GameStop Manager Suspended After "Games for Grades"

mikesd81 writes "A manager at a GameStop has been suspended for instituting a 'games for grades' policy. 'Brandon Scott says he started a unique new policy in his store to promote good grades in school but now his employer has sent him to detention for speaking out of turn. Scott says he's been suspended by GameStop in the wake of his unconventional "games for grades" policy at an Oak Cliff store.' Apparently, on his own, Scott decided to stop selling video games to any school-age customer unless an adult would vouch for the student's good grades."

Comments

Good job commie.

[corifornia]

Er, rather, no job.

Bad idea

[Fierythrasher]

I can understand giving kids a discount for good grades...had he done that and been suspended then that would have been wrong, but refusing to sell? That's just bad business.

Re:Bad idea

[toddbu]

Bad business, perhaps, but is it bad policy? I hear a lot of people complaining that corporate America is heartless and doesn't care, yet when one guy tries to do something that's right for the kids then he gets picked on. Why is it unreasonable for a company to say that they're unwilling to promote bad grades?

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Well - it would have been wrong had he been paying the discount himself. If he was just stealing from GameStop to make up the difference, he'd deserve to be fired too.

In any case, it makes perfect sense that GameStop would want to fire him. He's basically turning away customers for his own moral reasons. I'll bet he got fired because some kid complained to GameStop.

To be honest, I'm not sure I like the idea of refusing to sell games to kids with poor grades. That seems like something the parents should be doing. But then again, as a Libertarian, I think the manager has a right to decide to do it. (Offended shoppers can just shop elsewhere.) And, of course, GameStop has every right to fire him over it - it's their store, their policies. If he disagrees, he can go open his own store.

Re:Bad idea

[ultranova]

Bad business, perhaps, but is it bad policy? I hear a lot of people complaining that corporate America is heartless and doesn't care, yet when one guy tries to do something that's right for the kids then he gets picked on. Why is it unreasonable for a company to say that they're unwilling to promote bad grades?

And when your local grocery store decides that they won't sell to you unless you can show a written confirmation from your local church that you have been there the last Sunday, is that still okay ? After all, being devote fundamentalist Christian, the grocer is convinced that you'll burn in Hell unless you convert, so he's simply being caring and trying to do right for you.

There is a huge difference between caring about people and trying to force your will on them, no matter how benevolent you think you're being. And traditionally, resource starvation has been one of the most efficient ways of coercion, as any army laying siege can tell you. Such enforcement might seem like it's nothing now because it's directed against kids and an unimportant resource; but even kids are human beings and shouldn't be subjected to arbitrary use of power by anyone who cares to do so. Besides, it's best to nip these things in the bud.

That, by the way, is also where the libertarian concept of "only physical force is coercion" falls flat on its face: I can kill you without ever lifting a finger against you if I control some vital resource.

Re:Bad idea

[Pharmboy]

Corporate America has no place deciding what grades my kids can have and what the punishment should be if their grades don't meet "their" standards. This is as fucking bad as the government wanting to make the whole world child proof, or the whole "someonethinkofthechildren".

Reward for good grades? Ok, fine. Refuse to sell because of bad grades? Screw you, I don't want to give my business anyway. It is the parent's job, not the corporation's.

Re:Bad idea

[martin_henry]

Please read the article. He wasn't fired. He's suspended.

Re:Bad idea

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

"when one guy tries to do something that's right for the kids then he gets picked on. "

Because he was hired to keep that store making profit, and if the customer is turned away because (s)he is failing, word of that gets around and people stop shopping there. It's pretty simple. If I worked at a store and turned away people who had red hair I might not be turning away many customers, but I am turning away people who came to the store to give us money.

Re:Bad idea

[xero314]

This move only appears to be bad business when looking at the current point in time. The long term affects may be more positive than negative. The obvious benefit is that parents, the ones actually earning the money, will be more likely to shop at this particular store if they like the policy. This benefit will probably not pay off though since the parents that care most likely do not allow there kids to go out an buy games without their knowledge anyway. The more important long term effect has to do with the enforcement of better educated citizens. Gamestop's business is based on sales of a high tech product that requires well educated people to create. If everyone dropped out of school to play video games they would soon run out of video games to buy and sell. It is in the best interest of any business to keep the industry as a whole alive and running efficiently. This is Why companies like IBM are paying employees to teach at universities even though there is no obvious immediate gain for such actions.

Re:Bad idea

[iamhassi]

"refusing to sell? That's just bad business."

Exactly. And the idiot went on national TV to tell the world how wonderful his policy is! What was he thinking? Who would hire him now to manage anything? Who would trust him? He would have been better off showing up to work drunk and high, least he could explain that as a lapse in judgment, but refusing to sell 24 games to paying customers and bragging about it on TV?!?

What's next, refusing to sell McD's to fat people?? Refusing to sell gas to SUV owners? Refusing the morning after pill to women? (oops nevermind) This guy would be lucky to get a mop boy job after pulling this stunt.

Re:Bad idea

[C0rinthian]

Store != Parent. It's not their job to tell the kid "No, you need to study!"

Re:Bad idea

[pokerdad]

resource starvation has been one of the most efficient ways of coercion, as any army laying siege can tell you.

Laying seige was never efficient; the reason it was commonly used was that the attacker risked far less by laying seige as opposed to a direct assault.

Re:Bad idea

[Sj0]

The right thing would be to promote good grades, if they want to promote scholastic excellence. Ekeing out punishments to kids who don't meet your standards isn't what a games store's job is.

Frankly, considering that mental handicaps are a recognised disability, I could see this behaviour opening the store up to liability, since they're basically discriminating on the basis of intellect. Work hard but just not bright enough to get the material? No games for you.

Re:Bad idea

[StikyPad]

I was going to moderate, but I think you might actually believe what you're saying. So assuming you're not trolling:

when your local grocery store decides that they won't sell to you unless you can show a written confirmation from your local church that you have been there the last Sunday, is that still okay ?

No. Religion is explicitly prohibited as a reason for discrimination. What the manager did was not at all unconstitutional. If it was in violation of anything, it was corporate policy.

There is a huge difference between caring about people and trying to force your will on them, no matter how benevolent you think you're being.

There's also a huge difference between forcing your will on someone and refusing to do business with them. Namely, the former is generally illegal (with the exception of parent-child relationships) while the latter is perfectly reasonable, provided your business isn't a government protected monopoly like power or water.

I can kill you without ever lifting a finger against you if I control some vital resource.

True, which is why vital resources are protected by the government. Video games hardly fall into that category. Your argument of food is hypothetically valid, though in practice no single entity controls distribution, nor is the prospective buyer prohibited from growing/hunting his own, or going to a soup kitchen, etc. Aside from that, using your influence to deliberately cause or contribute to the death of someone else is clearly a criminal act, as is knowingly failing to prevent the death or egregious harm of another in the absence of danger to self or others. It's really a stretch to compare a sales policy on video games to willful disregard for life.

Re:Bad idea

[feepness]

That, by the way, is also where the libertarian concept of "only physical force is coercion" falls flat on its face: I can kill you without ever lifting a finger against you if I control some vital resource. This is just plain wrong. Libertarians are ardently anti-monopoly as well.

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I know it is a hard thing to ask but could you at least read the fucking summary if not the article? What part of "grades vouched by an adult" don't you understand? In short, that means that if you want to give your failing kid more reason to fail, then all you have to do is vouch that they got good grades. It's not rocket science.

Re:Bad idea

[notthe9]

Corporate America doesn't have some obligation to sell your kids luxury goods such as video games. It is an act of conceit, perhaps, for a business to attempt to parent your kids.

It isn't comparable to the "government wanting to make the whole world child proof." The government is an institution that has an obligation to provide services to the public and treat everyone equally. A game store does not have this obligation to treat all people equally. They don't wrong you by not selling your kids Duck Hunt.

As for as the issue at hand goes: Although a business has every write not to sell luxury products to children with bad grades, this man did not have the authority to institute such a policy and is rightly be censured by his superiors.

Re:Bad idea

[StikyPad]

Sorry, in the fifth paragraph, "former" and "latter" should be switched.

Re:Bad idea

[Kortalh]

So, in other words, it was more efficient?

Re:Bad idea

[Toonol]

This move only appears to be bad business when looking at the current point in time. The long term affects may be more positive than negative. The obvious benefit is that parents, the ones actually earning the money, will be more likely to shop at this particular store if they like the policy.

As a parent, I would delight in buying my son a $50 gift card at the beginning of the school year that would turn into a valueless piece of plastic if his report card stunk. A lot of parenting is controlled sadism.

Re:Bad idea

[Omnifarious]

No. Religion is explicitly prohibited as a reason for discrimination. What the manager did was not at all unconstitutional. If it was in violation of anything, it was corporate policy.

No it's not. It's not allowed for the government to discriminate, but private entities are free to discriminate all they want to.

True, which is why vital resources are protected by the government.

Could you please cite some source or example or something for your random bald assertion?

Re:Bad idea

[uigrad_2000]

Bad business, perhaps, but is it bad policy?

Is it good policy? Why does that matter? A company as big as GameStop pays people to come up with such policies. This manager is not an owner. Even if he did own this one little franchise, he has no authority to make up new policies to a business with GameStop's name on it, especially something as crazy as this.

This man obviously wants to try a new type of sales policy. He has experience as a manager of a local franchise, and he has an idea about how to make it better. He should have quit his job and opened his own store. Trying to make such a big change to a store where his own money is not at stake is ludicrous.

Re:Bad idea

[Myopic]

I think you are wrong. It is perfectly fine for a grocer to refuse to sell you his goods because he thinks something bad about you. It's also perfectly fine for a game store owner to refuse to sell his goods to whoever he wants.

However, if it is not your store, or if your store is part of a franchise (as in this case), then it is perfectly fine for the person whose money you are losing to fire you (as in this case). If this guy wants to refuse service to people (which is a recognized right of business owners, with certain exclusions), he needs to do it in a store where other people don't call the shots.

What I'm saying is, nothing to see here, everyone move along.

Re:Bad idea

[Pharmboy]

Um, yea. I got that. That is what I was saying. If I had gone and found the man was refusing to sell to my child solely because of their grades, I would have stopped buying anything from that business. That was the entire point of my post.

why that isn't clear (including to mods) totally escapes me.

Re:Bad idea

[UncleTogie]

There is a huge difference between caring about people and trying to force your will on them, no matter how benevolent you think you're being.

...and then there are times where you might do both. Checking your kid into drug rehab would be a good example... Restrictive != malicious intent

And traditionally, resource starvation has been one of the most efficient ways of coercion, as any army laying siege can tell you.

That'd be an argument FOR, not against. It's why grounding and removing phone/TV privileges work for many parents. If my sons are slacking on their homework, they'll no longer have the same freedoms they did when their grades are good. This is reality-based, folks; if {later in life} you drive drunk and get caught, you'll lose your license and/or freedom.

Such enforcement might seem like it's nothing now because it's directed against kids and an unimportant resource;

Unimportant? Says who? That's the whole reason many are applauding what this guy did... As these kids are the ones we're handing the future off to, and as I'd MUCH rather not pass the torch to a bumbling idiot, I think this was a creative approach to an increasingly serious problem. Where he screwed the pooch was pulling this without running it by management.

...but even kids are human beings and shouldn't be subjected to arbitrary use of power by anyone who cares to do so.

This isn't an arguable point. However, AFAIA, there are no laws enumerating the right of children to own video games, and while I'm not lawyer-shaped, it'd seem to me that if a sale of anything constitutes a contract, you could simply refuse sales to minors based on the fact that they can't legally enter contracts on their own...

Besides, it's best to nip these things in the bud.

I agree, and is why I support this guy. Stupidity is a nasty epidemic that needs to be stamped out soon...

...and no, I'm not new here, why?

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of parenting is controlled sadism. Wow... what a horrible thing to say. I hope for your sake that you're joking, otherwise you may be in for a real treat when the time comes for your kids to pick your nursing home.

Re:Bad idea

[notthe9]

Your acerbic tone and charged rhetoric probably didn't help.

Re:Bad idea

[JoelKatz]

So how would you feel about candy stores that refused to sell to overweight people? I mean, why should they promote obesity?

Re:Bad idea

[Eskarel]

I'm as much a fan of the "thin edge of the wedge" argument as anyone, but this is sort of pushing it.

It's a bit more like McDonalds not serving you a big mac unless you can prove your cholesterol isn't too high. This particular manager(who is in trouble more because he cost the company potential sales than anything else) believes, probably quite correctly, that video games can be a contributing factor to bad grades(more time spent gaming == less time avaialable to study). He also believes that as a purveyor of said product he has a duty to limit that contributing factor. It's a reasonable assumption to say that spending more time on your studies will improve your grades, at least up to a point.

He's being punished not because he's violating the rights of his customers to have video games(they don't have any), he's being punished because he's violating the most important right in the United States, the right of a large corporation to make the highest possible profits.

That said, when the next range of law suits come from people claiming that playing video games instead of studying ruined their lives you'll see this sort of policy nation wide.

Re:Bad idea

[JoelKatz]

"...you may be in for a real treat when the time comes for your kids to pick your nursing home."

Wasn't this the one we saw on that episode of 60 Minutes?

Re:Bad idea

[blhack]

if that devout christian grocery store owner wants to prevent you from buying groceries at his store unless you went to store, thats his own perogative. It might be a bad business decision, but as a business owner it is his right to do so. Have we really got ourselves so out of whack that people like you believe the government should be able to dictate the way that an individual runs their privately owned business?

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

It was stupid to institute a policy that would deny a large section of the customer base service. It was sure to be met with harsh reactions.
A better policy would be to provide a discount for students with good grades, by having them bring in their report cards.
A suspension is not the end of the world, but I believe he will think twice before implementing policy without an okay from above.

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, it's just their fucked up system that leads to monopolies? Seriously, libertarian = moron.

Re:Bad idea

[SScorpio]

And if you read the article you'd realize your argument makes now sense. He wouldn't sell to anyone that would be in K-12 unless there parent was there and said that they got good grades. Your reply makes you sound like one of the people who get pissed off when clerks refuse to sell little 13 year old Johnny the new grade theft auto game and you have to go to the store with him.

While I'm not sure how well the policy holds up when you put 16 and 17 year olds into the equation, but overall it brings parents into the store to learn about the entertainment their children will be consuming. And frankly anything that makes a parent get off their ass and do some parenting is a good think in my book.

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory Simpsons Quote:

Homer: Be good or we'll put you in a home.
Grandpa: I'm already in a home.
Homer: We'll move you to one of those crooked homes on TV.
Grandpa: I'll be good.

Re:Bad idea

[mdmkolbe]

No. Religion is explicitly prohibited as a reason for discrimination. What the manager did was not at all unconstitutional. If it was in violation of anything, it was corporate policy. No it's not. It's not allowed for the government to discriminate, but private entities are free to discriminate all they want to.

Almost, but not quite. There are quite a few laws in the USA and other places that prevent private entities from discriminating. This is especially true in the area of employement.

This is a very sticky topic where there are few simple generalities. For example, if Microsoft refused to employ female programmers, they would probably get sued. On the other hand, trying to sue a religious organization because they won't ordain as ministers (i.e. employ) certain segments of society (e.g. non-believers) probably wouldn't pass the laugh test.

All that said, discriminating against selling to age-challenged flunkies is probably legal though against store policy.

Re:Bad idea

[insertwackynamehere]

Thats where capitalism kicks in. Someone creates a grocery store where this isn't a rule and everyone shops there instead.

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

There's also a huge difference between forcing your will on someone and refusing to do business with them.

"We don't do business with Jews/Catholics/Niggers/Arabs/pick-whatever-we-irrationally-hate."

Granted, video games are not a vital necessity to anyone, but as a practical matter, either you sell to anyone with money, or you're trying to influence their behavior (which might otherwise be referred to "forcing your will on them").

I fail to see your point.

Re:Bad idea

[feepness]

Right, it's just their fucked up system that leads to monopolies? Seriously, libertarian = moron. Libertarianism is not free market capitalism, despite what you may have been told by people who don't want you thinking for yourself.

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Things are really screwed up if you think community members should have no part in protecting and caring for the children in the community. When I was growing up and kids were doing something stupid, adults didn't wait for our parents to correct us. They came outside and yelled at us right then and there. If we kept doing what we were doing, then they told our parents.

Refusing to sell something - especially to a minor - in order to help that minor learn to make better decisions may not be their job but it certainly helps fulfill their social obligation to the community and is completely within GameStop's "rights". The only thing wrong here is that the manager did not fulfill his obligations to GameStop.

Re:Bad idea

[neochubbz]

But apparently, it's their (the gaming industry) job to make sure your kids don't play material that's "inappropriate". Isn't this some sort of double standard. If you insist the store be the parent for you, why not let it expand on it's job.

Re:Bad idea

[LoudMusic]

Store != Parent. It's not their job to tell the kid "No, you need to study!" Sure, but where are the parents?

Re:Bad idea

[BoberFett]

Hey dipshit, ever notice that all of the monopolies we have right now are government granted and protected?

Re:Bad idea

[ArcherB]

And when your local grocery store decides that they won't sell to you unless you can show a written confirmation from your local church that you have been there the last Sunday, is that still okay ?

Well, it would suck to be me, but yeah, that's fine. Who am I to tell a private business who they can and can not do business with?

There is a huge difference between caring about people and trying to force your will on them, no matter how benevolent you think you're being. And traditionally, resource starvation has been one of the most efficient ways of coercion, as any army laying siege can tell you. Such enforcement might seem like it's nothing now because it's directed against kids and an unimportant resource; but even kids are human beings and shouldn't be subjected to arbitrary use of power by anyone who cares to do so. Besides, it's best to nip these things in the bud.

How about if you walk into a gun store, looking angry, bitching about your cheatin' girlfriend, and you have scratches across your face with blood on your shirt... Oh, and you want a gun... and some ammo. Should the gun owner be forced to have to sell to you? It's none of his damn business what is going on in your life. It's not his job to try to force his will on you, no matter how benevolent he thinks he's being.
What if you drive up to a bar, park across three spots, stagger in and fall onto the counter with vomit on your shirt asking for a beer, should the bartender be forced to serve you?
How about if you are a bit twitchy, have track-marks all up down your arms and you walk into a drug store trying to buy all the Sudafed they'll sell you?
What your truck has a "Remember Waco" bumper sticker on it as you back it up to the fertilizer plant. You are wearing camouflage clothing, you have a buzz cut and look nothing like any farmer that's ever been in this town. Should the plant manager be forced to sell you that Ammonium Nitrate just because your paper work is on order?

