than the release of new screenshots, snarky comments by company executives, or perhaps even more important than the launch of a new console.

Most games journalism is sitting back and being spoonfed information by talented PR people, then regurgitating it. Getting up and actually doing some investigation is alien to most games "journalists", but those that put in the work are going to be the Woodwards of their trade. Which the industry sorely needs.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[UltraAyla]

I disagree. If you read PC Gamer (US, I know little about PC Gamer UK), you would know that most (if not all) of the editorial staff members have degrees in journalism, and plenty of experience in gaming. In addition, they have not hesitated to be harsh on a game that has bought substantial ad space in their magazine. However, your point about personal interest is valid, but only on their podcast where personal interests are allowed.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[Anonymous Coward]

That's somewhat true. Once we've determined that certain observations are tied to certain events, we can use start using these observations as evidence of these events. But until we understand these correlations, the observations are just that: observations. Not evidence.

Actually, it's completely true. The definition of "evidence" does not concern itself with how one comes to know the correlations/causations. Your stated definistion of evidence would reduce the word to uselessness. How could you know that burglars break windows without a controlled experiment to find out what burglars do? It would still just be an "observation."

We are not living in any sort of experiment, since we did not set up anything to test per se, there is no control group, we can't effectively, at present, create new ozone layers to test, etc. Just like you can't "test" evolution in the sense that you cannot brew up a life form in a controlled environment and watch it for a few millenia, you can test things related to it, and observe what is at hand, both of which are "evidence."

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[Sinbios]

Well, my entire generation has played video games, and the murder rate has gone down.

These two facts aren't necessarily related; there are many factors which affect the murder rate.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[14CharUsername]

the earth was warmer durring the middle age warm period

Actually its warmer now than the Medieval Warm Period. Historical documents from that time are euro-centric. It may have been warmer in Europe then (although even that is questionable) but it was not warmer globally.

Just take a look at estimates on the temperatures in the MWP. Of the dozens of studies of this, not a single one of them shows the global temperature to be higher than it is today.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[mgblst]

They are gerneraly only the same people if you lump everyone is trying to tell you what to do into the same bracket. Overwise, they are probably different people.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[Kombat]

What's more likely? Kids play video games and thus want to kill their friends and acquaintances in real life...OR...kid has very few friends, is picked on a lot in school, is abused or ignored by his parents, has the self esteem of a pea and plays video games BECAUSE of all the above reasons and then goes to school and kills 15 people (shitty frag count, btw).

Why can't you fanatics fathom that it's possible it could be a combination of both?

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, and no.

Gambling sites do not work within the law, as companies in the gaming industry do.

Online poker sites work very hard to ensure they stay out of the jurisdiction of governments. This is so...:
* ...they actually can have the kind of business they run, gambling being illegal for the most part in the US (with a few exceptions).
* ...they can avoid state regulation, requiring that luck play a significant factor, which I suspect is less so online.
* ...they can set up in a tax haven, and really bring in the dough without sharing it with anyone else.

Being non-entities, they can't do anything but watch, and hope that a few legal loopholes will keep them in business.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[Raenex]

Bringing up a controversial issue like global warming is not a good way to shed light on an issue. It's a good way to get sidetracked into a discussion over global warming.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[eraser.cpp]

Way off topic here, but I've read studies comparing natural warming period increases in global temperature to current measurements and the difference is significant. Only after accounting for additional methane in the atmosphere were the numbers able to approach one another. I also disagree that this side hasn't been heard because many of the people I've spoken with (that care) don't believe the scientific community has a consensus on the cause. While it's conceivable that the people I've heard from are not overall representitive of American opinion I think a similar pattern could be observed from the fact that it's not a strong voting issue (despite the gravity of the purported problem). Conjecture is hardly necessary though: among climatologists there is a strong consensus that global warming is the result of greenhouse gases. Currently the "Global Warming" article on Wikipedia is highly informative and maintains a list of scientists with dissenting opinions.

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha. All they want is for everybody to behave. Is there any coincidence about the studies that are coming out now about women and gaming? They're not sitting there playing Solitaire though I'm sure the Red States legislators would love that. Make babies and play Tetris, why don't they? FragDolls, Girls of Destruction and PMS Clan would just love to take that one on. Why didn't they have any of them there?

Re:Guess they didn't learn

[Sj0]

Yes, but if Jack Thompson is to be believed, the introduction of video games should be outstripping incremental changes in any other area for a large net increase, because it's a menace to society.

Where's the Game Media?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously an event that did not have an adequate "FUN" component to it...

Re:Where's the Game Media?

[InsaneGeek]

"FUN" also known as swag, the kind you give to get people to write positive articles about your product. Why goto a convention where you know you wouldn't get paid off to write gloriously about the latest and greatest, same-old-same-old game.

Contradiction in terms

[mgabrys_sf]

Game, press?

That would be akin to wishing for serious coverage by Maxim magazine or Teen Beat. What the tap-dancing fetal Jesus did they expect? There hasn't been any serious game-related journalism since Next-Generation went tits up.

Re:Contradiction in terms

[Mateo_LeFou]

Gotta plug David Wong here. I'm pretty-much not at all a gamer unless you count supertux, but I think Wong is brilliant and a serious journalist.

Re:Contradiction in terms

[Anonymous Coward]

Chris Morris at cnn.com and Chris Remo with shacknews.com are a couple of other examples of high quality game journalism. Honestly, there are plenty of high quality game journalists out there...just no dominant publication like Next Generation. Big deal.

Re:Contradiction in terms

[garcia]

There hasn't been any serious game-related journalism since Next-Generation went tits up.

And yet, just because they whined, they are getting coverage on other media outlets which is exactly what they wanted.

They win.

Heh.

[SatanicPuppy]

I used to run an independant newspaper, and every week I was deluged with a variety of hate mail, from readers claiming my stories were biased, to readers telling me I wasn't representing their views, to people complaining because I didn't feel the need to censor the occasional "shit" out of an article.

I always responded with the same form reply: "If you feel that your views are under-represented, I'll be happy to print an article in which you can explain them in detail. We support reader supplied stories, yadda yadda yadda."

You know how many people actually bothered to write in, even given an open forum and a paper circulation of ~30,000 ad-supported papers, left in prominent places all over town? Maybe one in a hundred.

People love to complain. You see it here every day, people expressing their outrage all over the place. But do they actually bother to try and take the message to people who don't already agree with them? Seldom.

So I'm hardly surprised that the Game media doesn't bother to actually cover events like this. They mainly work from press releases and secondary sources...Very sloppy stuff.

Maybe this is a sign that the gamer community is starting to get proactive, rather than reactive...The best time to stop a crappy game bill from passing in Congress, is before it actually passes.

Re:Heh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Journalism 101: if you get hate mail, print it.

Either it makes a good point - in which case it deserves to be heard, in the name of fairness - or it's incoherent garbage - in which case it deserves to be exposed, in the name of entertainment. Either way, you can't lose if you just publish it without comment.

To paraphrase Atlas Shrugged

[superwiz]

You will be looted because you have something to loot. Kudos for them on ignoring those who contribute nothing and yet seek to control the product of their minds.

"Gaming journalism"? hahahaha

[RichPowers]

These are the same journalists who won't give any exclusively reviewed game less than a 9.0/10, use developer diaries (aka devs shamelessly plugging their projects) to fill webspace, make every previewed game sound like The Next Big Thing, frequently make grammatical errors on their front pages (it's and its are different, IGN.com), write like they're still in high school, and generally suck at everything they do.

Sorry for sounding so cynical, but I've been reading gaming mags and websites for years and the quality is steadily decreasing. Gaming journalism is about not pissing off the big guys (like EA) so you keep your ad revenue coming, effectively destroying any integrity in the game review process. Not every website is this bad, I know, but the big ones are pretty shameless. Go to Metacritic.com and click every review for Battlefield 2142. Funny how only one or two mention how the game has in-game advertisements...

Re:"Gaming journalism"? hahahaha

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

I think we're seeing similar trends for hardware review sites.

I'm guessing they didn't understand the invitation

[Channard]

Given how incomprehensible some gamers can be, I'm guessing the invitation went something like.. 'GAMAZ 4 LIFFE HV p0wnD a Con4rEnCe HA11 4 R M77t... ' and went downhill from there.

How many games journalists /are/ there?

[Anonymous Coward]

As in actual journalists, not reviewers or (non-investigative) bloggers?
I know some of the bigger sites have news editors, but I think that's about it. And of course what's happening in WoW or Second Life is much bigger news to them (and us readers).

I guess theyre

[Lispy]

too busy gaming!

Well.....

[madhatter256]

The mainstream game media press is only a marketing machine, not an advocacy group like the author of the title expects. The mainstream game media does not see any money to be made by attending those events, but in reality all they care about are dollar signs. Of course, this will change, especially if a nutcase takes over in Congress and Presidency and starts passing restrictive video-game censorship laws forcing the industry to start listening rather than strictly selling based on what hollywood sells the most.

Follow the money

[java_dev]

Why should journalists attend? It's the game publishers who pay the bills...

What game media?

[colmore]

"Ooooh exclusive SCREENZ!!!" Isn't really reporting.

Or else...

[Scareduck]

... they end up suing the state attorney general when said state passes an obviously unconstitutional ban on game content. The game publishers won't make any progress, and the bible-thumpers behind these bans -- because, let's get serious, what else will a conference titled "Video Games, Youth, and Public Policy be about besides cooking up new legislation? -- will continue with their ill-considered efforts to make the world into some kind of sick, dull Disneyland, free of anything of which they disapprove. They form the American, Christian answer to the nutcases running the show in Iran, or Afghanistan, and deserve as much respect.

Re:Or else...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bazooko's Circus is what the whole hep world would be doing every Saturday night if the Nazis had won the war. This was the Sixth Reich.

-- Raoul Duke

Re:Or else...

[Plutonite]

..or Afghanistan..

Uh dude, you're a little behind on the news. We, the Americans, are currently the nutcases running the show there. Give us some credit please.

Good for them

[brunes69]

The National Summit on Video Games, Youth, and Public Policy was this weekend...

I am sorry, but anyone from game media should not be attending any conference called "The National Summit on Video Games, Youth, and Public Policy". Why? Because it will only give more credit to the conference.

The fact of the matter is there should not be an public policy relating to games and youth at all. They're games for Christ sake. don't you think the government has more important things to set policy on? Like oh say, warrantless searches at airports?

Games and game content can not and should not be regulated any more than art or films.

Re:Good for them

[elhedran]

Never mind that when I buy a gaming mag, I don't really want to read a feature on "The National Summit on Video Games, Youth, and Public Policy". Its not exactly the kind of thing the majority of their market would expect to find in a mag that quite often is bought for its reviews of the latest games, tech and entertainment.

