Slashdot Mirror
Truth in Ratings Act Reintroduced
dropgoal writes "Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas (and GOP presidential candidate) has reintroduced the Truth in Ratings Act. Like the previous version that failed to pass last year, Sen. Brownback's bill would make the FTC responsible for overseeing the video game ratings system and possibly result in a unified ratings system for games, movies, and TV. The ESRB would also have to review all game footage before issuing a rating. Currently, the ESRB hands out ratings after viewing a reel with representative content prepared by the developers. Sen. Brownback thinks that's not enough. 'Video game reviewers should be required to review the entire content of a game to ensure the accuracy of the rating. The current video game ratings system is not as accurate as it could be because reviewers do not see the full content of games and do not even play the games they rate', he said."
I'd like to see more fair ratings on game review sites. Sites like gamespot are long biased and comment well on games if the developer/publisher provides them with everything they want.
:\
A bit off topic
It wouldn't work. The senator either knows this and does it to boost his popularity among game haters, or has no idea what he's doing.
This is yet another stupid idea from someone who is trying to impress potential voters in an upcoming presidential campaign.
I'll bet that if you asked him after injecting him with Sodium Pentothal, the illustrious senator would admit that he doesn't expect that the bill will have a snowball's chance in hell of passing.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
First off, while the "cut scenes" of a game could be said to have "footage", the whole rest of the game (typically) have no such thing. Even if you checked every single character skin and setting, there would be no way to _know_ there wasn't an easter-egg or something.
The fact of the matter is that "objectionable content" is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
And what of "patches" and "mods"?
Heck take some of the "dance moves" from WOW and line them up and you have simulated sex, at least within the limits within the minds of people who think that some of these other things were "objectionable".
The Nanny State cannot hope to get closure over this, and trying to is just more waste of my taxpayer dollar.
Note to you regulation-happy people out there: Your "precious bundle" is neither as fragile as you imagine, nor as important as you dream. Neither are you. If janet jackson's saggy boobie and the gyrations of a pair of 100 polygon figures are enough to undermine your sense of moral turpitude, then you are a mindless chode; and might I suggest that the world is much safer if you put an opaque polyethylene bag over your head. (But it only _really_ works if you cinch it snuggly. Assist your child before yourself.)
Now if you can get truth in ratings for suckage, then we can talk.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
He's just doing it so when the presidential race gets more momentum, he can say that he introduced legislation to "protect the children"...The degree to which his legislation is stupid is completely irrelevant.
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
Oddly, so is the Democratic Party.
At the end of the day, strident "liberals" and "conservatives" have exactly the same political philosophy: the government should get its nose out of the business of people who are doing things I approve of, but spare no expense stopping people from doing things that make me feel uneasy.
the government should get its nose out of the business of people who are doing things I approve of, but spare no expense stopping people from doing things that make me feel uneasy.
Nicely put.
Political parties are the problem. Hamilton was adamantly opposed to them, even when one was forming around him in opposition to the Jeffersonians. Perhaps he was on to something. Line up behind a party, and you have to do a lot less thinking for yourself. But of course, how are you going to stop people from organizing into political parties? It is human nature to form into groups, for better and for worse.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I don't see how this is a problem. Not to mention that the game (GTA) was already rated M...
Rated M, what does that mean? Does it mean that you have to 18 yrs or older to buy the game? Nope. Does it mean you have to have your parents with you to buy the game? Nope. It means nothing at all. It's voluntarily rated M as a warning to parents who may be buying the game for their preacher's kid, nothing more. There is no legal binding behind it. All this guy wants to do is to place a standardized rating system on video games so that the technically illiterate can understand it.
And it's not just the outcry over the Hot Coffee thing, but GTA in general. The object of the game is to carjack as many people as possible. Bonus points for beating up whores and ripping them off!??! It's not just the Hot Coffee that is the problem, it's the whole damn game and games like it. Ever play Postal 2? You piss on people, cut their heads off with shovels, douse them with gasoline and throw lit matches on them... and so on. How about Duke Nukem 3D ("Shake it, Baby!")? These games need a rating so that any 5 year-old off the street can't just walk into any GameStop and pick up GTA New Orleans-Mardis Gras.