Now I'll agree with you that this Game Stop manager was wrong in what he did, but we'll disagree on the reasons why. If he wants to put forth such a noble goal, he needs to open his own store where he can set his own rules. As for his job at Game Stop, he was working for someone else who owned the store and therefor made the rules. He was not following them. Now if these were Game Stop's rules, then sure, they can sell or NOT sell to whoever they want, as long as it is not for a discriminatory reason such as race, sex or whatever.

Don't like it? Don't shop there. They don't call it a Free Market for nothing. That freedom goes both ways.

Re:Bad idea

[photomonkey]

Actually, in the US, you have absolutely no 'right' to go anywhere or buy anything. The non-governmental establishment has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Even this law, as it is applied really only deals with housing, transportation and other core needs.

A case can be made that a business cannot refuse service to someone based on their race, gender or religion, but you have to refuse service to a lot of people before a pattern is set that the establishment refuses service to members of protected group x.

People making certain grades in school are not, as a result, in any protected class. If I want to open a book store and sell only to certified Mensa geniuses, who could stop me? It might not be good for business, but it's still my prerogative to do so.

Re:Bad idea

[photomonkey]

This mentality goes directly against the sense of community that forms civilization.

Parents now, nor at any point throughout history, are not able to watch their children 24/7. Much in the way that animals play and socialize to learn how to fit into the pack (and hence survive), we have evolved as a social species for much the same purpose.

When I was a kid, if I was playing in a neighbor's yard uninvited, you bet I would be chased off by an angry property owner. Even more, I could expect the owner to have a talk with my mom or dad later on. When I was in high school, a bunch of my friends and I went swimming in a privately-owned pond one summer night. We had apparently awoken the guy who owned the pond, and he chased us off with a shotgun. He never shot it, and he never pointed it at anyone.

In those days, and they weren't THAT long ago, even if we had complained to the police about the old man and the shotgun, they would have laughed and asked us what the hell we were doing there anyway. Today, he would be in some pretty serious shit, despite doing nothing to harm anyone.

These days, we are so scared of repercussions, that we let kids get away with whatever they want. We let other adults get away with everything they want. Everybody's so willing to play the lawsuit lottery that we'd rather let the guy at the bar make inappropriate comments than to shove a beer bottle up his ass sideways.

We'd rather let kids run riot than to step up and place community limits on what they can get away with.

I'm certainly not suggesting that someone else should discipline my kids, but they can yell at them all they want if it's merited.

Re:Bad idea

[Jorgandar]

"That, by the way, is also where the libertarian concept of "only physical force is coercion" falls flat on its face: I can kill you without ever lifting a finger against you if I control some vital resource."

Where the hell did you learn that? What nonsense. There's so much mis-information around slashdot about libertarians. You guys believe whatever garbage is spoon-fed to you.

Here is the basic truth:
Libertarians believe in personal liberty and responsibility moreso than any other position on the political spectrum. A libertarian believes, in this case, that it matters not who you are, you're free to buy whatever you want.

Lastly, and i guess this goes to the entire slashdot community - educate yourself.
http://www.mondopolitico.com/ideologies/libertarianism/whatislibertarianism.htm

"The right to swing your fist ends only where someone else's nose begins."

Re:Bad idea

[ranton]

All that said, discriminating against selling to age-challenged flunkies is probably legal though against store policy.

You could probably find someone in the NAACP that would argue that since inner city african american children are deprived of educational opportunities, they are more likely to get bad grades. So this policy is unfairly discriminating against African American kids.

--

Re:Bad idea

[mariushm]

If the kid can't buy the game from that shop, it will go to another shop or will ask a friend to buy the game for him or simply pirate it from the Internet.

It's just loss of sales unless all shops in that city or from that retailer have an agreement to follow this guys' idea.

I would have fired the guy, because he's not employed there to make his own rules, he's there to sell games.

Re:Bad idea

[Scudsucker]

Libertarians believe in personal liberty and responsibility moreso than any other position on the political spectrum.

No. The believe in having a small government for the sake of having a small government, even if it means they end up grabbing their ankles for big business.

Re:Bad idea

[Scudsucker]

Pot. Kettle. Black. Monopolies arise when one company dominates a market to the detriment of consumers. What does libertarianism do to prevent this? Jack squat.

Re:Bad idea

[sqldr]

I hear a lot of people complaining that corporate America is heartless and doesn't care, yet when one guy tries to do something that's right for the kids then he gets picked on.

Thus is the problem with the free corporation. Henry Ford had the same problem. He originally worked with William Dodge who owned 25% of the business to make an affordable car. He would also give dividends to the local community, until Dodge left and started building luxury cars for a greater profit. When Ford attempted to continue his egalitarian approach, Dodge took him to court and won. This thusly set a precedent that a board is legally required to do nothing other than make money for its shareholders, even if this is at the expense of the entire human race and the livelihood of the company itself. The late Anita Roddick had the same problem as she tried to give company profits to charity after selling part of the business.

The precedent needs to be overturned and corporations regulated before corporations destroy the planet whether the board wants to or not.

Re:Bad idea

[HansF]

So what if you're just plain old stupid?
Sounds like a game-nazi "No game for you!"

Re:Bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, don't expect to buy any games at my store, cretin!

Re:Bad idea

[mdwh2]

Why is it unreasonable for a company to say that they're unwilling to promote bad grades?

If a company said that, that might be fair enough - but here it looks like the company didn't want to do that. The manager went ahead and refused to sell games to some kids, and the company decided they didn't want that.

I fail to see why this story is news.

Re:Bad idea

[BoberFett]

Libertarianism allows for competition, something government protected monopolies do not.

Re:Bad idea

[angus_rg]

There is no such thing as bad business when it limits your revenue without doing something ethically wrong. There is nothing wrong with a parent knowing what their child does with their money, or even approving how they spend it.

I bet this guy gets arrested for beating his kid in walmart for not leaving the displays alone, like every red blooded american should, but can't without hearing, "That's child abuse".

I salute this guy, and give the one fingered salute to game stop.

Re:Bad idea

[Maximum Prophet]

Um, Microsoft is a government *convicted* monopolist. But, since it was convicted by the previous administration, the current admin isn't punishing them too much. I guess you could classify that as "protected" but it's a stretch.

Re:Bad idea

[lordmage]

Sorry, as a private business they do have this right to do so. They can turn you down for being a Christian or for being a Satanist. As long as they do not cross certain laws they can do so.

The private business decided that they would do a rule, the boss said no.. and now they are not doing it. Libertarian should support the view they can do this.

Re:Bad idea

[BoberFett]

You don't think the patent and copyright system which props up companies like Microsoft doesn't count as government protection?

Re:Bad idea

[Piazzola]

But how does he know what's right for the kids or not? I think taking an arbitrary stand and saying "You can't buy games unless you've got good grades" is ridiculous. It's one thing for a parent to say that -- presumably, the parent will know if the child's bad grades are actually related to gaming in any fashion. But there are a shitton of reasons why kids get bad grades, and *gasp* NOT ALL OF THEM HAVE TO DO WITH GAMING. Let the parents parent.

Re:Bad idea

[blhack]

Except the people that want to support the preacher in his cause. Its the same as the smoking laws in AZ (my home state). There is a market for people who want to smoke in bars/restaurants. If you aren't a part of it, don't eat/drink there. If business owners loose enough business over their smoking allowed policy, then they will(should) change it.

Re:Bad idea

[kmweber]

Even those laws that you do mention are illegitimate, and there is no moral obligation to abide by them.

Re:Bad idea

[midwestnets]

I can understand giving kids a discount for good grades... but refusing to sell? That's just bad business. I think his point was not to reward good students but instead to refrain from rewarding bad students. I think his premise is that students could get better grades if they spent more time studying and less time playing Halo2. But you bring up a good question? What trumps "bad business?" Anything?

Re:Bad idea

[vimh42]

It's also a bad way to convince kids to get better grades. In this case I'd say you're better off rewarding kids for good grades then punishing them for bad ones. On another note, he's not the parent of my child. He should stick to doing his job, and I'll do mine. And if I give my child permission to go buy a game and the store won't sell because her grades aren't up to par, do you think I'm going to give them my business? Nope.

Re:Bad idea

[Maximum Prophet]

Point taken. I like to live with the illusion that copyrights protect my work as much as they do MS's works, but the patent system is almost completely broken.

Microsoft uses contractual lockin, and special deals to keep other players out of the market. Their tricks would work without patents but would be difficult without copyright. They need trademarks so that consumers know who they are buying from. Corporate branding depends on trademarks. In the absence of goverment policing of trademarks and contracts, I suppose they could hire goons to enforce their rights.

If you've ever played the game "Monopoly" by Parker Brothers, after many games you'll notice that the systems tends to devole toward a monopoly. (Hence the name) I have played games that ended in a steady state, but they were rare. If the US legal system were thrown into a big simulator and run at hight speed I wonder what it's natural state would be and what small tweaks could be done to prevent monopoly lock-in.

Re:Bad idea

[Scudsucker]

Nonsense. Non-utility monopolies come from a company dominating a market, not from government protection. And utility monopolies are regulated to prevent abuse and overcharging. Libertarianism is great for protecting people from fascism, but piss poor at anything else.

Re:Bad idea

[BoberFett]

Name one monopoly that isn't government protected.

Re:Bad idea

[geminidomino]

What was he thinking? Who would hire him now to manage anything? Who would trust him? He could probably get a job at Chick-fil-A...

Re:Bad idea

[Scudsucker]

Name one monopoly that isn't government protected.

Any non-utility monopoly. Yawn.

Re:Bad idea

[BoberFett]

Yawn? You're too tired to name one? Come on, I want a name so I can show you precisely how it's government supported. Stop being such a chicken shit and dodging questions.

Re:Bad idea

[Scudsucker]

I'm not dodging any questions, you dumb fat fuck. I'm saying there are zero non-utility monopolies that exist because of government protections. We had monopolies long before we had anti-trust regulations and court rulings stating that corporations had the rights of citizens. Pull your head out. We already tried it your way: the Articles of Confederation and the Gilded Age at the turn of the century. Both were disasters for this country. Libertarianism might be great at preventing fascism or for Amish hamlets, but it's piss poor for anything else.

Re:Bad idea

[BoberFett]

You say talk about these non-utility monopolies but you can't even fucking name one. Shut the fuck up you worthless chicken shit.

Re:Bad idea

[Scudsucker]

You say talk about these non-utility monopolies but you can't even fucking name one.

All of them means all of them. Seriously, just how stupid are you?

The sort of customer GameStop Corp. wants

[ackthpt]

"So that's World or Mariocraft at $54.95, Halogen World at $54.95 and ECCH Sofa Soccer '08 at $54.95, with tax is um $202.45"

"Duh, how many twenties is that?"

"How many do you have, ah 12 or 13 should do."

"*drool* Dar, don't I get some change back?"

"Oh Certainly, let's see here's 1, 2, 3, say, what grade are you in?"

"Duh, 10."

"Ah, very good, where was I, oh yes, 10, 11, how old are you if you don't mind my asking?"

"Dur. I'm 16."

"Ah, I should have guessed, so let's see, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, there you go have a nice day! Enjoy your games!"

"Duh, oh boy will I! Buh bye!"

Re:The sort of customer GameStop Corp. wants

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah I've got a response, uh what?

Re:The sort of customer GameStop Corp. wants

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't do maths == profitable, while mumsy and dadsy continue to pick up the tab.

Re:The sort of customer GameStop Corp. wants

[Workaphobia]

Except one particular reading of the original post would give the impression that the clerk gave the student back $400 at the end.

Re:The sort of customer GameStop Corp. wants

[Anonymous Coward]

Shop at GameSpot, do ya?

Re:The sort of customer GameStop Corp. wants

[Twisted64]

Sweet Jesus, is that some Enid Blyton reference there?

Re:The sort of customer GameStop Corp. wants

[ucla74]

I'd have modded parent Insightful, not Funny. Or "Sadly True."

They can just say that they fired him for lack of

[Joe The Dragon]

They can just say that they fired him for lack of sales and be done with.

Local news on the fiasco

[RobertB-DC]

For some reason, Google News (and the original poster) are linking to an Austin TV station's copy of the story, which originated in Dallas -- site of the store and, oh yeah, GameStop's headquarters. Here are some links to the "breaking news story", as I'm sure Channel 8 is touting it:

Before (Sep 13): Store only sells video games to kids with good grades. Wow, great guy, good publicity!

After (Sep 14): GameStop manager suspended after 'games for grades' policy. Hey, bad boy, hurt sales!

Fortunately, I don't feel the need to stop in at GameStop anyway. Not when the Dallas area has independent stores like Game Trade, with a bigger selection, better prices, more knowledgable staff, and a LAN room in the back.

Re:Local news on the fiasco

[artifex2004]

Let's see, mod you from 4 to 5, or be uninsightful...

Thanks for the link, Robert. I didn't know about that store. I don't buy many games, so I never looked around, but now I'll check them out. :) Looks like I can get some anime on, too. Wonder if I can unload my Jyhad cards there? :)

Re:Local news on the fiasco

[segoy]

Holy crap! It's the other person who bought Jyhad cards!

Re:Local news on the fiasco

[artifex2004]

Holy crap! It's the other person who bought Jyhad cards!

I'm now enjoying the situation where I can't mod you up funny because I commented, but if I had not commented, you wouldn't have said that.

Re:Local news on the fiasco

[LanMan04]

Wow, my friends and I played Jyhad (for a little while, anyway) in High School! We wanted a card game that wasn't Magic, and Jyhad fit the bill. I still have big old deck of a few hundred cards...somewhere in my basement?

circa 1995 or so, good times.

Re:Local news on the fiasco

[Anonymous Coward]

I still have a complete set of mint condition Jyhad cards in a binder somewhere in the attic. Paid $50 for those back in 1994, intended to flip them, never got around to it.

Wonder if they're worth anything today.

Re:Local news on the fiasco

[geminidomino]

I hope so. I've got complete sets of the original and the European expansion (Dark something, I think...)

Man, I loved that game...

Good for GameStop

[jmauro]

Why keep someone employed as a store manager who doesn't understand how a store actually works. (i.e. selling things to people who want to buy and are legally able to do so).

Re:Good for GameStop

[cduffy]

Sure, that's how many stores do operate, but why does a store have to operate that way? Read his account he turned down only about two dozen sales, and some of those kids came back and made purchases later after cleaning up their grades.

If he gets parents' support through his policies, that has potential to result in a net increase of sales -- two dozen transactions isn't that may in the larger scheme of things.

Re:Good for GameStop

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, the store doesn't have to operate that way. But this guy is a manager, not an owner. It's not his responsibility to implement policies that could hurt the owner's bottom line.

Re:Good for GameStop

[jmauro]

Not his store, he doesn't get to make the rules. He just gets to use the policies set down by those who actually own the store. If he did own the store none of this would be a issue.

Re:Good for GameStop

[digitalchinky]

So the whole 'manager' title is now no better than the lofty responsibilities associated with flipping burgers? You tell someone they are a manager, then you let them make decisions, the title deserves that respect. Seems to me that the glass towered retards at the top don't understand that a couple of phone calls might have solved this issue far better than suspending him and very possibly losing a crap load of sales. You might not like the guy's ideology, but you can bet the average middle class soccer mom cares far less about some random companies bottom line.

I'm well beyond 18-21 years of age, though I don't think what this guy did was something I would disapprove of. If I want my child to have a game, I can always go and buy it myself.

Re:Good for GameStop

[cduffy]

Mmm. Would need to see what GameStop's policies look like to argue this further. If they claim that their store managers are "empowered" (it's a shiny happy buzzword, after all!), then clamp down when onesuch manager does something with a great deal of potential to benefit the store he's running, then that's still objectionable.

Re:Good for GameStop

[Sj0]

24 sales at 50 bucks a pop. 1200 dollars in lost sales.

A manager should know full well that he's playing with fire if he decides to turn away 1200 dollars in sales. His bosses live for sales, because their bosses live for sales.

So, we've either got a manager who is blissfully ignorant of what his bosses want to see at the end of the day (in which case he should be fired for lacking a clue), or we've got a manager who is wilfully going against what his bosses want to see at the end of the day (in which case he should be fired for insubordination).

Re:Good for GameStop

[cduffy]

1200 dollars in lost sales.

In return for waaaay more than 1200 dollars worth of media coverage.

Re:Good for GameStop

[Sj0]

Negative media coverage, if the posts here are any indication. If it was the gamespot in my town, I know I wouldn't shop there after hearing about this policy.

Re:Good for GameStop

[cduffy]

Negative media coverage, if the posts here are any indication.

Blog coverage and mainstream media coverage are quite different things -- and the mainstream coverage has been consistently positive. Other GameStop locations can keep the bloggers -- sure, us technophiles are moderately numerous and have a nontrivial amount of spending power, but concerned parents have got us outnumbered by far.

Re:Good for GameStop

[Sj0]

It's a store where they sell video games.

I think we've got a chance of being the larger demographic, here.

Re:Good for GameStop

[cduffy]

No, no, you phrased that wrong. It's a store where they sell ways to keep the kids occupied for a while.

Re:Good for GameStop

[Sj0]

I'd love to argue against that, I mean, I'm on Slashdot to argue, but I can't. You hit the nail on the head, and I didn't have any inkling. I can't think of any adult who would actually shop at a Gamespot.

I mean, I know a LOT of adult gamers, but none of them would go to a place like Gamespot for their games. Walmart? Sure. The local computer store? Absolutely. Gamespot? Quit smoking crack. It ruins your mind.

Re:Good for GameStop

[LoverOfJoy]

I agree with you in principle but I'd be curious to learn all the details of this case. Perhaps there were some phone calls made and the manager refused to immediately comply. In the article it said:

Scott says he's unsure whether his suspension was due to the unorthodox policy, or because he spoke to the media.

But says he remains committed to making a difference, regardless of the label.