I can't speak for everyone, but I buy a gaming mag for two reasons. First as a sort of voluntary advertising, to see what new games I might like to buy. Second for something that is enjoyable to read. Quite frankly the summit is neither.

Re:Good for them

[Tim C]

When a group of people are meeting to discuss something that you do, it is only wise to try to participate. Perhaps you don't feel as though you should have to defend yourself, and that's understandable. However, if you don't, and no-one else does, you run the risk of bad things happening almost by default.

Re:Good for them

[Mr2001]

You've got it all wrong. The conference is a symptom of the regulation, not a cause.

Do you think that if game media, or game developers, or gamers in general ignore this conference, then legislators will just decide not to regulate games? Of course not! They'll regulate it without any input from gamers. The fact is, whether or not games should be regulated, they will be regulated unless we put up a fight - and the way to do that is not to stick our fingers in our ears and pretend it'll all go away if we ignore it.

Actually..

[onion2k]

From the no-one-attended-the-antarctic-bikini-fashion-show- either dept

Oh but I did. And those nipples... dear lord those nipples!

invitations?

[gEvil (beta)]

Did the conference planners send out multiple invitations to the gaming press well in advance of the event? Or did they just announce it on their own website and expect everyone to find out about it on their own?

Attendence without compensation?

[chuckfucter]

Why should they show? They aren't there to promote a new product, since it involves childrens they should drop everything a flyout there? Seriously, no one showed up to my party against breast cancer /w free mamograms, does that mean everyone hates breasts, of course not - they hate me.

Gaming Media Aren't Journalists.

[iSeal]

That's because GameFirst incorrectly assumes that the gaming media are journalists. They are not. Or so at least in North America.

There seems to be two different standards at play here. American gaming mags in particular, for instance, are paid mostly by game publishers via advertisements. European mags, for the most part, do not rely on these publishers for income. That's why European mags are so frickin' expensive.

However, you can see that the focus is quite different for the two. American gaming "journalists" hype the latest games from big publishers, ignore all the indie titles, and never question disturbing practices in the industry. There are two reasons for this. For one, because they don't want to endanger their money stream. For another, because sensationalist and shallow "reporting" is what sells. It's all about money. Integrity has no place in such a world.

I must say, however, that European gaming mags do cover social aspects, cons, indie titles, in addition to your stereotypical big publisher stuff. Why? Because they're less dependant on sucking up to those same publishers.

Re:Gaming Media Aren't Journalists.

[Anonymous Coward]

What is with people and the broad sweeping generalisations today? I know some people have issues with EGM (it was better back in the old days, blah, yeah ok) but I can think of many issues where they had articles having to do with say...Jack Thompson. Does that have nothing to do with the social aspects of gaming, or am I misunderstanding you?

Re:Gaming Media Aren't Journalists.

[iSeal]

No no, its a fair view. I am making painting a wide brush, that is true. What I'm referring to is what I perceive for most publications, not all. Nevertheless, my main critique stands: magazines will tend to include what sells. Jack Thompson sells. It's controversy the likes of which interests even mainstream media.

However, you'll be hard pressed to find those same mags cover issues that might be of equal importance to the gaming world, but more obscure in nature. Matters which might escape the attention span of a 5 year old.

Sponsoring Organization are Nutjobs

[ewhac]

A quick Google search reveals that the National Summit on Video Games, Youth, and Public Policy is an event organized and sponsored by the National Institute on Media and the Family.

In case you didn't know, NIMF is a right-of-center conservative, sensationalist group that finds things -- anything -- to complain about in the media. These are the same guys who gave a grade of 'F' to the ESRB's rating system. They also advocate -- with soon-to-be-ex-Senator Joe Lieberman as their mouthpiece -- a uniform media rating system monitored by an "independent" oversight group.

They're not nearly as bad as James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" group. In fact, they've actually told Jack Thompson to take a hike. But they are in no way the friends of the games industry. Given NIMF's record, the "summit" likely had nothing to do with a frank exchange of views or exploring the true nature of mass media and its impact on the human psyche, and was just a schmooze-fest for people bent on circumventing the First Amendment.

Attending would have only legitimized the event. The games industry was correct to stay away.

Schwab

Re:Sponsoring Organization are Nutjobs

[Bryansix]

First of all don't be so sure about Joe Liberman. As soon as people find out who his opposition is they will run to the polls to vote for Liberman and act like they never associated with the other guy.

Secondly, this organization is not all bad. Look at this quote.

As I've said for years, some video games, especially ultraviolent and killographic games and certain industry practices deserve some public condemnation. The evidence for a causal link between violent games and violent behavior is mounting. And with so much money to be made, some in the industry often seem to lose sight of their public responsibility to protect children. As I've said before, however, there are a lot of very good video games. The term video game shouldn't be derogatory, and the term "gamer" shouldn't be a dirty word either.

Criticizing the people who play video games for the irresponsibility of some in the industry is nothing more than guilt by association. Millions of people-hardworking, responsible adults and healthy, happy kids-play good video games.

Censorship and demonization are not the answer. If we antagonize thoughtful, reasonable people, we'll only make it harder to reform a flawed industry and protect our kids. We'll never find "the better way, the more effective way, to allow both freedom and responsibility to co-exist," that Matthew Metzo hopes for in his letter.

Taken from this article. Emphasis mine. They don't want to censor, they just want oversight of the ratings process. I for one think that the whole GTA San Andreas thing is stupid. I can't sell my copy back to the store now because of the re-rating. I still think video games need to be rated though and if the ESRB would have gotten off of their lazy asses and taken a real look at GTA San Andreas it probably would have been rated Adults Only in the first place. AO does not need to equal Porn.

Re:Sponsoring Organization are Nutjobs

[pilkul]

soon-to-be-ex-Senator Joe Lieberman

'fraid not, Lieberman is running as an independent and is currently ten points ahead of Lamont in the polls.

Re:Sponsoring Organization are Nutjobs

[Anonymous Coward]

Given NIMF's record, the "summit" likely had nothing to do with a frank exchange of views or exploring the true nature of mass media and its impact on the human psyche, and was just a schmooze-fest for people bent on circumventing the First Amendment.

And yet, the article author, who was actually THERE, didn't seem to get this impression. You're just making his point for him - that "we" (pro-gaming people) need to actually find out what the other side are saying rather than throw around arguments like "Oh, I know all about them, I know what they would have said." You just come off sounding as ignorant and closed-minded as the other side. Now, if you could tell me some specific ideas espoused at this conference and what is wrong with them, I'd listen.

People in power are listening to the people at this conference - and they're not listening to people like you, because you don't give any impression of actually knowing what you're fighting against. True, the anti-gaming people generally don't know what they're fighting against either, but they're good at faking it in a way that is convincing to other people who also don't know what the anti-gamers are fighting. Pro-gamers have to learn to talk that language, and what better way than by listening to native speakers?

Re:Sponsoring Organization are Nutjobs

[PygmySurfer]

I still think video games need to be rated though and if the ESRB would have gotten off of their lazy asses and taken a real look at GTA San Andreas it probably would have been rated Adults Only in the first place. AO does not need to equal Porn.

Is there really that big a difference between an Mature (17+) rating and an AO (18+) rating? The majority of 17 year olds I know or have ever known would be mature enough to play San Andreas. And the ones that aren't probably wouldn't be mature enough at 18 either.

M: MATURE
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.

AO: ADULTS ONLY
Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.

The only real differentiator I see between those is the "graphic sexual content and nudity" part of the AO rating, which San Andreas didn't contain (Hot Coffee required a 3rd party modification, I hardly see how that should count). The only other difference is the "prolonged scenes of intense violence" vs. "intense violence, blood and gore" - The blood and gore sections almost makes the M rating sound worse. Are any of the "violent" scenes in San Andreas "prolonged"? How does the ESRB define "prolonged"?

Re:Sponsoring Organization are Nutjobs

[Thexare Blademoon]

Is there really that big a difference between an Mature (17+) rating and an AO (18+) rating?

I believe the main difference is this:

Have you ever seen a place like Wal-Mart selling an AO game?

Re:Sponsoring Organization are Nutjobs

[pilkul]

For all the conciliatory tone of that article, in substance it's not so much. It is viciously hostile towards developers of violent videogames, if nothing else.

As I've said for years, some video games, especially ultraviolent and killographic games and certain industry practices deserve some public condemnation. The evidence for a causal link between violent games and violent behavior is mounting. And with so much money to be made, some in the industry often seem to lose sight of their public responsibility to protect children.

Note the careful choice of words: "killographic", a word which exists solely to smear the game industry. Then he implies that video game developers are driven by shameless greed -- when the truth is that they simply have a different opinion on the morality of violence in games, and would likely prefer to make games violent even if there was no money to be made.

The truth is that game developers are as concerned about children as he is. Many of them have families themselves. They also go to great lengths to conform to their ESRB rating. If he didn't view videogame developers as demons he might not be so zealous about legally smacking them down rather than engaging a dialogue with them and working with the existing industry ratings system.

Re:Sponsoring Organization are Nutjobs

[MBC1977]

Uh I'll buy your copy off you. lol (seriously)

Re:Sponsoring Organization are Nutjobs

[Anonymous Coward]

These are the same guys who gave a grade of 'F' to the ESRB's rating system.

Given the fact that the ESRB seems to refuse to give out the AO ranking to games that obviously deserve it (have you ever even HEARD of a game ranked AO?) I'd say the ESRB has earned that F.

And that's not even bringing up the GTA3 or Oblivion issues.

The ESRB has earned their F.

Re:Sponsoring Organization are Nutjobs

[Bryansix]

I agree that the age restrictions on the ratings are pretty much useless. I think the ratings should speak for themselves and parents should make the decisions. However I do think that San Andreas deserved an AO rating just because of the "prolonged scenes of intense violence". I mean you could get in your car and run over people for hourse then turn around and start a war with the Police, FBI, etc. and pretty much decimate a city in a matter of hours. I would call that prolonged violence. Granted most people know it is a video game but if you think 17 years old kids are mature then I think you need to hang out with more 17 year olds. Hell I knew 23 year olds who would act more childish then some highschoolers.

Re:Sponsoring Organization are Nutjobs

[PygmySurfer]

Have you ever seen a place like Wal-Mart selling an AO game?

I don't know, I don't shop at Wal-Mart. But, how many games are actually rated AO, anyway? I'd never seen one, until San Andreas was re-rated.

If there were more AO games, would stores like Wal-Mart start to carry them? Does Wal-Mart still carry San Andreas (I assume they did when it was rated M)? I think if there were more AO games, and they were actually good, that stores would start carrying them. If not Wal-Mart, at least EB and Best Buy.