It's not that I think all games should be Disney approved, but a rating system can actually free programmers to make whatever game they want. The can make "Sam and Max go the Red Light District" because the second a parent complains, all they have to say is, "Hey lady, you have to be 18 or over to buy this game. You saw the rating, why did you buy it for your kid? Do you buy them Playboy too? Then why did you buy them a game that says in plain letters that it is an X-rated game, right there on the label?" Right now, Sam and Max--Red Light will not be made because they'd get too much heat. Allow an X rating and it's on!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I read about this topic a lot on /., and I'm not quite sure why everyone is so emotionally charged about it. Ok, after R'ingTFA I agree that this bill may not be the right one due to the unfeasible requirement of the ESRB playing every minute of the game. Any remotely open-ended game would baffle these poor people and hold up releases for months. Also, the FTC makes me nervous after the Howard Stern treatment.
But it seems like every attempt at improving the accuracy or consistency of ESRB ratings is met with derision and anger. Any attempt at *enforcing* those ratings is clubbed down as fascism. Why? The ratings exist because kids shouldn't beat a virtual hookers' brains out with a bat. I'm ok with that. I know they'll see the violence elsewhere, but so what? Do you permit anything through your firewall the moment your manager makes you toss up a stupid rule?
I'm a social liberal, I live in West Hollywood, frequent the clubs, fall to the left on almost every issue, etc.. But this all or nothing approach is silly and stinks of NRA tactics. Yes, the NRA is effective, but I don't want to be like them. Reasonable adults compromise.
I would like to compromise some and get these politicos off our backs before they do something truly draconian, like ban red blood, or any blood for that matter.
- Allow ESRB raters to choose the spots of the game they will examine. No auditor comes in and says, "show me what you think I should see." That's just dumb.
- Fine stores whose clerks don't card for MA+ games. This isn't fascist, it's simply obeying the law.
Rated M, what does that mean? Does it mean that you have to 18 yrs or older to buy the game? Nope. Does it mean you have to have your parents with you to buy the game? Nope. It means nothing at all. It's voluntarily rated M as a warning to parents who may be buying the game for their preacher's kid, nothing more. There is no legal binding behind it.
Perhaps you should review the legal status of movie ratings in the US.
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
won't survive court if by some unholy miracle it get passed at all
I agree that it wouldn't survive in court, but it is useful to remember that the original Communications Decency Act (a much stricter form of censorship) was passed by 84-16 in the Senate and the recent Family Entertainment Protection Act was introduced by Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Tim Johnson and Evan Bayh. If you think that there will be any road bumps by Democratic or Republican Senators (or Representatives) you are being very naïve. The only protection citizens currently have from government censorship is our courts as neither the Executive nor the Legislative Branches seem to think that it is an important issue. Apparently our legislators think that an alternative reading to "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" is that Congress can make *any* law on the same.
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
No, our legislators are well aware that most of this junk can't survive judicial review. They just don't care. The whole idea - particularly when a presidential hopeful is involved (hi Hill!) - is to get publicity and attract the "Won't someone please think of the children?" vote. The next 20 months will be filled with lots of this garbage, and it's up to the electorate to get enough edumication so that they don't buy into it. Unfortunately, the chances of said edumication happening on any large scale are slim and voters will be swayed when someone like Senator Clinton says "I sponsored a bill intended to protect our children from exposure to videogame violence, and I will continue to fight to protect our children as President."
As opposed to electing Clinton, who's introduced practically the same type of legislation in the past?
Face it, they're two asses of the same horse. Except that Hillary might get her party's nomination, and Brownback doesn't have a chance in hell.
I find it appalling that you select who you want to vote for negatively. How about selecting based on the candidate's good qualities, not the bad qualities of the other candidates?