"I wouldn't say rebel, but I can be rebellious. I can fight for what I believe in," he said.

I'm sure that managers are (or at least should be) given authority to make many decisions but I'm also sure that there are some policies in place that limit the decision-making to some extent. For instance, they may be able to make some choices on product placement in many cases but in certain specific cases they are required to put up certain products and posters as part of a larger agreement the store made with the company they got the product from. They may have some leaway to give customers discounts but there may also be a limit to the amount of discount or the number of discounts they can give.

It's quite possible that the manager was given the power to make many meaningful choices and yet refusing to sell a product to someone and talking to the media were two choices that were explicitly against corporate policy. Even if it was a small town shop I'm sure the owner would give the manager at the very least some guiding principles that he wanted followed and he probably would tell the manager that if he planned anything drastic he'd want the manager to talk to him about it first.

Re:Good for GameStop

[ssstraub]

Sure, that's how many stores do operate, but why does a store have to operate that way?

WTF does that have to do with this particular incident? If that's your idea, then take it to the owners! Maybe it will go over well and their stock will double and everyone will drink champagne next year. But notice I said "owners" not "some employee."

In this case, whether it is "morally good" or not doesn't even enter the equation. He's not giving a discount for good grades, which is good for the community AND the store (and has been done by numerous businesses), he's outright refusing sales which could be good for the community, but is insubordination to the highest order!

Re:Good for GameStop

[cduffy]

It's only insubordination if he's been ordered not to (either directly or by established policy). You have a copy of the GameStop policy handbook (or any direct communications between this manager and his superiors) to prove your (implicit) allegation that one of these two things is true?

Further, his position is "store manager", not "button pusher". You know how some companies like to say that their employees are "empowered"? Well, this is it -- empowerment at work! Make a policy adjustment (presuming that neither established company policies regarding the breadth of your role nor any direct order from your superiors has indicated to the contrary) and if it works, it can be replicated elsewhere in the chain; if it doesn't work, you're out of a job. For the same reason that a nonzero mutation rate is healthy for a species, a nonzero rate of individual locations trying new things is healthy for a corporation.

Re:Good for GameStop

[ssstraub]

If it wasn't insubordination and he had the authority to do this, then that policy would be the very first thing he would point out to Gamestop. I'm surprised he wasn't fired.

I don't have a copy of the Gamestop policy handbook, but I'd be willing to bet big money they don't have a policy allowing the store manager to REFUSE SALES based on any arbitrary rules he happens to think up. And that's exactly what he did. If any employee of Wal-Mart (Manager or otherwise) pulled this stunt they'd be looking for a new job before lunch time.

Re:Good for GameStop

[cduffy]

but I'd be willing to bet big money they don't have a policy allowing the store manager to REFUSE SALES based on any arbitrary rules he happens to think up

My question was not whether they have a policy allowing it, but whether they have a policy disallowing it. He's management, even if low-level -- and that should mean having the freedom to do things which you reasonably believe will benefit the portion of the company for which you are responsible, to the extent that those things are not disallowed.

idiot

[Turn-X Alphonse]

So some idiot decides to abuse his power (for better or worse does not matter) and loses the company money? How is this remotely surprising? He's a bean counter, if he decides anything but which colour beans to count this week he gets kicked out for someone else.

Re:idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

So some idiot decides to abuse his power (for better or worse does not matter) and loses the company money? How is this remotely surprising? He's a bean counter, if he decides anything but which colour beans to count this week he gets kicked out for someone else.
--
Slashdot tip of the day : Tags are not comments, they're ment to help people search for topics. Write a comment or leave Maybe if there was a policy like this in place back when you were doing laps in Mario Kart instead of your homework, you'd be able to proofread your own fucking sig. Now get the hell out of my store, you little retard.

J.R. Trollkin

Re:idiot

[cduffy]

How is this "abuse"?

It's legitimate for a local branch of a business to do spend money doing good within its community as part of a promotional effort -- donating funds and/or employees' time to libraries and schools and such. How is establishing a policy of refusing to sell games to poor students any different? It gets publicity for the store, and has potential to increase sales in the long run -- not to mention an opportunity to garner a reputation as being a good citizen in the community.

Certainly, the manager is responsible for his branch's profitability. As long as he's meeting that goal, what's to criticize?

Re:idiot

[moore.dustin]

Right and Wrong.

You are correct, doing the program might do the things you say, being increasing sales, publicity, and positive branding. Let me stress might here - of course you can never be certain any program will work one way or another. That said, that brings me to the part where you are wrong.

This was a horrible program all things considered. All three things you say this program could do; increase sales, publicity, and positive branding, all can be done via traditional marketing. I am 100% sure GameStop has a marketing budget which has these same 3 goals in mind, but in a much better cost:risk ratio. GameStop wants to get the most return on its investment into increase sales, publicity, and positive branding. They have probably done research as to get the most return for the least risk, a common practice throughout economics. Violating the programs designed as a result of that research makes the research worthless and compromises the forecastable success of that location.

Re:idiot

[cduffy]

There's a reason why a higher mutation rate (within reason) has a positive impact on the evolution of a species, even though a strong majority of them have a negative impact. Why? Because if you rely only on safe, incremental improvements, you don't get anywhere nearly as quickly as if you take localized risks (a small percentage of each generation being nonviable due to negative mutations, balanced against the potential for a positive mutation which then is able to spread). The folks back at HQ are indeed putting money into marketing -- but they're also potentially more risk-averse than the individual store managers. Central planning leaves an organization inflexible -- and relying strictly on HQ to come up with new ideas is indeed just such a beast.

The failure of an individual store doesn't risk GameStop's overall wellbeing. The success of a new model pioneered by an individual store may benefit the entire corporation. Presuming that store managers are adequately motivated to protect their careers (and, should they be franchisees, their investments), the benefits of allowing local experimentation within the small subset of locations managed by individuals with the motivation to affect such changes substantially outweigh the risks.

Re:idiot

[moore.dustin]

While the evolution analogy/application is works to a degree, you are neglecting the real issue here. It was not this managers position to take that risk, especially without running it by corporate first. Look, I agree, some risks are good and generally, I agree with your comment pretty much down to the T. That said, it still was not this persons call in the least. He was/is not in a position to quantify and then take on that additional risk. If he wants to play with money like that he needs to be doing with his own money, or in a position that welcomes that thought process. That is reserved for investment banking and a few other specialized jobs though. GameStop store manager is not one of those.

Should thinking like that be rewarded? Sure, but you better not determine it worthwhile and enact it yourself without first checking with the people who's money you are playing with.

Re:idiot

[rat10177sd]

It's a simple thing called Restraint of Trade.

Re:idiot

[cduffy]

Restraint of trade applies to contractual restrictions on parties with whom one can do business; this is nothing of the sort.

Re:idiot

[JFitzsimmons]

It looks like he had to remove some characters because otherwise it wouldn't fit in the 120 character sig limit.

Re:idiot

[cduffy]

Should thinking like that be rewarded? Sure, but you better not determine it worthwhile and enact it yourself without first checking with the people who's money you are playing with.

Why yes, that's right -- he should hold a referendum at the next shareholders meeting about whether his individual store should be allowed to implement a policy of asking parents to vouch for childrens' grades when selling games. And the fellow running the GameStop down the street should have a referendum about whether the 2%-off sale he's planning on holding next week should be allowed, as well.

Businesses make decisions all the time -- and 99% of the time, those decisions certainly aren't made directly by the people whose money is being played with. Instead, you've got a huge chain of delegated authority -- and some of that needs to reach down to the local and storefront level for a company to be reasonably agile.

Is a local manager taking an action which is clearly out of the realm of their authority? That's cause to remove them, certainly -- but unless we've got a copy the relevant policies (should such exist), neither of us has any idea whether any explicitly defined boundary has been crossed or not.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[garcia]

They can just say that they fired him for lack of sales and be done with.

There's a high probability that they don't have to give him any reason why they let him go. Honestly, while this might be great and all in theory, I don't see why GameStop wouldn't act the way they did, it would be different if this guy owned his own store and was instituting his own policy. When you work for corporate America you follow the proper channels or you end up like this poor bastard.

You're doing it wrong!!!

[waterlogged]

Maybe if he thought about doing the other way, I would have been a huge success. Instead of denying games for bad actions, maybe he should have rewarded good. "If you bring your report card in, we will give you 5% off for every A and 3% off for every B. Strait A's get a free pre-owned or something....

What a tool.

Re:You're doing it wrong!!!

[Spy der Mann]

Sorry, but that would only result in guys asking high-grade geeks to buy their games for them.

Re:You're doing it wrong!!!

[Jbcarpen]

Speaking as a high grade geek, this sounds good to me, I would just keep half of the difference and get some money that way.

Re:You're doing it wrong!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFS -- he bought games out of his own pockets for kids with straight As.

As someone who lives in the neighborhood, I'm all for this guy.

Re:You're doing it wrong!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Those high-grade geeks should could use a friend anyway.

Re:You're doing it wrong!!!

[LoverOfJoy]

RTFS -- he bought games out of his own pockets for kids with straight As.

Not saying you're wrong but I read and reread both the summary and the article and didn't see anything about him buying games out of his own pocket for kids with straight As. Could you post a quote?

Re:You're doing it wrong!!!

[Lissajous]

Strait A's get a free pre-owned or something....

I agree - and maybe if he'd been the manager at your game store, you'd have paid more attention in English classes.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strait
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/straight

Great idea!

[bdjacobson]

Because, you know, it's not like good grades will earn you anything else in life.

And then the parents wonder why their children aren't ready for the real world-- because they haven't been shown any of it!

Re:Great idea!

[Ace905]

Yeah... I remember the last time I produced a report card showing good grades at the Bank, and to my employer. Good grades don't earn you anything else in life, intelligence does.

This guy is obviously lacking it.

"Parents wonder why their children aren't ready for the real world" -- wtf? You think the solution is to just let any moron with a minimum wage job do the work of a parent? That's why kids aren't ready for the real world? Are you joking me?

The real world is what we make it. The real world doesn't have loser sales clerks demanding good grades -- which is why this guy isn't a sales clerk anymore.

Re:Great idea!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because, you know, it's not like good grades will earn you anything else in life. Of course they will. The higher grades you get, the better of a college you get into. And because we live in a classless society, its obvious that everyone comes from equal backgrounds, therefore the system is a pure meritocracy. No one has ever gotten into a top college because they have wealthy parents with legacy status, and no one was ever denied because their crappy background drastically inhibited their current capacity for learning despite the fact that they did amazingly well with the little they were born with. And even if that were the case, which its not, it would be justified because the poor are innately inferior to the rich in every way. We have numbers that weren't fabricated by elitists with political motivation to prove it.
So there, grades do have a purpose. Keep those stupid poor people in there place! Er, I mean, Preserve the status quo! Damnit, I meant to say make sure only the most qualified people rise to the top. Yeah, that one.
/sarcastic offtopic flame

Re:Great idea!

[xero314]

You think the solution is to just let any moron with a minimum wage job do the work of a parent This would be insightful if it weren't for the fact that a large portion (dare I say the majority) of parents make minimum wage or less. Second this was a store Manager, and believe it or not, retail store managers are paid considerably more than minimum wage.

It seems that someone may actually need to experience the real world before they comment on it.

Re:Great idea!

[Sj0]

Once you get that piece of paper and your first job, it matters surprisingly little where you got it.

"Oh? You've got a unique skill, proven experience in that skill, and we have no reason to believe you're a slacker or an asshole? Please! Let us pay you to work for us!"

Re:Great idea!

[rat10177sd]

WTF Cite some references for your assertions.

Re:Great idea!

[Physician]

Well besides the obvious argument that good grades will get you into a good college which will eventually get you a good job, let's just say that making good grades shows an employer that you're dedicated and can do what you put your mind to. Bad grades just show someone who's lazy or thinks they're too good to study like the rest of us.

Re:Great idea!

[tftp]

Good grades may also show that you have some easy life in a lousy school, playing with basic arithmetics. Bad grades may also show that your parents sent you to the best, and toughest school they could find, and the poor grade is because it took you longer than 30 seconds to propose how to calculate a volume of a starfish [that would be an integral or two.] Bad grades may also indicate that you are disabled and can't learn as fast as others. The last case is very serious, and if he refused any sale to a disabled kid he could be sued to oblivion.

lapse in logic

[ILuvRamen]

Apparently he didn't realize that some games are purely educational. Yes, they do exist and I bet Gamestop sells them. I remember dozens I played in grade school. You'd think he'd want to sell them to kids with bad grades instead of the other way around

Where's the story here?

[AuMatar]

Manager decides to create a new policy. The owners don't like it and discipline him. Totally within their rights. If the manager owned the store, he could do this. Since he doesn't, his boss makes the rules.

Now if he had made it a discount, it could have been a win-win. It would save the kid some money (and possibly be an incentive to work harder) and make good publicity for his store. But just stopping is bad business sense. The customer will just go elsewhere.

Re:Where's the story here?

[cduffy]

The story is that a policy that's popular within the community where it was implemented was terminated with prejudice by upper management.

It doesn't have to be a legal or ethical violation to be news.

Re:Where's the story here?

[p3d0]

Manager decides to create a new policy. The owners don't like it and discipline him. Totally within their rights. If the manager owned the store, he could do this. Since he doesn't, his boss makes the rules. Assuming your question ("where's the story here?") is an honest one, the answer is that many people view this as a clash between morals and business.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[Doc Ruby]

Yeah, and that sucks.

Lesson

[Kohath]

The lesson here is: don't try to be someone's Mom unless you are his Mom.

I wish more people in our society would learn this lesson. I'm old enough to not need a Mom to tell me what to do or not to do. Kids, on the other hand, already have a Mom and don't really need 50 of them.

Re:Lesson

[d0rp]

Yes! It should be the parents making sure that the children are studying instead of playing games if their grades are bad. Parents need to take responsibility instead of trying to pawn it off on someone else, and people need to stop trying to be someone's parent when they aren't.

Besides, what's to stop the kid from walking down the street and buying the game at the next store? Absolutely nothing, so its a mute point.

Re:Lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

It takes a village to raise a child. The ones who follow this statement knew a thing or two.

Re:Lesson

[RobertB-DC]

Yes! It should be the parents making sure that the children are studying instead of playing games if their grades are bad. Parents need to take responsibility instead of trying to pawn it off on someone else, and people need to stop trying to be someone's parent when they aren't.

Besides, what's to stop the kid from walking down the street and buying the game at the next store? Absolutely nothing, so its a mute point.

Parents need to take responsibility, sure. Most parents do. Some parents don't.

As a society, we can turn our back on our own responsibility, as you suggest. Let the kids roam the streets. After all, if they break the law, we can just lock them up for a few years. They'll learn their lesson in there, oh yessirree!

Saying "people need to stop trying to be someone's parent" in this context is, frankly, a load of crap. Granted, I don't want someone telling my son what he can and can't do in private -- that's my job. But if he's doing something stupid in public, I *do* want someone to tell him to stop being an idiot before he gets someone hurt, such as himself.

So while I'm on my high horse, I guess you'll really get cheezed when I point out that it's a "moot" point, not a "mute" one. Unless you mean it's a silent point, which just doesn't make a whole lotta sense.

Re:Lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, that might have applied in Greece where children were born from polygamous relations. Since in that case, the village was the parent.

Re:Lesson

[Overzeetop]

This case notwithstanding, I beg to differ. Biologically everyone has a mother; practically speaking there are very few children with parents who pay as much attention to raising their children as they should. In fact, I know a lot of kids that could do with an extra mom or two, based on their biological mother's (and father's) performance to date.

Re:Lesson

[Kepper]

are you kidding? did you really just defend your argument with an allusion to kids roaming the streets?

we are talking about kids buying video games. end of story.

if you decide to back this high and mighty manager who sets policy in a corporate store without approval, then where and when would it end?

Would you think it ok, if the person at the checkout line in the supermarket wouldn't sell kids candy without mommy saying ok? or how about not letting the kids into an arcade or skate park? Hell, take away every venue for kids to have fun in altogether unless they show good grades! scholastic acheivement and any punishment or rewards resulting from that, are the duty of schools and parents.. NOT joe shmoe at the baseball card shop.
this is the United States of America. if you dont want kids to buy things without their parental approval than DON'T SERVE MINORS.

Re:Lesson

[Kohath]

Anonymous bureaucrats and silly busybody store clerks aren't a village. Extended family and neighbors -- maybe.

Re:Lesson

[antifoidulus]

The lesson here is: don't try to be someone's Mom unless you are his Mom.

Not to mention the fact that if you do try, the cops get involved more often than not....not that I'm speaking from experience or anything.....

Re:Lesson

[celle]

Oh, lets not forget the government with their no child left behind policy, or the state and local school districts with their 10 administators for every kid and 20 kids for ever teacher. Your 50 is nothing. Lets hear it for government waste. And then there's the rest of us who have to pay for the schools and courts and government bureaucracy whether we have any kids or not, we at least are entitled to mom them as we pay for the privilege.

Re:Lesson

[Kohath]

Translation:

Hey, all you Moms out there: you're mostly all bad Moms. Everyone else: your Mom was a mostly bad Mom.

This guy says so.

Re:Lesson

[Myopic]

Yeah, maybe. I dunno, though, it really does take a village to raise a child. Sounds to me like this guy was overstepping his authority (it wasn't even his store, it's a franchise). Still, mom isn't always there to stop a child from doing the wrong thing, and in those situations it is appropriate to step in for the missing mom. (The person stepping in, though, should not be the government.)

Not in this case, though. It's a silly policy in the first place, and implemented in an inappropriate place (someone else's store).

Re:Lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me chime in here on the subject, because every story like this always has a "gotcha" to it... Oak Cliff is where the company I work at is located. I work as a network administrator there. I've also worked as a highschool HTML/Photoshop teacher in the same area. It's a rough neighborhood. Largely black with some hispanic neighborhoods. Largely poverty level or barely above it income. There's a lot of section 8 housing, and a lot of parents supporting 4 kids on welfare while driving a piece of shit Buick on 24" rims that ran them $5k.

These are not parents that have or show any value for education, and it puts the kids on a track to winding up in the same exact shitty situation.