Re:Sponsoring Organization are Nutjobs

[PygmySurfer]

I mean you could get in your car and run over people for hourse then turn around and start a war with the Police, FBI, etc. and pretty much decimate a city in a matter of hours. I would call that prolonged violence.

If that's the case the other GTA games should've received an AO rating as well. The way previous games were rated kind of sets precedent (Manhunt was an M-rated game, and I think it's probably the most violent and gruesome game I've ever played - if ever a title deserved an AO rating, Manhunt has to be that title).

Granted most people know it is a video game but if you think 17 years old kids are mature then I think you need to hang out with more 17 year olds. Hell I knew 23 year olds who would act more childish then some highschoolers.

I said they were mature enough to handle such a game, not that they act mature... :) I think there is a difference. I know 40 year olds who act more childish than some highschoolers :)

Re:Sponsoring Organization are Nutjobs

[Thexare Blademoon]

Well, my point was that very few places seem to carry AO games, for whatever reason. I'm guessing that's the only non-political reason to push for the change.

Of course, I'm aware that it was more than likely politically motivated, but...

Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[spun]

Screw Ayn Rand and her whole twisted philosophy. No man is an island, and we are all our brother's keepers. Meaning, we do not create ourselves, our personality, it is created by the world, by other people that influence us. Using your influence to harm others is wrong. For instance, I could raise a bunch of my kids to be serial killers if I wanted to. Is that right? No. Should society have a say in the way someone raises their kids, say, to prevent people from raising a whole brood of deranged maniacs? I say so.

Now, I'm not saying the games industry is raising a bunch of maniacs. Thought I would explicitly state that to stave of the likely horde of idiots wielding straw men. I'm just saying, people have a right to determine what is decent and what isn't for their community. I may not like what my society says is decent, and I may want to practice what they say is indecent, but it is their right to set standards that others have to meet in order to be a part of that community. Don't like it? Don't live in that community.

The dumbest thing you can do when your community is discussing standards is to tell them that you don't give a fuck what they think and you are just going to do whatever the hell you want to. They are perfectly justified in not taking your opinion into consideration. This is exactly what the gaming industry has done, and it is a sign of immaturity. The smart thing to do is to get involved and address people's concerns. The more you interact, the easier it is to reach a mutually satisfactory compromise.

Even from a purely mercenary, capitalist, objectivist (what a crock!) point of view, it's in one's own self interest not to alienate large segements of one's potential market.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[superwiz]

Well, since we are down to the "screw this and screw that". I'll join in. Screw your community. I am an individual and I don't care what your community says I should do with my life as long as I am not hurting anyone. And if you show up at my door and DEMAND me to be your keeper, expect to get shot. If you don't like violent games, don't let your kids buy it. Same goes for porn.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[br00tus]

"I am an individual", yet one third of my salary is going to the US federal government, which is giving it to Halliburton so they can kill people in Iraq. So what do you do when they come to your door looking for tax money, you the individual are going to singlehandedly take on the police, the national guard, and the US army? That might play in Hollywood movies but it is not reality. The government doesn't even have to come to you for money, they go to the company boss who takes it out of wages anyhow. Which also leads one to wonder why a worker who is creating the wealth he lives on has a boss working for company owners who control his money anyhow. The idea you're "free" now is a joke - unless you really are well-to-do, which means you have little in common with the average Slashdot reader who is, at best, a professional.

We live in a capitalist society, which means it is run by capitalists. Federal reserve surveys show that over 40% of the corporate stock in the country is owned by 1% of the population, while the bottom 90% of the population has to split up the less than 20% of the pie left for them. The numbers are similar for private business as well (and bonds etc.) If you look at these types, say on the Forbes 400, you see that half of them inherited all of their money. And the cutoff between the inheritance half and "self-made" billionaires is at the $300 million line, meaning someone inheriting $280 million and parlaying it into a few billion is "self-made". In fact the top people on the list all came from wealth - Bill Gates's father and grandfather were well-to-do lawyers (Preston Gates was huge before Microsoft), Warren Buffett's father was a congressman whose family owned many stores etc. I won't even go into how much of capitalism is based on imperialist theft - say the English robbery of Ireland, India or English settlers robbery of American Indians (in the US and Canada). Or US theft of oil in Iraq.

Ayn Rand takes the reality of capitalism, hides it, and creates a fantasy land. The workers movements, the left, has always been about giving control of the workers work to the worker. This is what the capitalists don't want, or people nominally on the left who try to betray this tradition - US trade union bureaucrats who don't care about workers, or USSR communist bureaucrats who ultimately became straight-out capitalists, showing what they really were all along. Of course, people who have had workers movements and the like know this, which is why Ayn Rand is a joke anywhere outside of the US. Ayn Rand is the equivalent of the fundamentalist Jesus bullshit in the US, except for professionals and managers too smart to buy into those myths. But not smart enough to know about the world outside the US, or even inside the US going back a century or two.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you pack up and move to a desert island, you are NOT outside of the rule of law or the standards of the community. Sure, do whatever inside your own four walls, but once you decide to enter the marketplace you are legally and morally obligated to work within the standards of the community, regardless of ms rands' half-baked ravings (I refuse to dignify her uneducated screed with the term 'philosophy'). If you don't like it; do what JG did...and get the fuck out!

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[spun]

Unless you live alone in the wilderness, you live in a community, and that community has every right to deny you any and all benefits of membership in the community, including the right to title to land, the right to trade with members of the community, and the right to use community property like roads. If you don't like it, go build your own community and stop trying to tell others how to live their lives. If people want to set a limit, say, no public nudity, and then you go around in the nude, those people have the right to remove you from their community, by force if necessary. Are you trying to say that people aren't even allowed to talk about what is decent and what isn't?!?

I've noticed that people who say they should have the right to do whatever they want with their lives without hurting others always seem to reserve the right to define for themselves what "hurting others" means. That kind of selfishness needn't be tolerated by any civilized society.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[Moofie]

"people have a right to determine what is decent and what isn't for their community"

Really? How do you figure? You certainly don't have the right to determine what is decent for me. That is true for all values of "you" and "me".

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw your community. I am an individual.

It's *our* community. For such a rugged individualist you sure like partaking in our community and using our resources. Is that how it works? If the community serves your needs you don't mind participating in the community. But once it starts disagreeing with you the community can go fuck itself? Sounds pretty childish to me.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[Anonymous Coward]

No man is an island, and we are all our brother's keepers.

That sounds like an Old Testament quote - and if you're a Bible fan you might be interested to know that I as your keeper will soon be banning the Old Testament, to prevent youth from being corrupted by the divinely-sanctioned rape and genocide depicted therein.

What's that, you don't want to have such objectionable material banned? You didn't want me to be your keeper, you just wanted to be mine?

I thought so. Nobody ever says "Please tell me what I can and can't see"; it's always "I'm going to tell you."

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[Anonymous Coward]

People throw around the word "right" way too much. Where do our "rights" come from? Let us put this back in a context: This article is about a movement to control video games in the United States of America. In the USA communities are not all powerful in their ability to enforce their "rights" against the individual because the individual also has rights. Video games may be classified as speach, or the playing, owning or producing of such games may be protected from government interference by privacy rights born of judicial opinion.

Your argument that a community has a right to deny all the benefits of membership is a philisophical belief and is just as valid as the parent's belief in John Stuart Mill's harm principle. In order for your discussion to move forward, you may want to ask where these rights come from. Do they come from the collected might of the community to enforce them? Are they granted by a deity or some concept of natural law?

Also, if you're going to call a believer in the harm principle selfish because they cannot specify a test for what harm is, I'd love to know how you divine what a community "wants." Because as often as I've seen the harm principle used to excuse antisocial behavior I've seen someone else lable their opinion as the community's

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[superwiz]

You'll be happy to know that your advice has been taken by many an artist already. That's why Japanese anime is so much better than American. It's full of sexuality and violence. And because it is artfully incorporated into the anime it is of better quality. But you can't produce these kinds of products in America without paying heed to the gods of the think-of-the-children nonsense. So in the area of anime, we are just left behind. That JG has left. We all pay the price.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[superwiz]

The "community" is a group of willing participants (as in Slashdot or your local street). The WILLINGNESS to participate to participate in community activities is not indicated by presense in the community but by taking active steps to participate in the said activities. There is nothing childish about not wanting to be forced to do things you don't want to do. If the "community" at large starts to disagree with what I do with some of the members of the community (e.g., play video games, have an orgy, etc.) the community should realize that just because it's not their cup of tea, that does not mean it shouldn't be mine. In a lawful society it will bud out. In a dictatorship, it will have the power to stop others from doing things that don't harm it. You mischaracterize forcing me to do something as "disagreeing". Disagreeing is having a different opinion -- it is not forcing others to act according to your opinion.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[superwiz]

People are allowed to talk about anything they want. They just can't force others to act according to whatever f#$@ed opinion of what is moral. Morality can only be the rules one sets for oneself. Don't confuse moral and ethical.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you're saying that people whose Highest Value involves drawing pictures of shitting dicknipples and child rape have left for japan...like I'm supposed to think that's a bad thing? Boo-hoo we can't make films about 10 year old girls being fileted and raped by tentacles?

From where I'm sitting, it looks like the system works!

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[Stalyn]

Rights are a human construct that are formed by human institutions and the society that create them. John Stuart Mill and his brand of Utilitarianism is mostly a dead philosophy. Certain flavors of Utilitarianism still exist among certain English* philosophers like Peter Singer. Continental philosophy has moved on and takes a similar position as one described in my first sentence. Honestly the idea that there exists a moral calculus which one can base their moral decisions on just seems very naive to me.

*English as in born in the UK, USA or Australia.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[superwiz]

Then don't complain about lack of healthcare because the doctors don't want to work in a system where they have to learn as much about law as they do about medicine. Don't complain about loss of manufacturing jobs to the countries where the manufacturers get to negotiate with workers what their wages are worth instead of the union bosses. Don't complain about not having enough teachers because anyone with an iota of a talent does not want to stay in the system where they have to worry about the abitrary rules of behavior set for them by the people who have no understanding of their subject. In general, if you think the system works, you don't get to complain when someone picks and goes somewhere else after telling you the hell with your rules. The only rule you get to have in exchanging goods and services with other people is that you owe each other what you agree to owe each other. As soon as someone is forced to comply with your demands, you set yourself on a way to become alone in your world where only get to obey your rules. And you deserve to get to that world as soon as possible.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, there's a huge difference between american artists refraining from producing child porn and every teacher, doctor, etc going on strike. Let me clue you in: they aren't.

One reason for that? This is their community. It is highly unlikely that they're going to give a rats' ass about not being able to buy XXX rated games or not being able to draw kiddy porn.

Your link between your geek causes and some imaginary strike-of-the-great-minds is flat-out LAUGHABLE.