The same thoughts happen to any adult coming to that area from a more privileged walk of life: somebody's gotta help these kids if the parents won't. Fuck this whole "Don't be a mom if you aren't their mom" thing, these kids need help. Believe me, I'm not typically the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" type of person either. But a kid that obviously hasn't had anything but criticism leveled at any display of intelligence deserves a voice of encouragement in their life.

My way of helping? I push them to be better. I tell them what they don't hear at home: being smart is not bad. Basketball won't pay the bills, but your brains can. You can do anything you set your mind to. This guy had another way of helping out, and I applaud him for trying.

Gamestop was within their rights to suspend, fire, or otherwise discipline him. Everyone saying that is absolutely and completely correct. But they were insane to lose the chance at good publicity this guy gave them, and it is a loss to the kids in the area that somebody looking out for them was punished. Gamestop should have refined the program with him instead of instantly being angry, because it really could become a good model for being a good corporate citizen.

Remember the old Book It! program that Pizza Hut ran? Think the same thing with video games. This guy had the start of a good idea and could have refined it in to a more reasonable program to really help kids out. I hope Gamestop will try to see it the same way at the corporate level, because supporting kids in that part of town by creating a program to encourage good grades (where the kids LOOK DOWN on the smart kids much more so than in other school) is a service those kids don't often get from mom and dad.

This guy was thinking a kid shouldn't be cut off from a good education because mom, dad, and their peers just don't see any reason to try harder. He sees bright kids with promising futures pissed away because nobody seems to push them to excel, and was trying to help with something they probably won't and can't get from home. Being around that atmosphere every day, I have respect for the guy and still hope that something good can come of the situation.

Re:Lesson

[Overzeetop]

Yup, that pretty much covers it. Just my observation, of course.

Re:Lesson

[insertwackynamehere]

Wow I wouldn't wanna take a Bio class on the Ancient Greeks in that case...2-partner sexual reproduction is complicated enough

Re:Lesson

[Kohath]

Sounds like the "village" is the problem.

Telling kids to get better grades misses a lot of the point. How about "be a better person"? Add "how to be a better person" and "why to be a better person" and you have some of what's needed. Getting good grades is OK. But a good person will have opportunity even without them.

Denying kids games doesn't change anything. You want them watching TV instead?

Re:Lesson

[RobertB-DC]

this is the United States of America. if you dont want kids to buy things without their parental approval than DON'T SERVE MINORS.

I assume that by trumpeting the name of our country, you're implying something about freedom? Fine -- if it's my business, then I can serve whomever I please, and set whatever conditions I want. I can require anyone buying Karaoke Revolution to demonstrate an ability to sing without causing pain to innocent bystanders. In fact, *that* should probably be a law.

Of course, the real problem for the store manager is that, unfortunately, it wasn't *his* business. The owner of the business does indeed have a "sell to anyone" policy. So yeah, he's going to get fired. But there are a lot of reasons to get fired; at least he can say he got fired for doing the right thing at the wrong place.

Re:Lesson

[MaxShaw]

I'm afraid "being a better person" isn't going to fly with today's kids - it's too general and does not set the kid up for a specific goal.

Denying kids games doesn't change anything. You want them watching TV instead?

Denying anything to a kid provides an incentive for them to go out and improve to get what they want. Games are quite a good drive, I would think.

Re:Lesson

[geminidomino]

A position often espoused by villages composed entirely of idiots.

Thanks, but no thanks.

This guy is an idiot

[Ace905]

No matter what 'system' he came up with, he should be fired for putting another step in the middle of the "Hi I want to buy this", "Here you go" process.

If anybody thinks this guy is a good Samaritan or should be rewarded, you're living in your own little hippy infested lovey dovey moron world. He just made customers go another block to the 'other of a million' game stores and buy there for the same competitive price.

He also took away a pretty basic freedom / right from all of his younger customers. So maybe he's the one that needs to learn a lesson. I wish I lived close enough to refuse to buy anything from this store ever again. If the government instituted the same policy for merchants - there would be riots in the streets.

Re:This guy is an idiot

[cduffy]

He just made customers go another block to the 'other of a million' game stores and buy there for the same competitive price.

Some customers. Other customers (like parents, who tend to be the people bankrolling Christmas and birthday gifts) are liable to appreciate the move quite a bit. If (for the sake of an argument) he loses 100% of his non-parent sales but gets 1% of the parents in the Dallas area to go to his store when they want to buy a game as a gift for a child, that's a massive win: When he was "just another game store", there was no reason for people to select his store over others (with comparable pricing and selection) other than location. Making a policy and getting publicity that makes his store stand out, on the other hand, means people might be willing to drive further to get there, and distinguishes him from the competition. From a business perspective, it's potentially a great move.

He also took away a pretty basic freedom / right from all of his younger customers.

Beg your pardon? There's no right to be sold video games. If he were discriminating on the basis of being part of a protected class (age/race/disability/etc), that would be one thing -- but it's not the case here. Deciding you don't want your store to serve children with poor grades until they shape up is perfectly legitimate.

Re:This guy is an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I lived close enough to refuse to buy anything from this store ever again.

Couldn't you just refuse to buy anything from that store now? Isn't the net result the same?

Re:This guy is an idiot

[Chr0me]

He also took away a pretty basic freedom / right from all of his younger customers.

Beg your pardon? There's no right to be sold video games. If he were discriminating on the basis of being part of a protected class (age/race/disability/etc), that would be one thing -- but it's not the case here. Might not be the same right GP was thinking of, but how about privacy for the kid? You know that pesky thing /. is always talking about under headings like YRO. If the GameStop manager can't call up J. Random Memorial High School and asks for Johnny's report card due to privacy issues then he shouldn't be asking John Sr. to vouch for Junior. Just a thought.

Re:This guy is an idiot

[cduffy]

If the GameStop manager can't call up J. Random Memorial High School and asks for Johnny's report card due to privacy issues then he shouldn't be asking John Sr. to vouch for Junior.

They're entirely different things, in that the latter is a voluntary transaction -- John Sr. needs to agree to provide the information; otherwise, it remains private.

That would still be questionable if the company requiring the information release had monopoly power within the relevant market -- but obviously, nothing of the sort is the case here.

Re:This guy is an idiot

[Buelldozer]

Yes, because encouraging academic performance instead of corporate profit is entirely irresponsible. Are you high? Are you Kenneth Lay returned from the grave?

Get a grip on yourself. I'm no hippy, I'm a Wyoming dwelling died in the wool Libertarian Conservative and I FIRMLY stand behind this manager.

When a community comes together to help a child get their priorities straight it's a GOOD thing.

You put making a buck ahead of engaging in good societal membership. I despise people like you.

You are what is wrong with the world.

Re:This guy is an idiot

[Sj0]

To be fair. John Sr. is a hobo Junior gave twenty bucks so she can buy Halo 3. Junior's name is Tiffany.

Re:This guy is an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Dumb people are part of the protected class, cduffy.

Re:This guy is an idiot

[cduffy]

To be fair. John Sr. is a hobo Junior gave twenty bucks so she can buy Halo 3. Junior's name is Tiffany.

All the better for everyone! The store gets publicity, Tiffany gets her game, the hobo gets a meal and some smokes... who's losing? :-P

Re:This guy is an idiot

[cduffy]

Maybe you're joking -- but not when I last took constitutional law, they weren't. Jeez, think of the lawsuits we'd have otherwise -- it'd be illegal to refuse to hire someone because they were stupid!

(I took all the law-related classes I could as part of my business minor, but IANAL).

Re:This guy is an idiot

[rat10177sd]

Jeez not another Jack T. Let's all play morality cops.

    And I'm pretty sure someone could sue the store and GameStop over privacy issues.

Re:This guy is an idiot

[Talgrath]

Actually, it is HIGHLY irresponsible for him to do what he did; his boss (the district manager, most likely) is paying him money to do a job, make sure that things are running smoothly and that corporate policies are enforced at this Gamestop location. By the very defination of irresponsibility, he is irressponsible for abandoning his responsibilities at his job. You could argue he has a responsibility to the community somehow, but I would point out that that isn't laid out in writing anywhere, while his job's responsibilities are.

Re:This guy is an idiot

[Scudsucker]

Other customers (like parents, who tend to be the people bankrolling Christmas and birthday gifts) are liable to appreciate the move quite a bit.

And other parents are going to be offended that the store manager wants them to waste their time to come in and say their kid can buy a game. He's doing something that he has no business doing and is costing his store money, just to make a few prudes happy.

Re:This guy is an idiot

[cduffy]

And other parents are going to be offended that the store manager wants them to waste their time to come in and say their kid can buy a game.

To the contrary -- parents who care so little about their childrens' academic performance as to see this as a waste of time are exactly the sort whose children won't be buying any games at his store without someone lying on their behalf. If we trust his figures, that's a happily small number.

He's doing something that he has no business doing and is costing his store money, just to make a few prudes happy.

What do you mean, "no business doing"? He's encouraging responsibility among his clientèle. Just like the bartender who refuses to continue to serve a customer who would prefer to give themselves alcohol poisoning, he's upholding the respectability of his business and (by encouraging his clients to make less self-destructive choices) increasing the chances of those clients being around and prosperous for a long time to come.

Further, it's by no means established that this results in a net loss of income. You may describe those who are concerned about children focusing on their studies as "a few prudes", but that's a bogus characterization. I'm a hippie liberal geek living in Left Texas (aka Austin), and I think this is a fantastic move. It's nothing against video games -- I'm anxiously awaiting a chance to upgrade my video hardware and play through Bioshock again -- and everything to do with encouraging parental and personal responsibility on a societal, rather than governmental, level. Point is, there are people who think this is a good move -- listen to the mainstream media rather than the blogosphere, and it's a lot of people. If that's the case, he stands to gain considerably more business than he's turning away.

If putting studies before video games is being a prude, I don't want to know how the next generation or two will turn out.

Re:This guy is an idiot

[cduffy]

I think this is good marketing to the concerned-parent crowd, and such a sound business move. Where the hell in my post was I trying to play on moral issues?

And I'm quite sure (albeit not a lawyer, can't give legal advice, don't know anything about your jurisdiction anyhow) that there isn't anything actionable here from a privacy perspective. We're not collecting info directly from the kids (which is mostly illegal only when done online anyhow), and what we are collecting is provided voluntarily by the parent or guardian for the explicit purpose for which it's used. No harm, no foul.

Re:This guy is an idiot

[cduffy]

Waitamoment. You're comparing me to that asshole?

Bull-fucking-shit.

Look. I bought a Wii for Christmas for my friends' kids, and I play my share of shooters (mostly of the plot-heavy single-player variety). I'm not some anti-game jackass, but at the same time that's no reason to think it's acceptable for people to let their kids play games when their grades suck. When I was raised, if your grades dropped below a B average, you lost the privileges to do anything but study. You pull your grades up? You get to go out and have fun.

It's not about video games, it's about encouraging responsible parenting. And while I certainly don't think it's the government's job to regulate peoples' parenting, a little bit of societal pressure here and there isn't necessarily a bad thing -- gets people to think a bit about what others consider socially acceptable behavior, if nothing else.

Now, would you please stop with the characterizations, and actually consider the argument? I'm not part of the take-away-all-yer-games bandwagon (being on that bandwagon is one of my big problems with Hillary, for that matter), and treating anyone whose position differs from yours in the least as if they're Satan himself doesn't do much good in terms of potential to come up with a society we can both live with.

Re:This guy is an idiot

[Scudsucker]

To the contrary -- parents who care so little about their childrens' academic performance

Then they can take five seconds to see what games their kid has in their Playstation. That's their job. Expecting other people to do that for them is pure laziness.

What do you mean, "no business doing"?

Exactly what I said. His job is to make money for his company without breaking any laws, not stick his nose into other people's business.

Further, it's by no means established that this results in a net loss of income.

Use your head. The only reason most games are purchased by 18-40 year olds is because they have disposable income. Kids buy games. A lot of games.

I'm a hippie liberal geek living in Left Texas (aka Austin), and I think this is a fantastic move.

Liar.

Re:This guy is an idiot

[cduffy]

Then they can take five seconds to see what games their kid has in their Playstation. That's their job. Expecting other people to do that for them is pure laziness.

Hey -- it takes a village. Responsible parenting is easier if you're in a society which supports it -- though I absolutely don't believe that such support is the government's job. And folks who may or may not become responsible parents on their own are more likely to pick up good memes if they run into them elsewhere in society.

Use your head. The only reason most games are purchased by 18-40 year olds is because they have disposable income. Kids buy games. A lot of games.

They do? Where do they get the money?

As you say, 18-40 year olds are the people with disposable income. Parents and friends (via their parents, if said friends aren't adults themselves) buy kids games -- and, as I've said before, parents and family friends buying games for kids can make up for the loss of kids buying games for yourself if your store distinguishes itself sufficiently as to draw parents from geographic regions in which they would otherwise go to other stores. There's enough saturation in game shops that there's room for some market segmentation: Locations catering to adults and locations catering to direct sales to children.

Heck -- much of the time, kids don't even have their own transportation. If you're asking your parents to take you by the game store, there's a pretty good chance they'll prefer to go by the place with the manager who promotes responsible values. (I almost said "family values" -- but damn, that's an overused and co-opted phrase. Suffice to say that when I say "family values" I'm not talking about traditionalist one-mommy-one-daddy bullshit, but about actually raising children to be intelligent, compassionate and responsible adults).

Liar.

Not. What would it take to prove that to you? My 512-area-code home phone number? My receipt from buying The Audacity of Hope? Contact info for friends who can vouch for my social and political leanings?

Or are you simply unwilling to accept anything that contradicts your initial impressions?

Re:This guy is an idiot

[Scudsucker]

Hey -- it takes a village.

Which is made up of friends, family members and neighbors. Not random strangers far from your home.

They do? Where do they get the money?

From their parents. Or by working. The first obviously means the parents have given permission to buy stuff, and the second implies at least some level of responsibility, and that their parents have allowed them to have a job - and to spend the money from said job. Why should a store employee be able to decide how this money is spent, based on their personal, arbitrary standards?

Not. What would it take to prove that to you? My 512-area-code home phone number? My receipt from buying The Audacity of Hope? Contact info for friends who can vouch for my social and political leanings?

I called you a liar because endorsing third parties that make arbitrary moral judgments on others is completely anti-ethical to everything liberal hippies stand for. If only because they wont always make decisions you agree with - what if the clerk at a B&N decides that Hope is too subversive a book for a teenager to read, and instead refers your offspring to a nice hardcover copy of Treason?

But back to GameStop. If a kid buys and a game and the parent decides it is inappropriate or will be too much of a distraction, the parent can take the game away or keep it until their child accomplishes whatever the child needs to accomplish. But that is the call of the parent, not the store manager. His was a ham fisted approach to a problem that can be solved with five minutes of responsible parenting.

Now, give it up before I have my cousins in Dallas come over to your place in Austin, repo your copy of Hope, and instead leave you with Deliver Us from Evil : Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism by Sean Hannity. :-)

Re:This guy is an idiot

[cduffy]

Which is made up of friends, family members and neighbors. Not random strangers far from your home.

I'd hardly call a fellow who runs a local store a random stranger far from home. He's part of the community, and for his actions to be commercially successful they need to reflect values which a significant part of that community shares.

And again, it matters a great deal whether it's being done by someone with monopoly status. If every game shop or bookstore starts playing nanny, that's a problem. If one does so in a crowded market, you're giving folks the choice of a destination aligned with their values.

I called you a liar because endorsing third parties that make arbitrary moral judgments on others is completely anti-ethical to everything liberal hippies stand for.

Being able to choose to do business with a game store that doesn't sell to children unless an adult vouches for their grades is every bit as valid as letting people choose to do business with hair salons that use only non-animal-tested products -- you're not arguing that that is morally corrupt, are you? The retailer doesn't have monopoly power in the relevant market, the consumer is explicitly choosing to do business with them anyhow... As long as other options are available, who are you to say it's wrong?

Yes, I endorse those values, but I'm also endorsing them in the context of a non-monopoly business for which a wide variety of alternate providers are available. This is one little guy trying to do something to make a positive difference in his community we're talking about here, not Big Corporate Management From On High (or state or federal government) doing something which impacts availability of games from every supplier available.

No.

[Enoxice]

He shouldn't have instituted this policy. The trick to business is to sell things to people that can buy said things, not to say "Sorry, kid, your money is no good here. We don't cater to no dumb people."

It's completely insane to deny a sale to anyone for any criteria other than that which makes them eligible to own (i.e. you can't buy this m-rated game because you are 4 years old, or you only have $7). I mean, that's like saying "Sorry, you can't buy this car because you work at McDonalds. I don't care if you can pay in full in cash right now, have great credit, etc, etc."

Having the opposite policy (as some seem to be suggesting) would have been equally as bad. A discount for good grades is just as discriminatory; "Sorry, Mr. Gates, we can't sell you this Toyota - you'll have to go to the Porche dealer down the street."

Re:No.

[Katmando911]

I don't know if it would have been bad to offer incentives for good grades. I remember when I was a kid, the local arcade would give you free tokens for good grades. That seemed to work out great for everyone.

Re:No.

[bigstrat2003]

Having the opposite policy (as some seem to be suggesting) would have been equally as bad. A discount for good grades is just as discriminatory; "Sorry, Mr. Gates, we can't sell you this Toyota - you'll have to go to the Porche dealer down the street." Huh? That's a terrible analogy, since giving someone a discount for good grades is a reward, not a restriction. It's more nearly analagous (though not completely) to credit scores: you get a better rate for having a better score. The reason why is different, but the effect is exactly the same.

Re:No.

[Buelldozer]

We'd be in a lot better shape if shops WOULD stop selling things to dumb people!

Re:No.

[tftp]

Ok, let's forbid dumb people to buy games, cars, homes, or even food. Let's then go back to our gated communities and relax with a glass of cold milk. But what is there, on the horizon? Fires, fires all over the place, and some peasants seemingly with pitchforks are running amok!

Fact is that there are many dumb people in general, and they need to be happy just as much as any smarter person. But there is another fact - people are usually smart in one aspect and dumb in another. You can find this pattern in many geniuses. I am good at math and physics, but I can't paint, sing or play music, or explain touchy-feely literature (the latter I can't even read.) I am a good draftsman, 2D or 3D, but if you put an apple in front of me I can't paint it even if my life depends on it. So am I dumb or smart? And if I have D for singing, what do you think I should do to fix that - get born again, with a new set of genes?