The doctors don't want their kids buying crap that they know is carcinogenic (probably spelled that wrong; don't care)
The industrialists still contribute to the campaigns of the politicians who pass these laws...because it is in their own best interest.

Go jerk off more to your ayn rand fantasies; some day -if you're very lucky and very intelligent- you'll grow up and realise that in the Real World you are part of a larger community and that yes, that does mean coping with laws you don't like.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[mochan_s]

I could raise a bunch of my kids to be serial killers if I wanted to. Is that right?

NO.

There is a lot of research on twin studies that show that identical twins reared apart in different environments tend to become similar people with similar IQ, personality etc.

There is some influence of parents on rearing kids but it pretty much all goes away when they're around 30-40 years old (statistically speaking in terms on influence on measured metrics). Their genetic pre-disposition takes over.

So, the arguement that violent games make violent kids is still under debate.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[superwiz]

I am sorry, to disappoint you, but Ayn Rand is far from anything I idealize. Ayn Rand wrote in abstract. To compare liking her as a person to liking what she had to say is absurd. I just think that when it comes to defining how to treat others fairly, she's got it right on the dot. All the examples I was giving of what you are gonna have to cope with if you don't leave people alone with your morals garbage were taken from the real life. They are already happening and will only increase.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[Anonymous Coward]

Good, deny people the benefits of that community. They will deny you their friendship, and can go cry your liberal eyes out that somebody in this world doesn't LOVE you. Fag.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[aeoo]

It's not a simple issue. Many things communities do and hold in high esteem are trash. Extreme individualism is also correct and soundly critiqued by people like you.

Communities have no rights in reality. Neither do individuals. People in the community have power to act, and so do individuals. If your community decides to bad nakedness, and I go around naked, you cannot just remove me by force. Why not? Because even though I may be in the minority, I may have enough determination and power to make life for that prudish community living hell. Why? Because although I may be alone, my determination to go around naked is probably very high, or else, I wouldn't do something that obviously endangers my standing in community for no good reason. That means if you use force, you will not create a situation of peace, which is what you ultimately desire. You will simply polarize yourself further and create divisions. This is how gangs form. Although gangs are minorities, they are going nowhere and wield considerable power, just for that very reason. So, just because you are in majority, you can't just willy nilly control the minority, because minorities also have significant power, commensurate with their determination to apply it.

In no case does anyone have any inherent rights. I don't have a right to be dressed or to be naked. The community has no rights either.

This is why communities change and evolve. If what you say was true, then community standards would stay locked in and never change. But they change quite a bit over time. And guess how it happens, and will continue to happen, forever and ever more? It happens due to individual influence. It happens because someone ran naked across the street. And you can't stop it. You can participate in this process and throw your 2 cents into the pile. But you can't stop the changes and you can't really claim that any sides have any rights.

The rights are declared as a statement of faith or belief. And that's fine. But as you declare such things, it would be wise for you to understand the relative nature of any such declarations. Any person can declare anything they like. If enough of them agree, there you go -- a community. But this tells you nothing about the community or about how it will change.

You might have a community of naked people where running through the street dressed is an act of rebellion.

Things change. Individuals do matter. Individual still stands at the center of change, and your reasoning doesn't take anything away, but rather, it just explains the stage upon which the individual dances. This is neither selfish nor selfless. It's just how it is. I have no inherent right do slap you, but if I want to, I can, and there is nothing you can do to stop me, except post-factum, which is useless, except if you crave revenge. It's useless for the purpose of totally controlling the situation or for giving someone protection from some event happening.

As I see it, communities owe to individuals and individuals owe to the communities. It goes both ways.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[Guppy06]

"Meaning, we do not create ourselves, our personality, it is created by the world, by other people that influence us."

Either you're engaging in circular logic or you're refuting the idea of free will. Which one?

"For instance, I could raise a bunch of my kids to be serial killers if I wanted to."

Not in your worldview. You'd have to isolate those children from others who might convince them what they are doing is wrong, which you more or less believe to be an impossibility.

"Should society have a say in the way someone raises their kids, say, to prevent people from raising a whole brood of deranged maniacs? I say so."

And what if the society is the one raising deranged maniacs? National Socialism, anyone?

"Don't like it? Don't live in that community."

Rigorous application of your "no man is an island" statement means there is no other community to move into. Everybody influences everybody else, period.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[Guppy06]

"that community has every right to deny you any and all benefits of membership in the community, including the right to title to land, the right to trade with members of the community, and the right to use community property like roads."

From where does this community obtain these "rights?"

In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest, they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto, the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labour out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing; when he had felled his timber he could not remove it, nor erect it after it was removed; hunger in the mean time would urge him from his work, and every different want call him a different way. Disease, nay even misfortune would be death, for though neither might be mortal, yet either would disable him from living, and reduce him to a state in which he might rather be said to perish than to die.

This necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessing of which, would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen, that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other; and this remissness, will point out the necessity, of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.

Some convenient tree will afford them a State-House, under the branches of which, the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of REGULATIONS, and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man, by natural right, will have a seat.

But as the colony increases, the public concerns will increase likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present. If the colony continues increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number; and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often; because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflexion of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the gove

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[spun]

Free will is a red herring. It just puts the real issue of control and determination at one further level removed. What made this happen? I willed it to happen, and enacted my will. But what made me will what I did? What caused the particuler set of choices I comprehended to appear in my consciousness? Something inside me, or something outside me? Do you see where the falsity of this line of reasoning lies?

What is inside you is everything you have made of the world, and it has made of you, before this moment. What is outside of you is the moment, as it presents itself to you. Where was that line again?

If I raised a child in a box with no outside contact with the world, it wouldn't be a person as we know it. If I raised that child away from influences except myself, then I would be society to that child.

Derangement, lack of efficiency, and vicious circles of bad causes leading to bad effects can happen in individuals, in families, or in larger societies. Sometimes, due to the right arrangement of circumstances, one deranged person can impact a society as much as our society impacts all of us.

As for your last comment, what would you propose as an alternative? In a world where everything is owned by individuals, those who own nothing must be slaves to those who do. There is a saying, only free individuals can create a strong tribe, and only a strong tribe can create free individuals.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[spun]

Brother, I could have written your words myself. I feel exactly as you do about the concept of rights. I was going a wee bit far in one direction in order to spark discussion. I responded to another post before I read your reply and I find there are some very interesting parallels.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[spun]

The twin studies I read showed it averaged about 50-50 nature/nurture overall, rising to 60% nature to 40% nurture in later life. But some people are more open to influence by the world and some are more inner directed. The worst kind of abuse and neglect will almost always damage a person for life, but some people will still rise above it. And the best parenting in the world won't make some babies into adults you'd want to be around. I read another interesting study recently that showed that our childhood peer group has more of an impact on who we become than our parents do in most cases.

I'd say you are right about the argument, it's still open. I'm leaning towards "no, but..." As in, no, it doesn't make kids vioent but it can be a contributing factor.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[spun]

A man alone in the world would think about rights as much as a fish thinks about water. And there are no external scales with which to measure anything, as there is no external.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[spun]

So would you run throught the streets of your town naked? Would you want stop someone who was exposing themselves to women in your town? Kids? In a sane world simply showing your schlong to someone wouldn't mean anything, but we don't live in a sane world, but to some people it means a great deal. I'm not about to go telling others what should or shouldn't be a big deal in their own heads. For the sake of getting along in the world we're all going to have to at least pretend like we care about people's sniffy little issues. It's better to listen than to fight if that's an option, and this was a place where it could have been an option if the game industry had cared. I want to see censorship as little as you do. But we're going to have to be smarter about how we go about keeping that beast penned up in it's little cage with only those freaks who really want to be there with it. Not going to this thing was not a good move for the game industry.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[spun]

Too true. And in order to keep them from trying to enforce their crap on us, don't you think it would be wise to at least go to their conference and listen to them whine and at least pretend to care? This was a slap in the face, for no good reason.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[Ombwah]

I think I refute this. SImply put, I am saying that people aren't allowed to talk about what's decent. At least not in this context. This is not a 'community at large fears harm' issue, this is an issue that hinges on the moral and unprovable version of "hurting others" that one large religious body holds in a country that pointedly disallows the influence of faith in establishing laws.

There is a good reason that "...people who say they should have the right to do whatever they want with their lives without hurting others always seem to reserve the right to define for themselves what "hurting others" means." (sic) It's because the strictest and least permissive groups would always win out if they were allowed the decision. Imagine for a moment your reaction to a statement that "The christian church across from my home erected a cross that I feel hurts me. It reminds me of the trials of my pagan ancestors and the church itself poses a threat to the well being of my developing children. Tear it down, I as member of the community, have a right to demand this." Would you say that was ridiculous?

Here you support the right of a subset of the national community to discuss the outright censorship of arts and expressions provided to us in the 1st amendment of our constitution. In the same sentence you denounce a community that sees the folly inherent in pushing for censorship of arts and media. Should the games media, serious journalists or not, legitimize these functions? Or hsould they vote with their collective absence and shun these radical censors as the rest of the free community should?

Here in America we should hold precious our freedom of speech, our freedom of the press (which honestly should include games and video, whther it does or not, media is media) and our freedom to not only choose our own religion, be it what it may be, but to be free of persecution from other religions.

So don't legislate my F'ing morals, OK? And bully to the games media for not showing up, these people should be ignored at the very least, if not run out of the community like these defenses of censorship and mob rule suggest.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[Anonymous Coward]

*lol*
+1 American Psycho ;)

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[spun]

You make a good point, perhaps these groups really are so crazy that they don't deserve our recognition. But I don't think we're at that impasse yet. If we believe that, there's nothing left to do but fight them tooth and nail. However, if talking still has a chance of resolveing differences, fighting is just stupid.

They can discuss censorship, they just shouldn't be allowed to enact it. And the best way to keep them from doing that is to pay attention to what they are talking about and make them feel like their concerns are being heard. At this point, not everyone who goes to these things wants outright censorship. They are mostly scared and confused. If the games industry goes to these events, they will not only show the community they are willing to hear their concerns, they also get to air theirs and show their side of the story.

No one should legislate anyone's morals, but it never hurts to listen to people's grievances. Even as stupid as those greivances seem.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[babblefrog]

Hmmm... Are you willing to accept any limits on what rules the "community" can and cannot make? You seem to have tossed out freedom of speech, of religion, of the press, and any protection of minority rights. My guess is this is not going to be a very popular philosophy on Slashdot. On the other hand, this would have gone over pretty well in Nazi Germany.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[spun]

I've tossed out what now? Where the hell did you get tossing out freedom of speech, religion, the press and minority rights from what I wrote? I think it should be obvious that communities are themselves members of larger communities and therefore what they can and can't do to members is in part determined by the rules of the larger community. Just as a community might deny an individual the benefits of membership for exposing themselves in public, a larger community or nation might deny benefits to communities that did not protect free speech, religion, and minority rights. In fact, thankfully, we live in such a nation. And the fact that a larger community is there to police the smaller communities of our nation is the only thing keeping some of those communities from enacting laws that would make it legal to, say, lynch black people. Communities of all sizes have a responsibility to their members, and members have a responsibility to their communities. It goes both ways.

That was some strident, knee-jerk, willful misinterpretation you pulled there, I have to say.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[aeoo]

Very nice reply to a very nice reply (the post you reply to is also nice).

"Free will is a red herring. It just puts the real issue of control and determination at one further level removed. What made this happen? I willed it to happen, and enacted my will. But what made me will what I did? What caused the particuler set of choices I comprehended to appear in my consciousness?"

Invalid line of inquiry, because it assumes that cause is necessary. :) If you assume there is a cause to everything, then your inquiry is not open to discovering anything to the contrary. What you're doing is assuming that such cause exists and then thinking that all that's left to do is to characterize it and locate it (of course, locating it is characterizing it positionally, so it's redundant).

It's one thing if you want to spin some propaganda, and perhaps we all do that. When we propagandize, we absolutely need some assumptions, or else, we have nowhere to stand and no statement to make. That's normal and I don't fault you for that right now, because I'm not in that kind of mood.

However, you should recognize that in a truly sincere inquiry you can't assume anything. A strict view of cause-effectism is very easy to attack, philosophically. All you have to do is examine the delineation between cause and effect, and discover that indeed there is none (except the one you make up in your mind). But there are many other ways too. And I don't want to get into that right now. The point is, a strict cause-effect view of reality is not a sure thing, and you shouldn't fully fall for it, even if you do decide to employ it on a relative level. So, even as you employ cause-effect view in real life, you should understand well the flaws of the strict cause-effect view, and use that understanding to keep your mind open.

Will is not a cause or effect of anything. If will was a cause but not the effect, then how would will connect to effect? You'd have to posit a medium of some sort, but then right away you'd encounter many problems. Then I'd ask, how does will connect to the medium? And so on. Will is not an effect of anything in a similar manner. Materialistic monism is one possible "solution" to this, but it's basically a denial of sentience/awareness at its core, which is a big joke (if everything is a medium, then what is the medium mediating between? etc. etc. etc..). Mind-body dualism is a big joke too.

The point is, if you don't have any sacred cows in your mind, and keep looking carefully at the core, you'll see something that you can't put into words. When you try to put what you see into words, you may sound wise to some and like an idiot to others. Oh well. :)

All in its season.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[spun]

If it is not a cause, and not an effect it has no impact and is not impacted by anything, therefore it doesn't exist. Will exists, it arises when the conditions necessary for it's existence arise. It is an emergent phenomenon. I do believe in the Buddhist concept of dependent origination. Nothing is a thing unto itself.

Of course, not everything must have a cause, or an effect, but those things that don't can't be known, as knowing itself is an effect. Interesting point, the greeks had four words for cause: material, formal, efficient and final cause. Material cause is what something is made of, i.e. wood is the material cause of a table. Formal cause is what a thing is intended for, i.e. people needing a flat plane higher than the floor to set things on is the formal cause of a table. Efficient cause is what we now think of as cause, the externel entity that created the changem, i.e. the efficient cause of a table is a carpenter cutting some wood and joining it together in a particular way. Final cause is similar to formal cause and I have never been fully able to figure out the difference Aristotle was trying to imply, but I guess it's more of: there's a table with a glass on it now kind of thing.

But this is all missing my point, and I'm afraid you did too in trying to sound wise by putting what you've seen into words. ;) You basically restate my whole premise as if I missed it in the first place. Cause and effect assume an internal/external dichotomy that doesn't truely exist. To define casue and effect one must seperate this from that where all such seperation is arbitrary and entirely dependent on the mind of the one doing the seperation. In truth, the seperation doesn't exist.

Materialistic Monism is no denial of sentience or awareness, it just places those properties in a subordinate position. They are emergent properties, like color. Color doesn't exist. Just wavelengths of light. When wavelengths of light interact with a retina and nervous system, the perception of color arises. Perception itself is also an emergent property, one part of the chain of dependent origination that leads to things such as sentience and awareness.

The problem of trying to put what is beyond words into words is that only people who don't understand what you are saying will think you are wise. People who do understand won't think you're an idiot unless you have the kind of attitude which negates what you are trying to say. It's like tossing a piece of fish to a cat, but the cat doesn't see, so you point at the fish and the cat sniffs your fingers. We know that words are like those fingers, pointing at something. Don't look at the words, look at what the words are pointing to.

In short: Why did Bodhisatva bring Buddhism to the east? Because I like fish.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[aeoo]

"If it is not a cause, and not an effect it has no impact and is not impacted by anything, therefore it doesn't exist."

That's an extremist view. Your conclusion doesn't follow. For example, space doesn't cause anything and is not an effect of anything, and yet we consider it to be existent. :)

"But this is all missing my point, and I'm afraid you did too in trying to sound wise by putting what you've seen into words. ;) "

Not really. I'm far better than you can understand at this point.

"Materialistic Monism is no denial of sentience or awareness, it just places those properties in a subordinate position."

Not really. Monism means only one thing exists. So, it doesn't merely place awareness in a subordinate position. It is effectively saying that since awareness is not one thing that does exist, it, in fact, does NOT exist.

Of course when this is pointed out to a materialistic monist, they'll try all kinds of cop outs, such as "well consciousness exists, but it's an illusion" blah blah, *yawn*.

Monism of any kind is just as an extreme of a view as dualism of any kind.

Monism is a view that results from extreme "emphasis" of one polarity over another, where both polarities are created by a dualistic mindset. I place the word "emphasis" in quotation marks, because it's not really emphasis, but rather monism is a statement that one side of polarity absolutely exists, and is the only thing that exists. It's like saying that light is the only thing that exists, and there is no such thing as darkness (or, darkness is an illusion cop out, etc.).

I don't try to sound wise. I am wise. I am wise even during sleep or when I make mistakes.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[aeoo]

"The problem of trying to put what is beyond words into words is that only people who don't understand what you are saying will think you are wise."

Why is that a problem? Do you think my goal is to impress you or to win you over? I don't depend on other people's egos. Other people's egos are like ornaments on my robe. Nice if you have a few pins here and there. Perfectly nice if you don't. Either way, pins are ornaments and not something I need to live or something I need in life.

And I guess you probably will get this one, but just in case you won't, I'll say it:

"Of course, not everything must have a cause, or an effect, but those things that don't can't be known, as knowing itself is an effect."

So, space can't be known? :) Cool.

Friend on the way. You are very deluded. Knowing is not an effect of anything. The mind is omniscient, timeless, omnipotent, perfect from the beginning, invincible, but really beyond any characteristic. You don't know this yet. The fact that you don't is obvious from many many miles away.

I think you are smart, but you're arrogant and blind.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[spun]

Space is caused by the laws of our universe. Space is not an empty stage upon which actors move, it is a thing with a cause and effects. For instance, the Van der Waals force is caused by the properties of space. Because space is not empty, but full of a froth of virtual particles which spring into existance in pairs and then annihilate each other, when two objects are brought close together there is less room for virtual particles in between them. Therefore the virtual particles outside the two things push them together. Space and time are also intricately tied together, in that going fast not only makes time slow down, but it squashes objects in the direction of travel, at least from an external reference frame.

But even if space were but a mere stage, it would still have a cause and effects. It's cause could be said to be the Big Bang, or The Word if that is a closer fit to your belief system. It's effect is obvious: it keeps everything from hapenning all in the same place.

You use words like better, but you even bothered to state what scale you are using to measure "better," or where that scale came from. Therefore, "better" is a poor choice of word to use to convey the concept.

If one thing exists, but that thing is a thing called "difference" or division, which as you might know stem from the asme root as "divinity" then that one thing necessarily creates all things by existing. Without difference, there would be no concept of Monism. You can say, "it's all one" but that is still two things, now isn't it? "It" and "one"

What if consciousness IS the one thing that exists? What is everything is just a form of consciousness? And what is consciousness if not a recognition of difference, divisions, divinity? You are correct to state that Monism is in fact a form of dualism, with one pole over emphasised. And the Zen master was correct to chop of his student's finger when the student imitated the master by holding up that finger when asked the meaning of life. "It" is not "One." Or it is, but that's not the point...

No one is wise in an absolute sense. Wise in regards to what? What is there to be known or predicted? By whose standards do you measure wise? I mean, yes, I get what you are getting at, but what's the point of stating something like that? Either your words speak for themselves or they don't. So far, you come across as someone who has something to prove. I mean, it's a fun game we're playing here, but it appears that you're bordering on taking it seriously, which is always a bad sign in my book. ;-)

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[spun]

I'm arrogant? Yes, but that's a pot calling a kettle black. Mind is omniscient. Sure, mind or awareness is the base state, containing all division but also all lack thereof. It is omniscient in that everything that is known is known by Mind. Timeless but also containing all time and the seeds that create and destroy time. Omnipotent because everything that is done is done by Mind. Perfect from the beginning because it contains all beginnings and all perfection, as well as all sustainings, all endings and the lack of same, and all imperfection as well. Beyond all characteristic. That's the truest thing you've said, yet you try to place characteristics on it. Why?

Just because you can't see something's cause doesn't mean it doesn't have one. Sure, there is Mind, the Way, the Uncaused Cause, but that is beyond words and trying to put words on it can be worse than gilding a lilly. You say it has no cause when it has every cause the way a tree has leaves.

You seem intent on convincing me that you have more spiritual knowledge than me. Why? You seem attached to mystery, as if you want to prove that you have understanding of mysteries that I don't. That bores me. You seem intent on teaching, in a rather pedantic way, without truly listening to see where your "student" actually is. I suggest that if you want to play this game, you leave the teachings of your school and/or guru behind and meet me mind to mind with no pretense or artifice. Perhaps your preconceptions of who I am are mistaken.

Don't take that to mean that I never accept the teachings of others. Quite the contrary, I cherish them when they are worthy. But I'm quite discerning and I only accept those things that make sense to me. Anyone claiming to perfect spiritual knowledge will undoubtedly know the exact phrases to use to help me "get it" so I'm not really worried.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[aeoo]

"Space is caused by the laws of our universe."

I have no patience for monkeying around. Seriously. I like you but I can't debate with you any more. So, I'm going to post some replies and that's it. I invite *YOU* to look at this on your own. In other words, instead of me proving it to you, you should try to arouse your own interest in proving it to yourself. You make a lot of silly assumptions. I understand they are acceptable assumptions within this convention, but as someone who at least pretends to be Buddhist, you cannot afford them.