Re:No.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sorry, kid, your money is no good here. We don't cater to no dumb people."

Best. Idea. Ever.

Businesses don't deal with people who can't write e-mails. Meetings don't tolerate people who can't speak. Court proceedings wouldn't stand a lawyer who can't understand logic or debate.

I don't think anyone should have to deal with stupid people. And to all the posters saying that the guy isn't the parent, go back and read the story. It says he requires adult verification of their good grades. So their mom, or some homeless guy, can still get them the approval necessary to get the game they want.

Furthermore, at what point does it become obvious that parents aren't parenting? I'm sure you all would be in an uproar if we suggested licensing parents as well, right? Then how on earth do we fix the children, if the parents are too busy operating their genitals?

There may have been better ways to go about it, but the guy recognized a problem and tried to solve it...

GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Moryath]

Look, fools, you can't have it both ways. Either there are going to be standards, or there aren't. There's already a standard that you don't sell M-rated games to underage kids, this isn't any different.

If he's unwilling to sell games to kids who are flunking out of school? I TOTALLY LOVE THAT STAND. Seriously, think about it. We have major issues these days with schools being fucked up. If kids aren't making the grade, we may love games, but just letting them play the games is not going to teach them to take school (and work) seriously.

Fuck Gamestop for suspending him. They should be putting him on a pedestal and making this a nationwide policy.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Jartan]

If he's unwilling to sell games to kids who are flunking out of school? I TOTALLY LOVE THAT STAND. Seriously, think about it. We have major issues these days with schools being fucked up. If kids aren't making the grade, we may love games, but just letting them play the games is not going to teach them to take school (and work) seriously.

What's the cutoff though? I agree if someone is flunking and in danger of being held back a year then they shouldn't be playing games. But what about people who are barely passing? Are you willing to go so far as to let society dictate to them a change in lifestyle? Do you even know if the school that person is going to is properly testing the student?

When so many questions are being asked about the institutions supplying those grades (in the US) the idea seems dangerous. A lot of those kids who are barely passing are the smart ones because they aren't buying into the bullshit daycare system they've been shoved into.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[DavidShor]

Fuck you, who the fuck are you to say that kids who get bad grades lose the right to play video games? Not everyone graduates highschool, and since grades are set based on relative achievement, a certain percentage of kids will always get bad grades.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[schnikies79]

My ass. My entire high school time was based on the point system. Everyone in the class could get an A and everyone could get an F.

No one used the curve. Nor did anyone in college.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[rainman_bc]

and since grades are set based on relative achievement No, grades are set based on achievement against a standard. Most schools don't grade on a curve. I used to have university profs say "everyone starts with an A, it's yours to lose".

Props to the Gamestop guy for trying to bring some morality to this industry.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[japhmi]

since grades are set based on relative achievement, a certain percentage of kids will always get bad grades.

In most places in the US this is not true. Most places in the US have horrible grade inflation, so kids that are valedictorians end up taking remedial math in college.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[fishybell]

They should be putting him on a pedestal and making this a nationwide policy.

Because, after all, gamestop should be parenting rather than, oh, I don't know, the parents. If parents wants to let their kids play games all day instead of studying they're not exactly right, but more power to them. You can't force people to make the right desisions.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[orkysoft]

It seems like a good idea, but there'll always be another, less scrupulous, store, so ultimately, it won't have any effect, except for the kid being aware that some stores won't sell him any games anymore.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[ameoba]

Back when I was in HS, the valedictorian of the class that graduated ahead of me didn't even meet the course requirements for acceptance to the state universities.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[the_tsi]

They're not parenting in lieu of parents, they're empowering parents to participate in the decision making process on what their kids are playing. Or at least, the guy who got shitcanned was.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Jhon]

Because, after all, gamestop should be parenting rather than, oh, I don't know, the parents. If parents wants to let their kids play games all day instead of studying they're not exactly right, but more power to them.

Ever hear the expression: "It Takes A Village To Raise a Child ?

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Great contribution!

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Bluesman]

After the village comes over my house at 4:00 AM to rock my screaming infant to sleep, it can make decisions about what's best for my child.

But not before.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Phil_At_NHS]

Who said, (besides his boss) that he has to SELL to kids that get bad grades? In my opinion, any parent that allows a poorly performing student to play video games, or watch TV, when that time is much better spent STUDYING, is doing a great disservice to their children. Anyone who supports the idea that SCHOOL COMES FIRST is alright in my book. Yes, not everyone graduates high school, but such people are generally LOSERS, destined to crappy jobs, and doomed to a life of ignorance and pushing French Fries. The idea that a certain percentage of kids will get bad grades, as part of the structure of the system, is bogus. If every kid gets 100% on every test, then they will get good grades. If a kid is not doing well on tests, they have far more important things to be doing than playing video games.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[fistfullast33l]

I'm sure that John Carmack, Bill Gates, and Einstein, all of whom flunked or dropped out of school at some point in their lives, would probably agree. Actually, Gates would agree, but that's just because he discovered his morals after his 14th corporate jet purchase.

There's plenty of problems with our school system. Game playing is definitely not one of them. I never did any homework, played games throughout school, and graduated in the top ten percentile of my class. Why? Because I'm lucky, and I have a great memory. Hard work is but a small percentage of how well we do on tests, homework, and essays in general. You want to solve the problem? Find a better way to test intelligence and reward those who learn over those who are smart. Otherwise, our concept of meritocracy will still be a joke.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Planesdragon]

Not everyone graduates highschool, By the time you're 20, if you haven't graduated highschool or gotten a GED, you're as far outside the norm of "everyone" as someone who's parents were filthy stinking rich.

and since grades are set based on relative achievement, a certain percentage of kids will always get bad grades Nope. Grades are based on absolute achievement -- otherwise they're meaningless. What backwards school did you go to?

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Anonymous Coward]

No he wasn't. The parent already has the power to decide what their children are playing. All he was doing was inconveniencing parents of children with good grades and for the failing kids, he is losing sales as they will just go to another store. In other words the likely effect of his policy was just a reduction in sales at his store.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not parenting in lieu of parents, they're empowering parents to participate in the decision making process on what their kids are playing. Or at least, the guy who got shitcanned was.

WHAT?!? No, that is just ass backwards man. The parents are MORE than capable of looking at the report card THEY receive and then deciding if their child is not doing well in school and what punishment or corrective action to take! It's not like the store is giving them some power or ability which they do not already have, so no the store is not "empowering" the parents in any way.

As for the guy who got shit canned, he may have had noble intentions and had the store been his own he could have enforced that policy as he saw fit. But he worked for someone else, and tried to enforce a policy that was NOT what the company wanted. So it should be no surprise to any one that he got fired...

And honestly if I owned a video game store I would not have prevented kids with poor grades from playing video games. As many others in this thread have stated grades are not everything. I personally know plenty of people who barely passed highschool who are significantly smarter than some of these fools with college degress, and they have the professional IT job and skills to prove it! And yes, many of them "wasted" (if you can call playing vids a waste) plenty of time during highschool playing vids. Yet they still managed to become perfectly capable, productive members of society.

And I agree with others in this thread who state he was going about this the wrong way. A better policy would have been discounts for good students, positive rewards are almost always a better way to change a childs attitude than negative penalties.

The bottom line is this kind of decision, what toys a child should have, are primarily the parents responsibility and should be left that way. Placing restrictions all over the damn place to reduce the personal responsibilities of citizens is NOT the American way damn it! The more such rules we tolerate and/or allow, the closer we get to becoming a nazi plice state... and with GW in charge for the last 7 years we are already dangerously too close to becoming exactly that! So let's all chill and remember that other people deserve their personal freedoms, and that we need to accept the things we do not like and have no right to control or change... such as other peoples religions (or lack there of!) and how a family decides to raise it's children... a persons choice to choose what goes into their body, and what comes out for that matter. I am really sick of hearing other Americans making comments about how "there should be a law against that", or how life styles they happen to not agree with should be controlled in some way... It's just NOT what this country is supposed to stand for! Yeah I know we are just talking about video games at this point, but that's just a starting point. The process of restricting access to and censoring information and culture is a virus that just keeps spreading faster and faster if you don't knock it out quickly at the first signs of infection! Such as this one...

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[dreamchaser]

His job was to sell games for Gamestop. Period. Parents, and yes I am one, should be involved enough in and aware enough of their kids lives to decide whether or not they play videogames, which games, and when. It was not this guy's job to do so. Now, if his job was at the corporate office and he presented the idea through channels and they decided the slight hit in sales would be worth the good PR, that would be great and I agree then that it would be a good idea. He overstepped his bounds and deserved punishment.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, one he didn't graduate from.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Chris Burke]

Well then your college was somewhat unusual if it never graded on the curve. Nearly every university course I took was graded on a curve, with only a couple exceptions. And your high school is becoming increasingly atypical. Certainly when I was in high school grading on the curve was a rarity, but it's changed rapidly since then.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Please name one high school that reduces grades based on a curve. I write assessment software, and the only time users ever use the curve function is to raise the high score in the event that too many failed. Nobody ever uses it to lower scores; no parent would stand for it these days.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

So do I.

nice post, GP.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Fulcrum of Evil]

What's this got to do with morality? You think that movies are immoral because people that fail calculus can buy a dvd?

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[JNighthawk]

I graduated high school with a 2.2 GPA. I *hated* class (but loved high school, since I got to hang out with my friends). Most of my classes were boring and slow, especially AP Comp. Sci. I played video games for *at least* 20-30 hours a week throughout high school.

Where am I now? Volition, Inc. I'm a game programmer.

Grades are bullshit, mostly. They're a measure of your desire to let the system mold you, your tolerance for menial busy-work, and your memorization skills. Not all classes are like that (very few at my college were, so I actually liked those classes and studied), but most public education is like that.

It's none of Gamestop's business what grades kids get. Leave the parenting to the parents.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Nope. Grades are based on absolute achievement -- otherwise they're meaningless. What backwards school did you go to?

Law schools do this to make the students more ctthroat, but I haven't heard of anyone in K-12 doing it.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Fian]

You are bang on the mark here.

Many students who would be failing the core curriculum - Maths, English, Science, Humanities would be the ones that excelled at Art, Music, Theatre, Manual arts (shop for those of you in the US).

Which subjects count in the "test" for good grades?

From my experience the entire education system places too much emphasis on test/exam results which are more a test of a students ability to memorize and regurgitate than on engagement in discussion, display of reasoning, assignments etc.

Having said that I do like the idea of discounts for achievement. Motivating kids to work hard for a reward seems to be lacking at the moment.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Anonymous Coward]

From the looks of things, I see a lot of my college friends pushing french fries and flipping burgers due to a lack of job selection, seriously lacking experience and knowledge in their field. In the mean time, I am a full owner of an architectural company and a high school drop out that is doing quite well for himself. I am not a loser, or destined to a crappy job or doomed to a life of ignorance. There are a lot of people like myself and there are a lot of reasons to stay out of public schools and certain colleges that leave a lot of kids confused. I'd say the system is pretty screwed up and that public school and college propaganda you just spouted is losing its touch amongst many kids. Oh and on top of all that, I play video games!

I suppose this is a better time than any for a change in our educational system to actually educate not indoctrinate people like you yourself telling people that they are doomed for the rest of their entire life for not going to school when that is not true at all.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Lemmeoutada Collecti]

I'll take the mod hit, I had to reply to your sig:

"A real geek doesn't treat any piece of technology like it's a religion. That disqualifies a whole slew of slashdoters."

I treat every piece of technology just like I treat a religion. I pick up a couple, tear them apart to see what makes them tick, keep the bits I like for my 'Master Plan', and toss out the junk. If it doesn't have anything useful, I just toss the whole thing.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It's not Gamestop's job to make kids take school seriously. It's the kid's job, and the parent's job. If they're not going to do their job, well then maybe you should get the government involved.

All this does is lose Gamestop business, and any kid turned away will simply go to any of the countless other places that just want to make money.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Fulcrum of Evil]

No it doesn't. It takes parents. If the parents want junior to have the game, they can go buy it for them.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Me too!

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Bobartig]

Back when I was in highschool, the valedictorian, along with me and a couple other kids were running out of courses to take, and had enough AP credits under our belts to skip a year of college.

Does valedictorian mean nothing today?

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[modmans2ndcoming]

norm referencing has not been used for decades. Criterion referencing is used everywhere from K through University now.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Talgrath]

While I hate to take the side of corporate America, I have to disagree completely. It is not the job of a corporation to babysit your children; while I fully agree that parents shouldn't buy children video games when their grades are bad, it's not a game seller's damn business to know a kid's grades before selling to them. Is it a game seller's business to know if an adult has a good job (the closest comparable thing an adult might have to grades) before allowing them to buy a game? Of course not. If he offered discounts for kids who brought their parents and a report card in with good grades on it, that's another thing.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[jpatters]

I am a senior undergrad at UVM, dual major Computer Science and Studio Art. I have never taken a class at any level that was graded on a curve. I think the heavy duty bio and chem classes that the pre-med students take are graded that way, but not any class with fewer than 100 students. Even the classes with more students are rarely graded that way.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[The Living Fractal]

He wasn't forcing anyone to do anything. He was reserving his right to refuse business to anyone. He doesn't even need a reason.

And his manager exercised the right to suspend him without pay.

And the world spins on...

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[xenocide2]

And if parents don't want a child to play a game, then it'll take a village to restrain them.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Fulcrum of Evil]

I don't follow - every bit of research I've found has shown that involvement from the parents is absolutely crucial to a kid's success and that it overrides almost every other factor.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[RobertM1968]

Really now, I think you are missing a very valid, important point this whole plan causes... PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT - the parents are forced to be involved in their kids' game-playing choices, as well as the fact their kids are getting good - or bad - grades is a reinforced memory. The fact that this store wont sell the kids games unless they are getting good grades should also thus (hopefully) prompt more parental involvement "Gee, that store manager was right... maybe I should look into other ways besides denying them the latest game to assist them in getting better grades"

Of course, the reality is probably that more parents, overburdened enough already just trying to make ends meet, will get less involved (or it wont change their involvement at all) under the false sense of security in the fact that "Gee, the store manager has already dealt with that issue"

Now, as for your change in lifestyle comment... I dont know about you, but if I was getting bad grades, and playing video games, I can guarantee you my parents would insist on a change in my lifestyle... (1) no games, (2) It would hurt sitting for at least a few days from the ass whooping I'd get. Am I condoning #2? No. (Though it was decent incentive for me to be an Honor Roll student)... but things that fit in the #1 category SHOULD be something considered by EVERY parent who wants to see their kids have a chance to succeed. Is school the be-all-end-all for having a successful life? NO... but it does help - in the very least, it opens up opportunities allowing the kid-turning-adult to choose when the time comes. Would you rather that, or a kid that wasnt motivated to do well in school who then complains the rest of his life that all he can be is a janitor? Being a janitor by choice is fine... not having a choice because when you were a kid, there was no incentive for good grades and behavior (and no punishment for bad) is pretty fucked up.

Your DayCare comment makes no sense... I doubt this story is about the guy not selling to kids in daycare. As for non-daycare school, I had some tough times because I was bored (thus didnt do my work, and had to struggle at the last minute to stay on the honor roll)... but I found that with the right motivation, that changed... got into AP classes, got more mentally challenged (pun possibly intended), and did far better in those classes than in the standard level classes.

Besides, it really shouldnt matter what SOCIETY does - it should really matter what is right - or wrong... not opinions, not faith, not "everyone does it".

For this guy to take such a stand, takes guts... funnily, if you go back in time a bit, substitute games with anything else that shouldnt be sold to a certain age, such as... cigarettes... you find something really interesting... he probably would be in the exact same situation had he not sold 17 year olds cigarettes because he didnt think he should be selling something to a kid who may not yet understand the risks they were undertaking... nowadays, if he DID sell those cigarettes, he'd get fined or worse... too much of a stink for the corporations to try to validate such sales. So, know you have a corporation looking for nothing more than making more money - at whatever legal expense, with no moral implications because of a society that doesnt care. And you apparently support that. Nice.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, that is crazy. almost every course i took in undergrad was based on a curve. most first and second year grad courses too.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Zonekeeper]

Methinks you spend too much time playing games, make bad grades because no one makes you do differently, and are upset that someone might make you get off you ass and take some responsibility.

Yup, I am QUITE sure I nailed it.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[tsm_sf]

Good for you, Mr. Exception. Mr. Rule is the guy filling your soft drink.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[pinkstuff]

You're argument relies on the fact that a parents will is final and society shouldn't force the kids to go against the parents wishes. I say this argument only goes so far before society must step in and become ever so slightly paternalistic. As an extreme example, parents may wish there kids to go out and murder people instead of going to school - so you see, society has to step in somewhere. The question here is, has the shop attendant crossed that line? IMHO, I don't think he has.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[DavidShor]

Norm referencing is actually very common, at least at university level. But this is not what I meant, when they actually set the absolute standards, they do so such that a certain percent of kids will be below average. I know my own state, Florida, changes their "acceptable" raw score on their state standardized test(a score of 3) every year, so that 25% of kids are below it. Most other states do the same thing.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Hao Wu]

Everyone in the class could get an A and everyone could get an F.

For any one year, of course. But if everyone got an A, then the school would make next year's classes more difficult. They would keep doing that until the perfect balance of {"smart", "acceptable", "failures"} was achieved.

In the long run, grading must be a relative system.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[DavidShor]

This is not what I meant, when they actually set the absolute standards, they do so such that a certain percent of kids will be below average. I know my own state, Florida, changes their "acceptable" raw score on their state standardized test(a score of 3) every year, so that 25% of kids are below it. Most other states do the same thing.

But if you want to be a dick about it, the organization behind AP tests(ETS), changes the absolute raw score requirement to obtain a 3 every year precisely so that a certain percentage of kids fail.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Jarjarthejedi]

It's about 50/50 in my experience, at least in College (High School for me was private so I have no idea what public high school is like). Most professors use a hybrid system, curving it so that a certain number of students get an A, and the rest get what they do. Some (the ones I particularly dislike) use the Bell Curve system, where the majority get a C and only a few can get A's or F's. I even had one professor who curved down the entire class, such that my 98% (it was a programming class...I've probably done more programming in my free time then the professor had) became a 90%, and was the third highest grade in the class. I've also had the pure points teachers, but even they curve tests often. The number of completely pure (no curving) teachers I've had is extremely small. Perhaps that's the result of going to a huge college, but it isn't exactly uncommon.

And this has nothing to do with morality at all. The only, very minor link is that some kids play too many games to the detriment of their grades. Those people are a very small sector of the game players and don't account for anywhere near the number of kids who are failing and also happen to play games. Often as not those kids are failing because their learning methods don't mesh with the professor's teaching methods. I knew a kid who was barely hanging on and who didn't play any video games during the school year at all, he spent 90% of his time studying as was still having a hard time. Are you saying that his buying of a game to play during winter break to de-stress, or over the summer when he wasn't working, is immoral and that he should be stopped from doing it?

Grades should have no bearing on the rest of your life and Gamestop shouldn't have been doing this at all. If a kid who is failing because of their game playing is trying to get another game it should be that kid's parents stopping them, not some random game store whose only effect is going to be to cause the kid to go to a BestBuy to get the game. It's an ineffectual and dumb method of playing parents, which retail stores really shouldn't be doing at all (I'm against the M rating being buyable by adults only, as an adult, but I accept it as a necessary evil as I know many parents are simply too out of the loop to understand games enough to regulate what their kid is playing). If a kid is failing because of their gaming their parents should be the ones to step in, not Gamestop. All that 'Games for Grades' program was going to accomplish would have been raising the other nearby game store's sales numbers.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Jarjarthejedi]

Lucky you. My high school was similar, being a private school, but College has been nearly completely curve based. Now I will point out it's not the Bell Curve, which seems to be the main topic of discussion, that has only been used by 1 teacher (and it was modified so that the average was a B- and there were more above than below the center). Rather most of my classes have been straight-curved, as I call it, where the highest grade (in many cases the highest grade that's lower than 95%, as perfect grade students can kill a standard curve) is curved up to a 100% and the other grades have the same amount added. Another, equally common, variant is the single-item straight curves, where each test/assignment/project has a curve applied to it. That's one of my favorites actually as it means that a particularly difficult test doesn't kill your grade.

However I've also seen reverse curves (everyone curved down so the highest grade is less than a 95%), the aforementioned Bell Curve, and a numerical curve which was similar to the bell curve but rather than %'s of people getting each grade there was a minimum number of people required to receive each grade, and the grades were curved to ensure that with the remainder receiving the same curving and ending up in different areas (so, while there may only be 2 required F's, 10 people may end up with it).

It's exceedingly rare to find a pure point system where I go. Even the most point-oriented classes have some curving/test dropping. Many times it's helpful, sometimes it's slightly painful, rarely it can kill your good grade.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[DavidShor]

"By the time you're 20, if you haven't graduated high school or gotten a GED, you're as far outside the norm of "everyone" as someone whose parents were filthy stinking rich."

No, many people drop out to go to technical schools, or to get a job. I have a friend who dropped out of school to run an independent music distribution business; he was very successful and invested the proceeds he made from it. He now has a very nice nest egg, and is continuing the business as a hobby. Not everyone needs the traditional path to success.

"Nope. Grades are based on absolute achievement -- otherwise they're meaningless. What backwards school did you go to?"

That was a bit of a personal insult, but I'll let it slide. I went to a normal public school (Michael Krop, it has a wiki article if you are interested). While grades are based on absolute achievement, the benchmark of achievement necessary to receive a certain grade is set so that a certain percentage of kids fail. Not only that, but certain courses (AP in particular) are explicitly norm based (the top 25% get 5's, and so on).

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Torvaun]

Not every kid with bad grades needs to study. I got bad grades because I learned early on that the work didn't matter as long as I could still ace the tests. I'm still trying to unlearn that habit, and it has been beating the shit out of me in the meantime. I graduated in the lower half of my class, while getting 4s and 5s on the AP tests I took. I didn't need to study, I needed to do my work, and that's something that didn't stick no matter how many times video games, television, movies, Magic cards, time with friends, or books got taken away (that's right, I actually had books taken away as a punishment.)

Hell, right now I'm on Slashdot, instead of doing one of at least three things I can think of off the top of my head that would measurably improve my life. Anyone out there that has beat this sort of thing and can give pointers?

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[LoverOfJoy]

In my experience, people use the term "curve" in vastly different ways. I believe the "real" usage of a curve is when the distribution of scores are taken and only the top x% get As the next y% get Bs etc. all the way down to Fs so no matter how hard or easy a test is, someone is guaranteed to get an A and someone is guaranteed to get an F.

As far as I know, this is only done when there are a lot of people (enough to get a good distribution) and even then typically only in very demanding disciplines (like medical school).

But some teachers will talk about a curve when they really mean that if everyone gets question #17 wrong then everyone's score will go up by x%

Another way I've heard people use it is when a teacher says he'll shift the top score in the class to 100% and whatever he has to add to the score will then also be added to every other student. For instance, the smartest kid in the class got a 92%. Then everyone in the class gets +8% added to their score.

I've seen a lot of variants to these types of "curves" but I've never had a true curve like the one I first described in any of the three colleges I've attended. That's not to say that no teacher in any of the schools I attended ever used a curve...perhaps some did...but I never was in their class nor did I ever hear of a fellow student complaining about it (and I heard lots of students complaining about all kinds of things in their classes).

I would be really surprised to hear of a high school or middle school that actually brought a kids score down because of a curve. Have you ever heard of a kid getting an 85 on a test but got an F because he happened to be on the low end of the curve (everyone else scored higher)? In my experience, if you did the work and followed the directions you were pretty much guaranteed a B- or higher. Every time I got lower or any of the people I knew got lower, it was because they didn't do an assignment, turned things in late on a regular basis, or something similar.

I imagine parents would go ballistic if their kid got a C or less in a class simply because, while they did the work well, others did it better.

You posted as an AC but if you do happen to read this, how were curves calculated and used in your undergraduate classes (and what was your major)?

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[MythryN]

The notion that grades are measured against some higher standard is ludicrous. Even classes that don't have curves are measuring relative achievement. The only difference is that whoever is teaching that class has figured out how difficult to make it so that a certain number get As, Bs, etc. Grades are inherently relative. If you get an 80% on an exam, it doesn't mean that you know 80% of all the information pertaining to the subject. It means that someone made a test that you can get an 80% on with your level of knowledge. If everyone makes an A, what is the use of the grade? The only way that everyone in a class should be able to get A's is if they're keeping track of performance relative to everyone who has taken the class in the past, etc. Then, if a really smart bunch came through, they should be able to make better grade on average.

Again, grades are inherently relative. That is all they are. When someone looks at your grade and you made an A in English I, they don't think "hmmm... this guy knows almost everything there is to know about English I." Rather, they think "hmmm... this guy took English I with a bunch of other people and got one of the best grades out of the group."

If anyone out there has been fooled into think that grades are absolute and that everyone can make an A, you've been fooled. That's just what people tell you for encouragement. Teachers/Professors who say that have never given all A's. If they did, the grades would be useless and we might as well do away with them.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[DavidShor]

"No, grades are set based on achievement against a standard. Most schools don't grade on a curve. I used to have university profs say "everyone starts with an A, it's yours to lose"."

Think about it for a second, a certain percentage of kids have to fail every year, otherwise the grading system is pointless. The level of performance necessary to obtain a passing grade changes over time, for the explicit purpose of renormalizing so that the average gets a grade of X(in some schools its a C, though inflation shifts that around a bit).

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Anonymous Coward]

NO

THIS SHOULD BE PARENTAL POLICY.

God damn. seriously. Do not ask or expect Gamestop managers to parent your children. Can't want them 24x7? fine. If you don't trust them, don't give them the cash required to buy said game. Simple. Effective. Kids don't need to carry $50+ if you don't trust them to obey the stipulations you place on em.

And what about fat kids, or socially awkward kids? they should be spending their time fixing their issues, not fucking around playing video games, but it is the parents responsibility to make sure this happens.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[chanrobi]

Not at the University of Toronto. Classes are mandated to be below 70% average or the prof gets to explain why his classes are doing so well.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[paitre]

I'd like to know what area you're in that you claim that.
I've -never- been in a school system, including multiple universities, that grade on a curve.
That MAY be the norm on graduate courses, but I've never seen a curve actually enforced or used.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[PunkOfLinux]

"Your DayCare comment makes no sense... I doubt this story is about the guy not selling to kids in daycare. As for non-daycare school, I had some tough times because I was bored (thus didnt do my work, and had to struggle at the last minute to stay on the honor roll)... but I found that with the right motivation, that changed... got into AP classes, got more mentally challenged (pun possibly intended), and did far better in those classes than in the standard level classes."

PLEASE tell me that was sarcasm. When he was talking about daycare, he WAS talking about everything from 3 years to high school graduation. I just graduated from high school, and it would seem that school only exists now to serve two purposes: 1) to indoctrinate kids with the belief that authority is beyond reproach and 2) to give kids a place to go for 7-8 hours a day.

Honestly, I was constantly harassed by the tougher kids. Whenever a teacher would see it and report it, the principal would always say "Oh, well, we can't fix him, so we won't even bother." I hated school. I hated the fact that the kid who copied his homework from someone else 2 minutes before class and then failed the test got the same grade as me, just because he did the homework. high school isn't about learning to think; now it's about rote memorization and busywork.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Your.Master]

He didn't say you couldn't be successful if you dropped out, he said that it was abnormal to be a dropout. Although I think there are enough dropouts that his conception of how much money it takes to be "filthy stinking rich parents" must be somewhat lower than my own.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[DavidShor]

Yeah, you nailed it. I did very badly in high-school, and dropped out when I was 14. Though video games had very little to do with it, unless you count Slashdot and Wikipedia as games.

Anyway, I studied for some AP tests and audited college classes until I could get into a university as a math major. I'm 16 now, in my senior year in college as a math major.

So let me get to the root of my anger. If someone had tried to make me "get off my ass and get responsible" when I was a 14 year old based on my grades, they would have not known that I skipped my Algebra class to sneak into Calculus lectures at a nearby university, or that I poured over Physics and Economics textbooks at home instead of performing pointless county mandated busy work at home.

I invested a lot of thought into my choices, and if he has any advice I will be happy to take it into consideration. But I highly resent any attempt to actively discriminate against me and make my life more difficult solely on the basis of something that does not affect anyone else but me.

The grades of his customers are not the business of this Manager, and I'm glad he was suspended.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[schnikies79]

Very true, but since it is rare that everyone makes an A, it isn't a problem.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[c4ffeine]

Great contribution!

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[MetaPhyzx]

You, are the exception to the rule (as was I). I saw this fella on CNN a few days ago, and his argument was that he was bothered by seeing kids come into his store who did not have basic reading skills, yet could tell you anything you wanted to know about the games. His policy was that he would not sell to a kid that was not passing in school, and if any kid got a slate of A's he would pay for a game out of his own pocket.

While he did overstep he did so out of a legitimate concern. Normally we see something like this in a "moral" light, for instance a pharmacist who refuses to sell the morning after pill, which is completely wrong.

This man's stance was a desire to see parents involved in what their children were doing, more so than any punishment.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Lane.exe]

Not really. My high school gave out grade points for classes like band, athletics and choir. They were weighted the same as AP calculus.

Not that I'm complaining. My easy As in debate helped.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[dvNull]

If he's unwilling to sell games to kids who are flunking out of school? I TOTALLY LOVE THAT STAND. Seriously, think about it. We have major issues these days with schools being fucked up. If kids aren't making the grade, we may love games, but just letting them play the games is not going to teach them to take school (and work) seriously.

I like the sentiment behind it but doing it this way is still wrong.

How about this novel idea? Lets say the adults the kid lives with (usually called parents, step parents or legal guardians) regulate the amount of games that the child plays and ensures that the child dedicates enough time to his or her studies. Now if these people take enough of an interest in the child's life, then the child might do well in school.

The main issue with kids not paying enough attention to school are not games. It is the lack of parental time due to most families having working parents who then use the game console or game time as the nanny.

What you are proposing is that the nanny position shift from the console to the retailer.It is the parent's responsibility not gamestop's or Microsoft's or TV or consoles or whatever. Take some interest in your kid's life and then maybe total strangers do not have to.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Nick of NSTime]

If that were the case, I'd know nothing movies or calculus. As it stands, I can recite a list of Christian Bale's films. Whether that has any value is for another discussion.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[DavidShor]

"Anyone who supports the idea that SCHOOL COMES FIRST is alright in my book."

The idea that school comes first is laughable. Good grades in school are the most effective path to economic prosperity and happiness, but it is not the only path. School is not the goal in and of itself, having a happy and fulfilling life is. For some, school is not the most effective means of reaching this goal.

"Yes, not everyone graduates high school, but such people are generally LOSERS, destined to crappy jobs, and doomed to a life of ignorance and pushing French Fries."

I dropped out when I was 14, now I'm a math major in my senior year of college. I realize that I am atypical, but we should not deprive rights based on probability, it is a rather slippery slope.

"The idea that a certain percentage of kids will get bad grades, as part of the structure of the system, is bogus. If every kid gets 100% on every test, then they will get good grades. If a kid is not doing well on tests, they have far more important things to be doing than playing video games."

If every kid gets a 100% on a test, the test is meaningless. The relevant authorities will then renormalize the standards so that more capable kids will receive higher scores. Academic ability is normally distributed, so in any system where students with higher academic ability get higher scores, a certain percentage of kids will have lower scores than the average.

Sure they can renormalize it so that everyone receives a 90 %( and many schools do so), but this is irrelevant, employers and society will quickly adjust their expectation so that these higher grades will once again be considered "failing".

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[DavidShor]

"For any one year, of course. But if everyone got an A, then the school would make next year's classes more difficult. They would keep doing that until the perfect balance of {"smart", "acceptable", "failures"} was achieved. In the long run, grading must be a relative system."

I am so glad someone else understands this, thank you for explaining that particular point more articulately than I could.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Dolohov]

High school was never about learning to think. It's about keeping a whole lot of untrained kids out of the work force where they would drive down wages and push out older folks. For the brighter kids, it's also a holding pen until you're old enough for college.

You may not think so now, but you'll be glad later that school was like that in terms of authority. Yes, schools try to indoctrinate kids that way, but thankfully they do it BADLY. You've been blessed with a healthy skepticism and disrespect for authority that will hopefully serve you well through the rest of your life. It's one thing to get it from a cultural perspective, it's another to see first hand that many adults really don't know what they're doing, and can't always muddle through.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[n dot l]

Your DayCare comment makes no sense The comment makes perfect sense. It refers to the fact that public education in our society has almost nothing to do with education and everything to do with giving parents a place to park their kids while they go off to work.

If it were really about education then AP courses would be available everywhere. Also, the regular courses would be harder and students would graduate high school knowing the things we teach in first year university. It's not impossible - in fact it's how it's been done for years in Europe (though I hear Europe's been dumbing down as well), and Japan.

Instead we have a system (the majority of teachers, principals, school boards, regulatory agencies, etc) that doesn't give a shit what the students do so long as they sit still, play nice, and don't cause too much trouble. If that's not a day care I don't know what is.

Overall I agree, society should stand up for right and wrong, but this isn't the way to do it at all. Not letting kids buy games because they're failing is like attacking gays because straight people are divorcing in record numbers - it's shooting way off target at an only vaguely related "problem".

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[servognome]

Now, as for your change in lifestyle comment... I dont know about you, but if I was getting bad grades, and playing video games, I can guarantee you my parents would insist on a change in my lifestyle... (1) no games, (2) It would hurt sitting for at least a few days from the ass whooping I'd get.

There are parents who don't care about grades. Why should the values of others (good grades are important) be imposed on them?

Besides, it really shouldnt matter what SOCIETY does - it should really matter what is right - or wrong... not opinions, not faith, not "everyone does it".

"Right & wrong" are opinions of individuals and society.

For this guy to take such a stand, takes guts... funnily, if you go back in time a bit, substitute games with anything else that shouldnt be sold to a certain age, such as... cigarettes... you find something really interesting... he probably would be in the exact same situation had he not sold 17 year olds cigarettes because he didnt think he should be selling something to a kid who may not yet understand the risks they were undertaking.

It also takes guts for pharmacists to refuse to dispense the "morning after pill." Doesn't mean that society as a whole, or a company should support their unilateral imposition of values.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Eric52902]

How else should schools grade kids? If it's unacceptable to grade them based on where they fall relative to their peers, then it is necessary to grade them using some arbitrary, meaningless point system. Once you've established this system, how can you account for natural fluctuations in the intellect of students? If you don't use the students themselves to dole out grades, what yard stick will you use?

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[photomonkey]

No, but in that vein when I was in high school, I worked as a delivery boy for an independent pharmacy. When the owner/head pharmacist's wife died from lung cancer, he stopped selling cigarettes at his pharmacy.

He felt that he could do his part to keep people from smoking by simply not selling cigarettes.

This guy sounds like he doesn't want to sell video games to kids for whom video games may be contributing to their problems. The only problem I see is that it wasn't his company, and wasn't his place to set policy.

I would applaud this guy for taking a stand and trying to do good. I hope he opens his own business where he can do his part to help society.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[toddbu]

Well then your college was somewhat unusual if it never graded on the curve.

When I was in college, I only had one prof that graded on a curve. When I taught college, I graded on a fixed point system. I didn't even give extra credit to make up for failing students. I don't remember not having at least one A student in each class, but if the highest grade was a B then that would have been ok with me.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Skrapion]

More importantly, what if the kid doesn't go to school at all? What if the kid is home schooled? Sure it's the minority, but is the parent or home school teacher expected to draft report cards before their kid is allowed to play any games?

Actually, in Wil Wheaton's PAX keynote, he mentions an arcade he used to go to that would give free (or was it discounted?) tokens for kids who bring in good report cards. Now that sounds like a great idea.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Hao Wu]

Realistically, the teacher skills also come into play. Not everyone can teach far beyond their grade level, and schools already have a hard time finding basic chemistry and physics teachers. ... But now I'm dwelling...