So with this in mind... Here goes:

If space is caused by laws, this just shifts my example from space to laws. Then laws are not causing anything and are not an effect of anything rather than space. And yet we can know these laws. So, all you did is just slightly changed the wording of my example, but you didn't change the nature of my example. Look deeper at the underlying pattern of my examples! I shouldn't have had to point this out to you.

If you think that laws are causing something, rather than me showing you how they cannot be the cause, why don't you use your own mind? Please. Otherwise there will be no end to this -- you pour out a stream of baseless cognitions that I have to endlessly demonstrate to be without any basis. This is something that you need to learn to do for yourself, without relying on me.

Remember, I don't care if I can convince you or not. I am just happy that I see what I see for myself. I don't mind doing a little bit of sharing, but in the end, I won't cause you to see clearly.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[spun]

Never thought of this as a debate, but more of a sharing of understanding. The fact that you see it as a debate speaks volumes. We have to use words to communicate. Words, especially when used to convey things such as we are trying to convey, are necessarily imprecise. I could easily misinterprete the things you are saying and turn around and accuse you of making silly assumptions. But that would be because I was looking at your words, like the cat looking at the finger pointing at the food and not at the meaning behind the words. I have no doubt that you have a certain understanding about what the world is and how it works, but you refuse to come off your high horse and see that we are using different sets of words to create two different signs pointing at the exact same thing. You focus on a subset of what I am saying and don't get the gist of it. I know this because you have not said anything to me that I don't already understand deeply on an intuitive level. I don't know about you, but I have had certain experiences. Even there, I begin to go wrong, "I" did not "have" these experiences, but language is imprecise. In fact, "I" disappeared. All distinction, all difference, all concepts, all subjects and all objects were gone. Yet they were all present, too. If "you" have had a similar "experience," you will know what was left after everything (including being gone) was gone. If so, as best you can recall and put into words, what was it?

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[aeoo]

"You seem intent on convincing me that you have more spiritual knowledge than me."

You don't know my intent, right? Or do you? Do I know your intent?

I'm just playing with you, don't you see? :)

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[aeoo]

"you refuse to come off your high horse and see that we are using different sets of words to create two different signs pointing at the exact same thing."

There are two disagreements here. First, I am not on high horse. I act the way I do, that's true. But the evaluation of "high" is your own responsibility, not mine. Internally I don't feel high or low or in the middle. In fact, if you try to understand my behavior in those terms, you cannot. You can't understand my motivation.

Second, they're not the same thing. Because the way you point is too weak. Your pointing out is like a non-pointing. If a materialistic monists listens to you, he/she just finds validation and comfort in you. The way I operate is very different from that. In me, the only ones who find comfort are Buddhas. Ordinary beings go straight to hell where they belong. If I did it in any other way, I'd have no compassion.

I dislike people like you, not because you're arrogant or whatever. You are weak. You have no balls to throw a person into the void. To effectively kill them. And you must be capable of killing to deliver beings. I don't think you know that yet. To deliver yourself you have to die. To deliver others you have to kill them. It's nice AFTER it's over...the result is just Buddhahood. But the process of it is hell, because during the process you're breaking apart the very heart of what a person takes to be real and valid.

So, you're just a pussy cat, basically. You know how to say some words, but when shit hits the fan, you'll just run away with your tail between your legs. And this is clearly evident in your kowtowing to the materialists.

I don't have respect for any doctrine. But it goes beyond that. Not only do I lack respect for doctrines, I teach others why they should also stop respecting doctrines, no matter what kind and not matter whose. But when I say "teach", I don't mean I stand in front of a blackboard. When I sleep or take a shit, I teach all beings. You can get bored or whine all you want, and you get taught. Nothing I do misses the mark. When I say something, it's always bulls eye. You can disagree and do the opposite of what I say, it doesn't matter.

This isn't new. This is how it's been for some time now.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[spun]

Shit, you are right. I was being a pussy. I'm just too fond of my intellect. I am not, however, scared to throw anyone, including myself, into the void. It's what I hope to accomplish and if what I said is easily misinterpreted, then I need to know that.

I do know that you have to kill people to deliver them, I've killed myself, but evidently not thoroughly enough. And you are right, it is nice after it is over. One at least has access to perfect peace. Whether one is smart or determined enough to dwell there is another matter.

As they say, before enlightnement, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. The realization is not the end of the road, but it makes the rest of the trip a lot more enjoyable. Me, I just wish I wasn't so damn lazy when it comes to putting things into practice. I mean, what good is knowing that perfect peace is always within your grasp if anyone can come along and push your buttons and take it away again?

I've enjoyed sparring with you more than with most. I wasn't quite sure of you at first, but now I know that was more about my lack of mastery than yours. Anyway, thanks for the lessons ;-) I was overdue for a little shake up.

Re:Ayn Rand: Philosophy for the Self Centered

[aeoo]

"I do know that you have to kill people to deliver them, I've killed myself, but evidently not thoroughly enough. And you are right, it is nice after it is over. One at least has access to perfect peace. Whether one is smart or determined enough to dwell there is another matter."

You do know? That's good. When I was saying it I knew it too. :)

Access to peace? I'm not sure that's how I'd put it, but I don't necessarily disagree this time.

It might be like you become so dumb, you just don't know what's peace and what's not peace. And determination might be like being so lazy, that you don't mind burning eternally to keep the lazy demeanor, taking responsibility for all the fallout.

I'm just like any other person. If the bus comes, I run screaming like a little boy -- aaaahhhh. Unless maybe I got a bone to pick with the bus, or maybe got a bone to pick with my own body? Just for fun. Who knows.

But if you look around, even the so-called Buddhists, although they talk a lot about emptiness, they don't live life as if it was empty. And in order to continue to keep up this charade comfortably and in a socially acceptable manner, they've developed a system of "two truths". So, now it's very comfortable. When you wanna talk a little crazy talk, you use ultimate truth. When it comes time to pay the bills, or to steal your friend's girlfriend, you use relative. Very easy. Yes, except this isn't a correct application! Ultimate was never meant to be separated from the relative. The very notion of "ultimate" is itself relative to the notion of "relative", and is correctly used as an antidote to melt the calcified mindset. If you keep the hot water away from the ice cubes, nothing will melt! You pour the hot water on the ice cubes -- the end result is -- no hot water and no ice cubes. Hot water is ultimate truth and ice cube is a calcified mind, which is obsessed and blinded with/by the relative truth. So don't keep em separate! Mix it all up. Apply everything to everything. Turn everything upside down and back again -- to your heart's desire, and don't be too skittish in doing so. This example of course is a bad one, because it leads the person to believe that there is warm water left after mixing hot water with ice cubes, some kind of "middle state" that's reached. Oh well... That's what you get for using material examples.

Yes, I like talking to you, no matter what I say. Why else would I reply, eh? :)

Someone they could learn from.

[Kadin2048]

Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the Gaming Industry could show up to an event like this and have God as a witness and no one there will listen to them when they say videogames do not cause children to perform violent acts.

That pretty much sums the whole thing up in one line.

Actually, you could show up in any Congressional subcommittee with God in tow, and unless God happened to be made out of money, I doubt you'd influence any pending piece of legislation.

If the "games lobby" wants to make its voice heard in government, and keep itself from being run over as the Fox News scarecrow-du-jour, then they should take a very good look at what the National Rifle Association does, in terms of communicating with and mobilizing its support base, getting donations, and funneling those donations to where they'll have maximum political impact. I can't think of any organization that is as frankly successful and powerful as they are, and has continuously maintained such a high profile, and has done it while staying within the bounds of the law. (Some corporate lobbies might come close, but I think their cash burn rates are much higher for the effect they achieve.)

You can have logical arguments so beautiful they'd make Plato sit down and weep, enough scientific evidence to unequivocally prove a dozen theories of everything, but the government will still ignore you if you are not either a large force among voters, or have lots of filthy lucre to burn. Preferably, have both.

Re:Someone they could learn from.

[*BBC*PipTigger]

Although I agree that many things can be learned from the NRA, I don't agree that those lessons are likely to yield similarly favorable results when applied to video game issues.

Politicians have been a wealthy ruling elite. They have always owned some of the most expensive guns or they have secret service agents to carry guns in their stead or they have body-guards to be their hired guns... and they usually have many wealthy family members and lots of property they'd like protected by arms as well.

Of course they want guns to remain expensive (through taxation) and restrictive (through background checks and arbitrary strictures) and they want to continue to imprison more people for consentual activities (like drug use, prostitution, gambling, etc.) so that the barrier-to-entry for weaponry escalates and fewer poor and middle-class people have access to guns... but they certainly want powerful firearms to remain available to continue to protect them, their families, and their wealth.

They aren't ever going to give two shits about preserving video game rights, free speech, etc. by comparison. They'll have to die off and be supplanted by us younger bucks, us Generation X, Y, and Z'ers, who've cut our teeth on Atari 2600, Nintendo Entertainment System, and Sega Genesis... and we've stuck with games and continue to enjoy PlayStations, XBoxes, and anything Nintendo makes... and now we're all around thirty years old and will soon be constitutionally eligible to occupy high government offices.

I'm an impatient fscker and I hate waiting for the old ass-hats to retire but they're so closed-minded that it seems that's what it will take to get all the cowards out of authoritarian positions. They're cowards because they're afraid of they unfamiliar (be it Muslims, Koreans, gamers, etc.) and they rule by fear... they propagate terror and increase their influence.

Of course games should be embraced by larger society, heralded for crowning achievements in interactivity, collaboration, excitement, education, etc. and even appreciated for the ability to pander to the status quo with uninspired sequels of drivel. My point is that the current United Statesian leaders are not up to the task of respecting video games yet so learning from the National Rifle Association can't have the same impact as we'd hope until other things change.

So try to change more and faster. Please vote for me. We ought to continue to do whatever we can. At least things must continue to change one way or another, even if it's ultimately slower than smart progressive open-minded people would prefer... and things will improve eventually if enough people care to participate. Demand auditable balloting systems (Death to Diebold!). Agitate for ranged or ranked voting (instead of this retarded plurality system). Increase accountability, integrity, and honesty in representation. Serving our country should become a respectable honor again someday.

Sincerely,
-Pip Stuart
HTTP://PipForPresident.Org

Re:Someone they could learn from.

[Mr2001]

They'll have to die off and be supplanted by us younger bucks [...] and now we're all around thirty years old and will soon be constitutionally eligible to occupy high government offices.

I'm an impatient fscker and I hate waiting for the old ass-hats to retire but they're so closed-minded that it seems that's what it will take to get all the cowards out of authoritarian positions.

[...]

So try to change more and faster. [...] Demand auditable balloting systems (Death to Diebold!). Agitate for ranged or ranked voting (instead of this retarded plurality system). Increase accountability, integrity, and honesty in representation.

You forgot something:

Demand that the age restrictions for holding elected office, and/or for voting, be lowered or eliminated.

If more "younger bucks" who've grown up with video games could legally hold an elected office, and more gamers were eligible to vote for them, that'd solve half the problem right there.

Instead, the system is fundamentally weighted against every issue that young people care about more than older people. Teenagers can't vote because it's illegal; young adults don't vote because they've spent their entire lives not being able to vote and not having anyone to vote for. They don't have anyone to vote for because candidates don't pay attention to the issues that matter to people who can't vote. Even the young people who want to be the candidates who take on these issues can't do it, because there are age limits on just about every office that matters.

Re:Someone they could learn from.

[Ninjaesque One]

. . . The Supreme Court? Granted, a law doctorate is pretty much required. And, of course, some years of sitting on a bench.

I lost...

[filterchild]

Dammit! I saw "The Game" and I lost. :/

Re:I lost...

[Anonymous Coward]

And I thought I was safe from The Game on Slashdot. :(

I don't ask for much

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing I expect from IGN, Gamespot, etc are developer interviews, game previews, and game reviews.

Publications available where?

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious gaming publications? Sorry? Where are they then?

Any game mag. I have bought in the last good few years can have its editorial direction summed up by:

"whoaar - look at the size of Lara's assets" or

"whoaar - look at the prostitutes in GTA" or

"whoaar look at the photorealistic intestines when you shoot this innocent civilian" or

"whoaar - look at those graphics - me and the boys in the game pro/ho/bo/go/mo/fo office all shat ourselves when we saw it - Lara's assets are so detailed".

You are incorrectly reacting

[Anonymous Coward]

You are incorrectly reacting; the gransparent was talking about the inability to ship Alaska oil to the lower 48 US states through a pipeline, due to useless regulations about it crossing international borders in the process.

As a result, the oil must be loaded onto ships, where it can leak into the ocean a number of ways, either through "acceptable spillage" during on or off loading, or through a drunk captain ramming a tanker into a rocky shoreline, to some radical environmentalist group damaging the tanker to "prove" that it's a dangerous way to move oil around, etc..

This has *nothing* to do with the BP situation, since the BP pipeline is used to move oil from the oil fields to the docks, not to a Canadian pipeline and then to the US.

-- Terry

No one cares.

[purpledinoz]

Maybe there was no media coverage because no one cares.

Game Media aren't even reliable sources of info.

[mofomojo]

Let's get this straight. The game media in America are all about marketing. Never will they touch a topic that insults or questions the validity of the video game industry. Rarely will they cover indie games and never will the cover the free / open-source games that are sometimes just as good if not better than current games.

Of course, it's all about containing that 'buy! buy! buy!' urge in Video Gamers to keep the industry growing. Naturally, it's going to collapse in on itself, as everything eventually does that grows at rates like this. The American business attitude is get rich - as fast as possible - then try to get away as fast as possible without any negative repercussions on themselves. This is also the same media that purports the absurd idea that games over 5 years old are "classic".

Mhmm. If you buy anything from these guys, you're a fucking idiot. Who in the United States isn't? Video games are a part of the problem of widespread poor literary skills and apathy. From calling eachother n-words online to wasting away hundreds of dollars grinding on World Of Warcraft, it sucks and is destroying your society all around you. You keep investing more and more power and money into fewer and fewer, then you're s hocked at outrages like this after you've destroyed all sense of community and indy media?

Hah! You're left with a suburban, technlogical wasteland, and you're angry? You're angry at how so few people care? You shouldn't be angry, you should be outrages - not at the powers that be - but at yourselves for destroying everything from the environment to your childrens', buying into the corporate lies and thinking independently and broadcasting your opinions independently so .. so .. rarely. This is the type of regular outrage and autocracy you oughtta expect from a society like yours. Where money is king, and REAL humans are slaves. You've been pushing for it since day one, and this is your result; Utter fucking stupidity like fanboys, video games, Family Guy, SUVs, television, fake lawns, killing all of the environment, record obsesity rates, stupid fucking diet trends, MySpace and all that shit that you're pushing for that's bringing your American legacy down like at astronomical levels. You're shocked at this? The smallest of issues in entire little shithole of a nation? I'm not.

Of course you're oblivious, you're worse, you're apathetic. And you're training a whole new generation of citizens to be little apathetic chicken shits to sit there and fight over whose video games are better like the children they are.

Suicide

[Kadin2048]

Ignoring someone who's wrong, when arguing with them would only make them more powerful, is both good and correct.

However, ignoring someone who has a gun to your head, and is asking you for a good reason why they shouldn't pull the trigger, seems rather shortsighted.

The videogames industry is, right now, in the second position. Maybe Congress doesn't have the gun to their head yet, but they're fiddling around trying to take the safety off and figure out which end to hold.

Now is not a good time to just ignore the government and hope it'll go away. That sort of attitude earned us the DMCA; wouldn't it have been nice if the EFF had been around back in the 1980s, when its the precursor laws (in particular, the anti-decryption laws regarding satellite TV) were passed?

Unfortunately, when you stay home and ignore what's going on, it doesn't keep what happens in the absence of your attention from affecting you later.

Re:Suicide

[superwiz]

Legitimizing those who would oppress you by having a "conversation" with them is no solution either. By acknoledging them as a force of civilized society rather than as bullies who showed to a school-yard fight would, in fact, legitimize them. Sometimes you have to take a stand against the forces of that would oppose freedom. This must be fought with the war tactics. When your enemy is stronger than you, evade him (Sun Tzu). Sell them from outside the country, if you have to. Fight them in court, if you can. But do not try to convince them that you are not a good target. That train has left the station when you became successful. Either welcome your new overlords, or fight them. So far (intentionally or not) they have taken a step towards a fight. I repeat myself, kudos to them.

Isn't this just like...

[pandrijeczko]

... the one-legged man who never turned up at the ass-kicking party?

Huh?

[scwizard]

Slashdotters have read that book?

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Presumably because it's against the Americans With Disabilities Act to bar retards from posting.

Re:Huh?

[Sordid Euphemism]

And despised every syllable. Ayn Rand is to competent philosophy what Rev. Jim Jones is to proper retirement planning.

Well, let's see...

[R3d M3rcury]

The National Summit on Video Games, Youth, and Public Policy is hosted by The National Institute on Media and the Family and Iowa State University.

First session was an overview presented by Douglas Gentile. You can buy his book here. Next, they had a session on "Violent Video Games: Effects and Public Policy" from Craig Anderson. Then they had a panel discussion with Joanne Cantor, Kim Thompson, Douglas Gentile, and one person from the ESRB.

I can go on, but it looked like a mutual masterbation get-together from the names I saw in attendance. So I can see why the games press didn't want to go.

Buncha worthless tits anyway

[Asrynachs]

The games media is so biased it's sickening. You can't even call what these smucks do journalism.

What gaming media?

[supabeast!]

From TFA:

Shame on the game news outlets like GameSpy, IGN, and GameSpot, among others; outlets with the resources to send a reporter to the conference, but chose not to...

Why would such "gaming media" bother showing up at a political event? None of those web sites or their related magazines have anything to do with legitimate journalism. They're a bunch of hacks who sit around giving absurdly friendly reviews to game companies which return the favor by advertising with them, or in the case of Gamespy, licensing their code. They're a bunch of parasites, not responsible journalists, and they don't go to events that don't involve free stuff and half-naked girls because they don't care about the game industry in the first place. If they lose their jobs they can all just go work in some other BS wing of the American media.

React to this, you ignorant right-wing shill

[PopeRatzo]

Oil companies are only interested in profits for their shareholders, no matter what damage they do to the environment. For decades they've been supporting research by whore-researchers who are paid to find out that belching pollution into the atmosphere doesn't really damage the environment, in fact, it increases sexual potency in males and breast-size in females.

These "researchers" are the children of the "scientists" who did all the work for the tobacco companies back in the 50's and 60's.

And we have a President who will gladly send thousands of young Americans to die and spend the treasures of a nation on a war who's only purpose is to insure a steady supply of oil to the pricks who gave him a job when he was drunk and coked to the gills, and fat contracts to a company that is now providing "strategic" support to our military and just happens to have been run by our Vice-President.

And the MEDIA has been nothing but housepets for these men who would gladly destroy a great nation as long as their greed and desire for power is satisfied. Why would you think they'd pay attention to GAMES?

They'll only pay attention to games when the next GTA scandal happens, so they can satisfy the ignorant hicks who call themselves the "Values Voters", but really are just a bunch of uptight sociopaths who want to make sure the kids stay off their goddamn lawn.

So you there, you fat son of a bitch sitting at in front of your "ultimate gaming platform", get off your ass and vote or you'll not only lose your right to play Bully, but also your right to check out a little free porn and political speech on the Internet. Not to mention you'll end up sitting in the desert in a used set of body armor with blood stains and some other poor jerk's name stitched on the lining.

You've been warned. God Save America.

Why should the media go?

[kinglink]

"National Summit on Video Games, Youth and Public Policy" sounds good, right? Except let's peel back the skin and see who hosts it. This is a group who is telling developers about how to handle their games.

I'll live with that, because there's other problems in Gamesfirst's criticism.

Now explain to me why every journalist should rush to this event... explain to me why I should be climbing the walls to get in. Explain how anyone gives a shit about it?

The simple answer is they don't. Has anyone heard of it? I sure as hell haven't, and I work in the industry. There's three problems with this criticism.

A. Who cares? The fans don't care for these types of "let's hold hands events", developers should either already have been included or don't care.

B. Why go? It sounds from the website about the confrence that there's a considerable expense to go to this. This is the first annual event? Did they actually invite people or did they say they were holding this event and told everyone? Did they try to work out a deal or just expected everyone to rush to their confrence? And if all this is not enough. It's in IOWA. That's not local to ... anything really. I've spent my whole life avoiding Iowa.

C. Why them? This is the heart of the matter and the biggest problem. Again this sounds like a group who either isn't worth listening to or doesn't change opinions. Either way that's fine, those are the two areas most groups excel at, but knowing their stance enough. Does anyone know how many confrences exist in a single year? The answer is too many already. Does the mainstream media have to go to everyone one? Nope. Now, if they really were invited to this event that's fine, but we don't know that. We don't know if anyone knew it was happening. Do a search on the name of the confrence, you see the home site, then gamesfirst. It sounds like no one really knew about the confrence.

So let's sum up. Gamesfirst went to something that not many people probably heard of, anyone who cares about probably went to, that no one knew if it was worth spending money to go to, and that was out of the place. Good for them, now we know why some of us haven't heard of them before.