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[DeadChobi]

My state supposedly designs standards which are related to a student's mental development while still representing fairly important milestones in their ability to reason and their knowledge.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[arth1]

Besides, there's correlations between game playing and good grades. There's teachers who recommend that kids who fall behind play varied games, as it might increase their alertness and in some cases even teach them a few things.

The alternative is far to often passive entertainment, which I doubt is better.

This guy seriously needed to be fired, not just because he's clueless, but because he wants to impose his idea of child raising on others.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Jartan]

Really now, I think you are missing a very valid, important point this whole plan causes... PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT

It's not parental involvement when the parents might have to lie to a sales clerk just to let their kid buy a game. That's the sales clerk imposing his views on the parents.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[xenocide2]

Nobody mentioned success but you. Some parents, in their quest for morally right upbringing, will choose to exclude vast kinds of media. Should a child decide to struggle against that, as teens are wont to do, it'll take a lot of collusive effort to stop them 24/7. This doesn't contradict your data, but it might contradict your perception of it, so let me add another fact: Freakanomics cites a study about Chicago students suddenly given the chance to enroll in any school. Since more people asked for the best schools than were given them, and surprisingly, neither winners nor losers of the resulting lottery did better than the other. However, they both did better than those who didn't ask to change schools.

My point is that while parental involvement statistically helps, it doesn't necessarily mean parental choices made are effective, and if society doesn't aid them in their quests, their child may still be well off after all. Freakanomics suggests it has more to do with who you are, than what you do.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[tftp]

He was reserving his right to refuse business to anyone.

To be exact, the company reserved that right, and the store manager, acting as an agent of the company, abused that right. Makes plenty of sense to suspend him because it is not in company's interests to involve themselves in parenting or education, over the heads of parents and teachers who actually work with the child. By applying his own (and totally uncommon) standards he damaged the name of the business.

An analogy could be used here. You walk into the bakery and ask for a loaf of bread. The baker says "Bread is bad for you, as I can see with my experienced eye, so get out of here until you lose some weight." That would be the last time I go there just because it not baker's place to refuse sale on such capricious grounds; even accusations of discrimination could follow - people get certain rights when they are born (or even earlier, as some say.)

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Freakanomics cites a study about Chicago students suddenly given the chance to enroll in any school. Since more people asked for the best schools than were given them, and surprisingly, neither winners nor losers of the resulting lottery did better than the other. However, they both did better than those who didn't ask to change schools.

So the motivated students did better? This would explain the study results, but don't kid yourself - it's the parents who have a direct role in shaping their children who will end up setting the groundwork for ambition.

Freakanomics suggests it has more to do with who you are, than what you do.

And who makes you who you are? Your parents have a lot of influence there. I'll mention a different study I read about last month (or thereabouts). Some rich black parents live in a fairly exclusive neighborhood with good schools. They're concerned that their kids aren't doing as well as the others, so the hire an african ethnographer. He studies the kids for a few years and concludes that the largest factor in the kids' failure is a lack of parental demands, not racism.

Naturally, the parents roasted the guy - they even said he wasn't black enough. Apparently some people actually do believe that 'it's a black thing, you wouldn't understand'.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[tftp]

The only problem I see is that it wasn't his company, and wasn't his place to set policy.

Absolutely right; otherwise you are perfectly free to open a store and not to sell anything to anyone. Or not to sell certain products to anyone.

However things become far more foggy when the owner (or a hired employee) selectively sells a product to one class of people but not to some other class of people. The law currently sets only a few products aside that may be sold this way, and those are controlled substances (drugs, alcohol, tobacco, explosives, some explicitly named firearms etc.)

But outside of this well-defined group of products nobody can refuse sale to some customers but not to others; for example, if you are a shop owner you may not sell to whites and to refuse to sell to blacks (or to children, except as the law specially mentions.)

So the pharmacy owner was perfectly in his right to not sell tobacco to anyone. But it would be highly illegal, though IANAL, to for example sell tobacco to men and refuse to sell to women, even if his personal experience tells him where the danger lies. He may not discriminate.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[lithiumfrost]

I am not the original poster, but I believe that I can point out a place where a true curve is used. I am a Biological Sciences major, and the majority of my undergrad classes used a "true" curve. Classes regularly had well over a 100 students and official department policy is to grade using a normal curve. The average is set to be a C+/B- for first years, about a B for second and third year courses, and a B for fourth year. And yes, many profs will actually show the normal curve, and where they set the letter grades around the distribution. This is at a major Canadian public university (over 30,000 students).

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Bodrius]

Weird... I haven't been part of the US high-school system, but I have to admit the first time I heard of the Bell curve as a grading method was in college.

I find it strange and a bit scary that it would be the norm on a primary education environment.

In my schools, grades were based on absolute achievement for precisely the same reasons described above.
This didn't mean students were expected to be overcompetitive or cut-throat - the matter of calibration is independent from the absolute-vs-relative question, and teachers were responsible for figuring out an adequate calibration.

After all, if a teacher fails most of the class consistently on elementary/high-school education, at least one of two things need to be fixed ASAP in the picture: the Grading or the Teaching. Both of these are her/his responsability.

No classes ever became 'cut-throat', but it wasn't unheard of that for some of the most challenging teachers/classes there would be no A's or even B+'s (or the equivalent) for the year.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Sigma 7]

Now, as for your change in lifestyle comment... I dont know about you, but if I was getting bad grades, and playing video games, I can guarantee you my parents would insist on a change in my lifestyle... (1) no games, That will not resolve the issue at hand. If a student "learns" an incorrect way to do math (e.g. thinks 7 + 3 = 73, or comes up with a bizarre and incorrect method to calculate the dot product), you want a tutor or some other method of learning. Not providing this is no different than asking Sisyphus to roll a boulder up a steep hill.

My marks suffered because I cannot write poetry (aside from cheating by writing prose, shaping the paragraph, and claiming it as a "modern poem".) To this date, no tactic I tried work - either I lack the innate ability to do so, or I was never taught any techniques in constructing poems. As a result, increasing the number of hours spent in attempting to write a real poem is increasing the number of hours that would otherwise be better spent working at McDonalds, or at least keeping up with what's going on in the world.

Would you rather that, or a kid that wasnt motivated to do well in school who then complains the rest of his life that all he can be is a janitor? In the North American education system, students are mostly taught by age groups rather than by experience or skill. This results in students that have already mastered course content being required to study what they already know - creating a dilemma between learning and get a bad mark, and drudging and getting a good mark. The smarter students get punished because their bad mark does not resemble their ability in a subject.

In most RPG games, you don't get level 99 characters by stomping on rats (or if you do, it will take an extra long time). Likewise, you don't progress in school if you constantly study things below your level.

For this guy to take such a stand, takes guts Of course it takes guts. You don't need them on the Internet, since you don't have to worry about your real-life reputation being tarnished. In this case, the guy completely ignores reality and assumes that games are only for people who get a high number on a piece of paper.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Incoherent07]

Valedictorian is increasingly becoming a game to play, just like college admissions (although depending on the school you apply to the human involvement can either increase or decrease the amount of bullshitting you can get away with).

I was 3rd in my high school class (rich white suburban public high school), despite the fact that I got straight As all four years and the valedictorian didn't. Why? Because I took four years of marching band, which didn't count as an honors class, and he took a couple more AP courses instead. But hey, I did much better than he did in college (at the same school), so perhaps it balanced itself out in the end.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[NoodleSlayer]

Just to add more input for you, I'm a computer science major and the department at my university has it as stated policy that the average GPA for lower-division undergrad courses is to be 2.0 (upper division is a 3.0 avg), on a roughly normal distribution. I've seen the "real" curve quite a bit. It still usually ends up slightly increasing people's grades, but it can shock a number of incoming freshmen that aren't used to having to actually work to pass a class, let alone get an A. More most professors the scores tend to fall into a somewhat normal distribution anyways, and when they calculate out their final grades they tend to place the A/B/C/D/F +/- marks in spots where they get a fairly normal distribution, although I don't think many profs would fail someone who got above 70% overall. However often the profs that grade the easiest are the ones that have been at the school the longest and are already tenured, so they don't have to worry about repercussions when they have a class with a higher-then-expected average GPA.

The High School I went to though was super overachieving academically oriented (most students from this school go onto college only to say that their courses are easier), and if you got a 85% you'd probably be in the bottom third of the class, if not lower. The use of a "real" curve there would produce interesting results, but I doubt you'd ever see it for the reasons you have mentioned.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[ZetSabre]

If only he never played video games! BOO HOO HOO

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[krotkruton]

I'm a computer science major at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. I went to Pomona College for 2 years and have taken classes over the years at Joliet Junior College.

In all the classes I've taken, I've only had one "real curve". In every other case when a "curve" was used, it was used to bump up scores similar to what you pointed our or to smooth out the distribution of grades (still without dropping any one student's grade). Usually this is done at the end of the semester where teachers would drop the bounds of a letter grade to even out the number of students in getting each letter (instead of a B being 80-90%, it might drop to 75-88%).

As for the "real curve", it was kinda brutal. First off, the teacher geared his class to completely work around a curve. At the start of the year, he told us the break down of percentages of students that would receive each letter grade and that our rank in the class determined our final grade. Then, for tests and assignments, he tried to make things difficult enough so that the average grade would be 50%, thus making a nice curve to assign letter grades with (although letter grades didn't matter at any one point because it all depended on the final ranking). I got a 34% percent on the first test and a 43% on the second, which ended up being an A and a B respectively. It was pretty strange to score almost 10% higher on a test yet get a whole letter lower.

Personally, I don't agree with pitting students against each other. I don't think that another guy's ability in the class should affect my grade, but none of that really mattered if you were worried about passing the class. In the case of this class, it was so hard that a lot of students dropped out or just gave up, and they made up the vast majority of failing grades. However, getting an A in the class was very dependent on the competition.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I _drive_ the bus!

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[WNight]

That's deluded. You're both wrong.

Grading should be objective. Can the student accomplish this task? How well?

Does it matter at all if you went to school with a class of idiots or geniuses? It shouldn't. In a system with relative grades, as you support, you'd fail competent students or pass incompetent ones depending only on the luck of who they got put in a class with.

I want my doctors to pass classes because they meet standards, not because everyone else in the class was a bigger idiot. Similarly, I see no need to fail a smart medical student who does meet standards simply because everyone else in his class (note: not the world) does so slightly more.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[xenocide2]

I'm sorry for doing a bad job of summarizing. The "who" was their parents. I.e. owning books is correlated with test scores while reading to your child is not. They make certain to mention that this is aggregate data, and that correlation is not causation. More importantly, having a high socioeconomic status affects test grades, while spanking does not. It's entirely possible that they're data mining favorable answers to meet their expectations here (even the book vs reading could be confirmation bias of looking for an example of something that illustrates correlation vs causation), but but I'm not sure how your single family qualifies as a "study" worthy of countering the ECLS.

At any rate, my point was that one can go overboard, and it'll take a village to indulge such parents. If parental involvement was overwhelmingly critical and completely linear, then we should expect homeschooled students to kick ass and take names in all fields. I don't think this is the case.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Anonymous Coward]

"As for the "real curve", it was kinda brutal... Then, for tests and assignments, he tried to make things difficult enough so that the average grade would be 50%, thus making a nice curve to assign letter grades with (although letter grades didn't matter at any one point because it all depended on the final ranking). I got a 34% percent on the first test and a 43% on the second, which ended up being an A and a B respectively. It was pretty strange to score almost 10% higher on a test yet get a whole letter lower."

I disagree that it's brutal to make a test so that 50% is the median. In fact, that is the standard practice, and a good practice, too! After all, tests are meant to measure the limit of your knowledge, and if *anyone* got a perfect (or even anything close to perfect), the instructor failed in his task (in designing the test, I mean, perhaps not in teaching).

Although something needs to be said about a test that's so difficult that people hardly get over 1/4 of the questions right, it still stands 50% should be *every* instructor's goal for the median score.

P.S. Besides, there is nothing wrong with pitting you against each other. If that *really* makes you change how you treat your classmates, I feel sorry for you---you are not a human if you can be nice to other people only if when it doesn't hurt you. And "pitting you against each other" teaches you how the real world is like---it doesn't matter how wonderful your achievements are, if someone else did it 6 months, 1 year before you did. You are *always* racing against others in *any* field of study or work (other than flipping burgers or similar jobs that can be done better with machines, I mean).

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Anonymous Coward]

"So let me get to the root of my anger. If someone had tried to make me "get off my ass and get responsible" when I was a 14 year old based on my grades, they would have not known that I skipped my Algebra class to sneak into Calculus lectures at a nearby university, or that I *POURED* over Physics and Economics textbooks at home instead of performing pointless county mandated busy work at home."
(Emphasis by * ... * mine)

So, what did you pour over your physics books? Syrup?

Just because you are on your high horse, let me get you down---perhaps your poor spelling skill has something to do with the fact that you can't do the assigned work? You are going to realize so much later that good writing skill is a basis for *any* career. Even academic careers in math and physics (if you realize that when you try to get into grad schools, well, you'd be lucky, since at least by the merit of starting college early, you'll have more time to fix your stupid mistake).

Since you are home skooled (at least not properly educated), you might not realize what I'm nitpicking---you should have said "pored over".

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[tdhurst]

Then study harder. Everyone SHOULD graduate high school.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[SunTzuWarmaster]

I attend a state school in Florida, and let me say that most undergraduate classes here grade on the curve. Sometimes it is to the extreme, such as how an 85% is an A in Physics(quantum/3, newtonian/1, and Electricity/Magnetism/2) AND is graded on the curve. Allow me to provide an example. Our grades in physics 2 (E/M) were primarily based on tests. On the first test, nearly all of the class failed (I got an 80 average was a 40), on the second test nearly all of the class failed (I got a 120 due to a bonus problem, average was a 60), and on the 3rd test all of the class failed (I got a 32, average was a 20). I don't know what I got on the final, but I made an A in the class (I am actually very good at this subject and later tutored it).

Interestingly enough, in my higher-level classes no one has graded on the curve but instead had either flat-scale or competitive-based grading (highest few people get As, next people get Bs, ect.). My graduate-level classes barely have grading systems, they simply give a series of insanely-difficult problems/projects and if you can solve them you get an A, if you can't you get to take whatever the teacher gives.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[oliverthered]

What would you prefer, kids who flunked out playing computer games in their own homes or kids who flunked out dealing crack on street corners and generally causing havoc.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[SunTzuWarmaster]

I have had several "competitive grading" classes (in college) where the top 5 people get As, the next 5 people get Bs, the next 5 people get Cs, and everyone else fails. One was an honors class, the other was a 4000-level (5000 level is for grad students).

Of course, the definition of curving sets the achievement relative to others in a similar fashion.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[1arkhaine]

Yes, people do receive certain rights when they are born - but purchasing bread is not one of them.

The baker could refuse to sell you (or anyone) bread as often as he wished. You can then refuse to enter his store. Easy - and everyone keeps freedoms. You do not have a right to spend money to buy something someone does not want to sell to you.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah that old cliche...

It's the exception that proves the rule != the exception means the rule is true.

As you should know: proves == tests in this context (old english).

It's the exception that tests the rule.

Which in this case, clearly demonstrates its failure.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Jesus_666]

Too binary. They should rather go with a staggered system of markups/rebates. That way they don't refuse sales to anyone but they do encourage good grades. The table could look like that:

A: 10% rebate
B: 5% rebate
C: normal price
D: 5% markup
E: 10% markup
F: 20% markup
Unverified: Counts as an F
Markups don't apply to educational software (the stigma of having purchased that is bad enough already)

Of course then you still have to figure out whether you're dealing with a school kid and you have authenticate their parents etc., but you get a muich more acceptable system that even encourages gamers to do good in school - after all, ten per cent off ain't a bad deal.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[LordSnooty]

Well, the right response would be 'let the parents decide', but you only have to look at the situation around now to see that parents had their chance and 'flunked' it royally.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Typically, most of the applications of a "true curve" happen when the actual score percentages are ALL failing anyway. Lots of engineering courses (or courses designed to weed out the pre-meds) are like that - you have a huge class, the test is designed such that students who are bright, hard-working, who studied well, and ate their Wheaties that morning will come in with a 40 or 50 or so. Nobody complains that "the curve made me flunk!" because even the students on the top end of the curve technically flunked; the guys actually getting the Fs are the ones with really, really pathetic scores in the teens or so.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[AndersOSU]

Not quite, you can refuse to sell anything to anyone, provided that your reason for refusing to sell isn't discriminatory.

The definition doesn't revolve around the product, but rather around protected classes. You can refuse sale to someone on the grounds that they're annoying, but not on grounds that they're senior citizens. It gets sticky when you find senior citizens proportionally more annoying than a random sample of the general public.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Supergood-ape]

"and since grades are set based on relative achievement, a certain percentage of kids will always get bad grades."

You'd know why that's wrong if you'd paid attention in school.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[AndersOSU]

That meshes with my experience, and if you hadn't said it, I would have.

Look for most teachers (even in college) fitting the grades to a normal curve is too much work, and they'll lobby against it as stifling their teaching method, and probably for a good reason. In my experience, I always learned less in a class where I have to study the grading system than one where I had to study the material.

Grading on a normal distribution is dumb when (a) you have a class that attracts a smarter than average student (selection bias) (b) when you have a class that is taken by both students majoring in the topic and students from other disciplines (multiple populations) and (c) when the class isn't very large (insufficient samples).

Additionally, even if you have a class where none of these are issues, e.g. psych 101 at a large university, and the grades naturally fall into something resembling a normal distribution, the instructor will still have to arbitrarily reset the standard deviation - which isn't good practice no matter how you look at it.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[AndersOSU]

That my be true for gen chem 1, but once you're taking courses like Advanced Thermodynamics of Rarefied Systems do you really think that there must be some people who are smart enough to have done the pre-reqs, but aren't smart enough to pass?

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[MBGMorden]

He never said he had a right to buy bread. He said he'd never go back to that shop again (which IS is right). Now if the baker was the owner of that shop, then fine. He's free to drive off whatever customers he feels like. But if he's merely running it but must answer to a manager of his own, then that person does have the right to throw his stupid behind out the door for driving away customers.

I don't know why any issues of "rights" and "laws" have come up in this case. No government interference took place, and no one seems to be suggesting that it should. A company is getting rid of an idiot manager who is alienating customers . . .