A cursory examination of Gamesfirst's site, makes me wonder if we should even shill for them with an article about it. They have an "interesting" site to say the least.

Re:Game Media aren't even reliable sources of info

[Anonymous Coward]

[quote]Utter fucking stupidity like fanboys, video games, Family Guy, SUVs, television, fake lawns, killing all of the environment, record obsesity rates, stupid fucking diet trends, MySpace and all that shit.[/quote]
fyi, family guy is awesome. fake lawns are because *gasp* there isnt water in the desert, and some (normal) people dont want to look at rocks. video games rock, if you dont like them, i dont think slashdot is really the place for you. fanboys arent nearly as much of a trend in the US as they are in japan (otaku's anyone?), myspace is for connection, for those we may have lost contact with.

so, go die in a fire.

Re:Game Media aren't even reliable sources of info

[PygmySurfer]

blah, blah, blah.. if you really give a damn, go out and do something about the problem, instead of sitting on your fat ass telling everyone what THEIR problem is and what THEY should do.

Re:Game Media aren't even reliable sources of info

[NineNine]

So what, groups of moronic bible-thumpers saying that video games are the devil are going to help? Doubt it. Religion is the biggest problem in the US today. It's stupid, violent, and in a very real sense of the word, "Evil".

Re:I'm guessing they didn't understand the invitat

[hazah]

The sad part is... you tried.

Why would they bother

[Wovel]

1. Were they invited? 2. Gaming Press covers games, how to play them , if they are fun. They do not cover public policy. I fail to see why the gaming press would express any interest in this at all, or the author thinks they should.

MOD PARENT UP

[alizard]

I'd just add that if they intend to stay in business, they're going to have to step up to the plate and start buying politicians in job lots just like any other major industry does.

Much of the bad technology-related legislation that's getting passed appears to me to mainly intended by politicians to make the point "Ignore us and we will destroy you, because we can."

When consumer technology companies start spending the same percentage of their gross that Hollywood does on politicians, they will Pwn the government... because their gross is MUCH higher than Hollywood, and the content providers can either put up with this or go bankrupt trying to compete. Personally, I don't care which they do.

One would think that entertainment sector companies like companies in the game business would NOT have to have the need to buy politicians explained to them, given that the success of the Hollywood entertainment cartel in buying anti-technology and anti-consumer legislation from Congress. Where Hollywood buys anti-consumer legislation, maybe they can buy some pro-consumer legislation to replace it.

Do they want Hillary Clinton telling America about how the American game industry promotes "good moral values" among young people? They can try a $50K campaign contribution for her Presidential campaign and see how quickly she changes her mind about EVILLL!!! video games. The biggest secret about American politicians is that for a major corporation or large organized group, they are amazingly cheap.

U.S. Constitution is the final sanity check

[LinDVD]

In that case, I default to the first amendment of the United States consitution-the supreme law of the land. Politicians who are looking for scapegoats along with "parental watchdog groups" seem to think that they can censor video game content. Actually, if you think about it, all of this started with the ongoing Puritannical fear of dealing with the topic of sex-or simulated sex, since politicians didn't get in an uproar until the "hot coffee" mod was made known to them, even though the game had been on the market for a while before that happened (I do not sympathize with the way Rockstar games handled the situation, just to be clear). Leland Yee (who launched an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to regulate purchasing habits by trying to legally discriminate that minors do not have the same speech rights as adults), didn't gain ANY significant traction in his anti-video game crusade until after the "hot coffee" incident happened. In each time where the pro-censorship folks have convinced one or more politicians that they are correct, the industry fights it in the form of a lawsuit, and then multiple federal judges from multiple circuit courts have sided with the industry, and leave a very detailed explanation as to why the politician-and ultimately the person(s) possibly behind the politicians are wrong. You will note that when the industry wins, and the politician loses, they "dig in" by talking shit, and NOT citing the fact that they lost based on constitutional first amendment grounds. One might think that these pro-censorship types would learn a few things by now, but apparently not

The latest politician who is an example of this is Fred Morgan, from Oklahoma. Quote: "I am very disappointed in the industry that continues to challenge any type of restrictions on their games without being responsible enough to work with legislators to try to solve the problem."

The pro-censorship (and people who feel that government's role is to raise your child) types often cite that there is a real problem going on with video games directly causing violence, but the evidence is non-existent, save hyperbole and political posturing. Like Nomad says from Star Trek:TOS, "Non-sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated." What is more likely is that we have a disconnect with politicans (with an average age of 55) and some realities of this situation. All of this does not give legitimacy to this NIMF-sponsored "what can we do next to censor video games" summit.

I do not work for the industry, and I like XMAME, but as a military employee and a part time public school teacher, I find this witch hunt to try to censor the first amendment disturbing to say the least. Since when did the first amendment of the U.S. Constutition become unimportant? It never did. It has been whittled down a little bit since it was created, but for the most part, the majority of what it stands for and does is fully intact. The 14th amendment protects the 1st amendment from being heavily modified, so that failsafe mechanism has yet to be truly tested.

Finally, where is the evidence that an ESRB "M" rated game will cause panic in the streets? To me, the ESRB is the first form of censorship...

Re:U.S. Constitution is the final sanity check

[spun]

Let me just say that I do not support mandatory censorship. I think the industry can manage itself, with it's own independent labelling board. But the gaming industry needs to respect the community, even when the community is being disrespectful. This is an emotional area, people are not thinking rationally. They need to be pandered to a little bit, not ignored or fought. At least let them feel their concerns are being heard.

People need labelling in products. I am not presonally offended by anything that is done consensually and I think people who are are somewhat closed minded. But I respect that they would rather not buy a game only to find out through experience that their sensabilities have been offended. It's rather to late at that point, don't you think?

I don't want groups like this to impose their will on others. But we have to be smart about it, and if that means kissing their ass a little bit and going to their conferences and hearing them whine rather than them gettin some law passed, I'm all for it. Actually, kissing their ass is a bad way of putting it, it's really about showing some respect for the fact that we all have to live together on this one little planet.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

What did they expect?

[aztektum]

The mainstream game media is primarily made up of ... gamers! They have zero attention span for anything that might show serious journalistic integrity. I'm sure they got distracted by 3 new screenshots of $HIGHLY_ANTICIPATED_SEQUEL

Re:Game Media aren't even reliable sources of info

[mofomojo]

Well, it's not as if not giving a damn, apathy and over-control by the media is really much better. What AM I TO DO, precisely? All I can do is mind my own business and tell people and my friends that I pass that they have a problem and this is their problem and they should fix it.

I'm not going to bomb anyone, I'm not going to writer to my senator or riot, I'm just encouraging people to change themselves for the better. Once you do spend some time actually thinking and doing some real mental work and reconsidering your entire lifestyle and your way of life and wondering on which ways that you can improve, you really gain something.

So, get angry at the system. Get angry at the media and get angry at your videogames. Because they're either lying to you or insulating you or making you forget about the truth and reality and the conditions, tragedies and emotions of the real world. You're never going to get any real truth from the corporate media whose always in for selling you and your family.

the Game Media Being

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the Game Media Being oblivious? With a title as scary as that, I hope he is.

Re:Game Media aren't even reliable sources of info

[Spasmodeus]

So... doing nothing but fuming with impotent rage and ranting on Slashdot like a lifetime member of the Rage Against the Machine fanclub is the way to improve yourself?

No, thanks. I choose escapism and apathy.

damned if they do damned if they dont

[grapeape]

What good would come from appearing there. If you speak on behalf of the game industry then you are "against the children" if you speak out against game violence you are "against the gamers" sounds like a no-win situation to me. If I was in that position I'd likely choose to stay home as well.

Like SCOX, this issue will eventually dissolve

[LinDVD]

If I thought that these groups had any traction at all-I'd likely be more open to this, but the industry has a 9-and-0 record against the censors. That is a very strong precedent. Now I wasn't alive when the movie and comic book industries went through this process, but to use a canned phrase, "this too shall pass" and 10 years from now, politicians will be looking at some other scapegoat.

Citing their constitutional rights is what Federal judges are most concerned about-the decisions they provide are well reasoned and are pretty much free of the emotion that was used to draft the faulty "laws" in the first place.

I don't like to cite this name as he's an attention whore by default, but the anti-video game activist, John Bruce Thompson reflects EXACTLY what I think is going on now and what will happen in the near future-just at a faster, more personalized pace. A complete replay of "Seduction Of The Innocent" all over again. He was initially very loud and had an unproven record trying to link video game violence to murder among other things back when the Columbine incident hit. John Carmack ignored the accusations without commenting on them, which was the appropriate response-now, only a very few even remember that detail. Fast forward to the present, he's still on the war path, but he isn't getting much press and after his most recent failure, he did manage to finally get a bar complaint against him. He's not yet been successful as an ambulance chaser, but like Caldera International, as the failures mount, less and less people pay attention, ultimately forgetting the situation entirely.

Video games don't kill people

[TheLink]

People kill people ;).

People who spend their whole life playing WoW are less likely to kill me.

Also, I'll be more afraid of someone who spends a lot of time at the rifle range than someone who spends a lot of time playing some videogame, if they said they were going to kill me.

For perspective what the President of the USA does is more likely to kill you or cause you to be killed. So that's a far more important concern than some silly summit.

In my experience...

[argStyopa]

(chance that you find a 'game media' journalist at an event) = (0.5*(chance of bags of swag))+(0.75*(chance of free games given away))+(1.0*(chance of seeing bodacious T&A))

Clearly, this event had little chance.

No one's reading this anymore anyway, but...

[DorkusMasterus]

The truth is that the author has a good and valid point. While it's not going to cure what ails the industry all by itself, the gaming media has a responsibility (I think) to objectively see what's out there in terms of perspective (not just from Jack Thompson soundbytes, and also from Rockstar soundbytes) and to really see what the "community" says about the subjects. That way, you get (OMG) balanced journalism, that, when opinion is then later injected into, has the right to say what it has to say, without being fanboyish to one side or the other.

I mean, who ever really got upset at someone for having an opinion that was actually well-informed, even if you disagreed with it? IMHO, this is the kind of thing that separates gaming journalism from other forms of the genre, in some arenas. The reporting of the industry is better, but not necessarily the "perhiphery" of the industry is getting glanced at, and nothing more. Digging deeper in these areas are what take journalism from being a niche and making it accessible to everyone, even outside of games.

Again, this is only my opinion, but seriously, the author has a right to call out those who consider major "non-press-conference" events, not worth attending.

The Game takes place in your head

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll never be safe unless you gouge your brain out.

http://www.videogamevoters.org/

[ClioCJS]

Video Game Voters network

Don't just talk about it here. Join the organization and write your congressman when they ask you to. Participate. It has a higher ROI than bitching.