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[dawich]

You went to the wrong high school, then. Go to a Jesuit school. If you are serious, you certainly do learn how to think critically.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Alexpkeaton1010]

I attended two major US public Universities (Undergrad and Grad), and neither one was allowed to use the "real" curve. The professors were only allowed to adjust grades in the favor of the student. In other words, if everyone in the class got an 85% or above on a test, then everyone would at least get a B. The professor was not allowed to adjust the scale so that the person who got exactly an 85% would get an F. The professors were allowed to make a high of 95% be 100% and adjust everyone else's grades accordingly.

Like you, I have never actually seen or heard of a real curve being used. Maybe they are used in places like India where the competition is extremely fierce, or in competitive private colleges.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[RingDev]

There are parents who don't care about grades. Why should the values of others (good grades are important) be imposed on them? ... "Right & wrong" are opinions of individuals and society. In most decently populated geographic areas in the US there are multiple video game stores, and the ease of purchasing online. If the parents don't care about their child's grades, they can either a) lie or b) let the kid buy the game elsewhere. This is a private company dealing with a private consumer, the is no state involvement and no constitutional issue. The medical field on the other hand has enough legislation wrapped around it that it takes the Supreme Court and teams of lawyers just to work around the tiniest issue.

-Rick

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[denison]

Your grammar is atrocious. I recommend that you play more video games.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[2names]

The world needs ditch diggers, too.

And, to stay on topic, playing video games is not a RIGHT of ANY child, it is a privilege granted by the parent or guardian of the child.

As for your comment that a certain percentage of kids will always get bad grades...you are correct. However, in my experience, the kids who get those bad grades absolutely EARNED them.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[SageinaRage]

Don't forget to tighten up the graphics on level 3. And your mom said playing games wouldn't amount to anything!

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Metasquares]

Fortunately, you get to put it all behind you in college :)

Anyway, I have a bit of an anecdote to share on this: I used to be one of those gifted underachievers who quite simply couldn't bothered to waste the effort on homework when I already understood the material. To me, understanding was the end goal, so why bother doing all of this pointless work? Well, my teachers didn't agree, so I paradoxically kept getting into all of the most difficult courses in my school, including the APs (after all, my test scores were excellent), yet had something like a 2.9 GPA. I initially did play video games for the majority of my time at home. However, my game playing eventually led me to begin exploring my computer's capabilities (Windows 3.11 was a lot more fun to explore than modern versions of the OS because it came with all sorts of fun stuff, like BASIC). This in turn led to programming, which, initially, was geared towards making games. When I was 12, I wrote a game that became very popular - one that's still maintained today, still has a few thousand users (in the beginning they numbered in the tens of thousands, but by now it's an old game), and ultimately led to a job offer.

Back to the present - I got into a decent, though not great, college despite the low GPA, looking forward to working as a software developer (I had built my interest in what I would actually be doing up over the years instead of working on contrived homework problems; I knew I was going to major in CS since 8). I finally found the work worth doing, even if it still wasn't particularly challenging, and decided to work with some of my professors, and eventually on my own, doing research to find some more challenging problems. I found these in abundance and decided to go for a Ph. D. after graduating so I could pursue my own research more effectively, even though I dislike the structure of institutional academia and can't really imagine seeking a career in such a broken system. I graduated valedictorian, went straight to grad. school, got my MS in a year at 22, and am now attempting to finish my dissertation either by this year or next.

None of this would have happened if I hadn't been able to play video games because my grades were poor. I don't know what I'd be doing now, but it probably would have been very different. The point is that games were an introduction to a technology I otherwise probably wouldn't discover. Learning how they worked, and eventually building them myself, instilled in me a sort of hacker ethic, in the sense that it allowed me to discover that it's fun to tinker with things, to make things.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[JNighthawk]

I'd say a good half of the high school/college drop outs you'll meet are "underachievers" who decided the system wasn't for them, or that they were too smart to fit into our "lowest common denominator speed" education system. I truly believe there are a lot of very smart people out there whose lives are being wasted because they *can't* fit into the system.

I don't think I'm the exception, but I also don't think I'm the majority. But you know what? It doesn't matter. It's not Gamestop's job to decide. Honestly, who the hell is a Gamestop manager to make decisions on the lives of someone else's child, especially for something so minor that doesn't really matter? It just seems like the guy was on a power trip.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not fair to say that in "Europe" courses are harder and students graduate knowing more. Students sent to German "Gymnasium" get harder courses and a leg up for university, but the other half of German high school students are in Realschule or Hauptschule for vocational education. Students are sorted into one or the other by age 13. I have long suspected that Hauptschule students are frequently not included in studies that compare US and German students.

It's not so much that Europe is "dumbing down" their schools, it's that they're starting to change policies that effectively hid their poorly-performing students in vocational programs.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Just a little cynical there, aren't we?
On the face of it you are correct, but a little digging shows that the current school system (start in the morning. Work at different assigned tasks until noon. Break for lunch. Work at different assigned tasks until afternoon. Stay in your desks. Answer to authority. Praise the institution [yay team]) pretty closely reflects the way American business is run. In a way American schools are very, very good training grounds for cube dwellers and shop rats, so the whole idea about a holding pen is a little delusional.
If you work in a cube you can thank your local public school system.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[vertinox]

If he's unwilling to sell games to kids who are flunking out of school? I TOTALLY LOVE THAT STAND.

Let's pretend you are a shareholder or a CEO for a moment and view the world as they see it.

You would fire his ass for refusing sales that aren't legally mandated because you don't give a damn about other kids. You want the stock price to be high in order to make a profit by the end of the quarter?

Long term consequences? You don't care since your probably going to sell short in less than a year or get a gold parachute.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[orielbean]

The cut off is on the parental side. The parent vouches for the child's performance in school. That makes good sense to me. This involves good parenting.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[InsaneProcessor]

Who gave this moron mod points for interesting. What is "interesting" about calling high school a day care center. That is the flaw in much of our society. These statements are the biggest pile of crap I have read in ages.
I have two in high school and aside from learning math, English, history (yes event the correct history), science, engineering, and music; they are having fun at it. Sure, they admit it is work, but, they see the end goal of it.
My boys may be unique this way but it is the reason for high school.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[boyko.at.netqos]

Yeah, I know - I wanted to go to college at 14 too... I'm all in favor of letting people take the GED at any age and being college eligible at that time.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[danielsfca2]

One objection: Games back then may have been an introduction to technology. I used to fool around with the BASIC source of this one stock market game on the Apple II.

But now? Give me a break! How is the latest PS3 shooter or RPG going to teach Junior anything but how to aim and shoot a gun at zombies using a D-pad? Do you really think he's going to say "Gee, I think I'll learn how to CREATE games just like this one, let me go out and buy the $100K dev kit and get started today!" Perhaps there are kids who think they'll work in the video game industry just because they like playing games, but they're just fat uncoordinated versions of those doofuses who think they'll become professional skateboarders or basketball players after high school.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[DavidShor]

I've taken AP English, and received good marks in two writing classes in my university, I even received decent grades when I was in high school. Sorry for failing to proofread the post. I am not sure if more writing experience will be helpful for grad school, but please reply if it is.

Actually I was referring to a practice in my county instituted by the superintendent. Every gifted class had to assign an hours worth of homework every day, and this was enforced by making sure that the grade book contained a very large number of homework assignments. With 6 classes, this became very cumbersome, and I decided that it was not a very effective use of my time.

On a happy note, that individual policy was reversed this year after a teacher threatened to sue.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Phil_At_NHS]

"I didn't need to study, I needed to do my work, and that's something that didn't stick no matter how many times video games, television, movies, Magic cards, time with friends, or books got taken away" It may not work in every case, but the bottom line is still the same. Your time would have been better spent doing your work, and it is well within the rights of the salesmen to decide he will not encourage what he say as a cause of bad grades.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[kitsunewarlock]

Exactly. If I was the "company" (you can go as far up or down in the corperate ladder as you want; even say "the shareholders") and found out that someone wasn't doing there job (selling games to customers) and still getting paid by me (the "company"), and using my capitol, they should be laid off.

At the same time the manager probably got his point across. Good for him. He shouldn't get his job back though, even if it was a good point.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Phil_At_NHS]

"The idea that school comes first is laughable. "

The idea that Video games should come before school is ignorant, to say the very least.

"Good grades in school are the most effective path to economic prosperity and happiness, but it is not the only path."

Bad grades in school are the most effective path to rampant ignorance and criminal behavior, but it is not the only path.

"but we should not deprive rights based on probability, it is a rather slippery slope."

Another perfect example of why good grades and school are so important, and it's lack leads to ignorance. Had you not dropped out at 14, you might know that there is no such thing as a "right" to purchase something. If I do not want to sell you something, I don't have to.

"If every kid gets a 100% on a test, the test is meaningless. The relevant authorities will then renormalize the standards so that more capable kids will receive higher scores." Depends on whether it is the fault of the test, or the excellence of the students.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[danielsfca2]

In California, you can take the Proficiency test (once you're 16 or finish sophomore year) and get a certificate equivalent to your HS Diploma. Then you're free to go to a college. Though many colleges require you to have taken certain things in HS, so you'd have a tougher time getting admitted to a selective school right off.

My friends who went this route went to the community college to get the classes they needed under their belt, and transferred to UC's after that.

Too bad all states aren't like that. In Utah, they don't have a proficiency test. There, if you find yourself beneath your learning level in high school, you have no choice but to DROP OUT OF SCHOOL, wait until you're 18, and then get your GED. That's stupid for so many reasons. "Proficiency test" carries no stigma--people who know what that is know it's for "smart kids" and think it's cool that you got to skip the last couple years of high school. "GED" carries the stigma of "Loser dropout who finally dragged his ass back to night school and learned to read chapter-books and do long division." No offense intended to GED holders, that's not the reality but that's what people think when they see that on a college or job application. Grouping kids who are brighter than their peers in with the dropouts is just such a bad idea.

Also, the proficiency test is no-risk, if you don't pass it, you can just stay in school. If you drop out only to find you weren't as smart as you thought you were and you fail the GED, then you can't go back in time to spend those years learning.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[RobertM1968]

Ah... no, usually the problem is failing to do homework (which is becoming ever increasingly important) and failing to study because "we" are creating a generation who thinks their sole existence must be to look cool in front of their peers (in actions, clothing, and how much time they spend hanging out). A tutor wont solve that any better than ensuring your kid is doing the work to begin with.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[RobertM1968]

I dunno... maybe the school systems have degenerated since I went to school in the late 70's and early 80's. But I know I had plenty of AP classes to choose from - and it was laziness that kept me out of them till the end when I relented. Heck, I started with computers in school in 1979. By 1986 I'd taken BASIC, ForTran, Pascal, and some assembly and some C. And I lived in a standard middle class district on Long Island.

I woulda thought the schools had at least stayed the same in their ability to teach kids, but perhaps I am wrong...

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the average experience is more on the day care center side than on the really learning side. Your perspective seems lucky or idealized, while the previous 'rings true'.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[ucla74]

Instead we have a system (the majority of teachers, principals, school boards, regulatory agencies, etc) that doesn't give a shit what the students do so long as they sit still, play nice, and don't cause too much trouble. If that's not a day care I don't know what is.

It didn't used to be this way. But then someone got the bright idea that teachers needed a labor union. And then they needed a day every month of the school year for "in-service training" rather than spend that day teaching. And that would be admirable, if it actually improved the quality of teaching.

Back to the original issue: "Good business" trumps "good policy" every time. When will business figure out that "good policy" makes for "better business"?

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[CJ COS]

The question here is, has the shop attendant crossed that line? IMHO, I don't think he has. This is not a gray line. It's a very, very bright line. We in this country have had a very long tradition of non-interference in the affairs of a family. The parents, unless they are doing something illegal, immoral or unsafe, do indeed have the final say.

And parents are ultimately responsible for their childrens' education. If they are not providing the oversight necessary, helping where needed, stepping in when appropriate, etc., there is no one to blame but the parents. It is not the responsibility of the State to churn out little automatons educated to a certain base level. That's not the function of the State.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a GPA of a 2.0 in high school. Right now I am a 4.0 student at a university (after transferring from a community college) studying biochemistry. I have a fine internship, and plan on moving into pharmaceutical research.

What changed? College is a completely different place where I can be challenged. High school tried to hold me back to the same level as my peers.

And what do you know, half of my school's "honor roll" delivers the pizza I order...

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[DavidTC]

Perhaps there are kids who think they'll work in the video game industry just because they like playing games, but they're just fat uncoordinated versions of those doofuses who think they'll become professional skateboarders or basketball players after high school.

What do you mean, 'perhaps'? Haven't you seen the ads?

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[tknd]

I believe the "real" usage of a curve is when the distribution of scores are taken and only the top x% get As the next y% get Bs etc. all the way down to Fs so no matter how hard or easy a test is, someone is guaranteed to get an A and someone is guaranteed to get an F.

Almost there. A real curve is where the average is exactly that, the average. Most grade distributions come out looking sorta like a bell curve or a normal distribution (actually they tend to have 2 'bumps' rather than just one). That means most people will fall right around the average with half to the left and half to the right. At the average point is supposed to be the bare minimum passing grade which in college undergrad is usually a C while a C- is failing. So the average is placed right between a C- and a C. The grades are then distributed evenly across the quantities of a students (next higher cut get a C, next lower cut get a C-, etc) OR they are distributed some exact distance from the average (making most people get C and C- and very few or none at all getting A. C- and below didn't matter because you failed anyway).

I never had a professor who actually graded like that but there were a couple in the Engineering department (and the obvious smart choice for students was to drop the class). It turned out the professor purposely did that and openly told his students that half would fail because he did not want to teach. After failing half the class, he would be put on probation for a few years before teaching again but he could still continue his research.

Most of my past professors instead used the curve, but changed the midpoint for assigning grades. So instead of centering the average on C/C-, they move it up to B-. That caused a good portion of the students to pass, but it also caused a few failures. This is actually good because it does make students more willing to actually student when the possibility of failure is there. It also forces students who honestly do not care but are taking the class for secondary reasons (parents advice, needed to graduate, etc.) to fail. However, two really negative effects are cheating and too smart or too dumb classes. Some students come in never having failed ever and are forced to cheat to maintain their clean record. In the other case sometimes the class becomes too easy because the smartest student isn't actually that smart so the curve is lowered whereas if the entire class is very smart, the competition is fierce.

The usual claim by these professors when you ask them about grading is "I can't guarantee there will not be any failures, but most people tend to pass." That's because their grading scheme forces a small percentage to actually fail. That was usually a good sign to dig into your social bank to see how many smart kids were in the class. If there were a bunch and you cared about your GPA, it was a good sign you should either drop or you'll have to spend lots of hours studying to make your grade.

Another thing professors like to do is reserve A+ since in many college systems, A = 4.0 as well as A+ = 4.0. So in some classes where the professor believed nobody deserved the A+, he would just give out A only. If he did feel a student was truly worthy of the A+, then he would give it out specifically (hand picked of course). Once grades were posted on the window, the typical thing to do in these cases would be to see how many A+ where there. That usually hinted to you if you had someone (or someones) incredibly smart in the class that was pushing up the curve (that was a hint to make "friends" with those someones if they weren't you).

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[qplnm]

Slightly OT at this point, but my physics teacher in high school used a bell curve for our midterm exam. He took the highest score and made it 100, made the lowest score something just in the failing range, and distributed the rest such that most of the class got C's.

I got the 100 :) with an actual score of 87.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Blakey Rat]

Yes, well, I never graduated high school or even elementary school! But every day, 40 supermodels come to my house and bathe me twice, and last year I made 4 million dollars while saving the world from terrorists! So you see this article is totally wrong.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Metasquares]

Good point. It might still instill a desire to create any sort of game, though you're probably correct - they'll probably want to create what they play.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[syukton]

"We have major issues these days with schools being fucked up"

You need to read that statement--the one you wrote--and think critically for a moment. Could it be that kids are flunking not because they aren't trying and not because they aren't smart, but because [public] schools are, well, fucked up? Do you really think it's a good idea to punish the kids for having bad teachers and unions that ensure that a bad teacher will remain employed indefinitely? I'm sure it's convenient to point to the children and say "spoiled little miscreants!" but really, you need to look at the big picture and consider that there may be another cause for this situation that won't be helped by keeping the kids from playing games.

Here's what I favor: not selling games (or, to be more draconian, any sort of leisure/enjoyment material such as movies, sporting event tickets, etc) to public school teachers unless their classes have an independently-verified 80% or better pass rate. Maybe then they'd take school (and work, as they're one and the same) seriously.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[twosmokes]

They're a measure of your desire to let the system mold you, your tolerance for menial busy-work, and your memorization skills.

In other words, exactly what's needed to prepare children for the work force.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[JNighthawk]

That depends on your job, now, doesn't it?

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[arb phd slp]

I've only taken one class that used a true curve. It was an undergraduate statistics course my senior year. It was required by the grad school I had already been accepted to but I didn't need it to graduate so I took it pass-fail.

I decided since any passing grade was fine I would, for the first time ever, TRY to get a C.

I had to WORK at it to achieve it. Twice I left the last page of an exam blank. I think I still ended up with the equivalent of a low-B. Man, there were some morons in that class.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[slashdotjunker]

"He was reserving his right to refuse business to anyone."

First off, it's not "his" right. As a place of business the store had to get a license from the city. The rights of a business are not the same as the rights of an individual. This may seem nitpicky, but this is just a prelude for my second point.

Secondly, he wasn't refusing business to "anyone". He was refusing business to a class of people. Most parts of the US call this discrimination and it is illegal. His manager acted prudently and responsibly.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Anonymous Coward]

*creepy voice* I'll... do that for you.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[modmans2ndcoming]

not many universities do norm referencing any more. I think it is common in the Ivy League and at places like MIT where they need to separate out the students or they will be giving out A's to 99% of the kids. standard state schools and small private schools are almost all criterion referenced.

I am not sure why Fla. wastes that amount of money when they could simply norm reference the test to see where students actually fall. Norm referencing is actually good for standardized testing when you want to evaluate a population.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[geminidomino]

Secondly, he wasn't refusing business to "anyone". He was refusing business to a class of people. Most parts of the US call this discrimination and it is illegal. His manager acted prudently and responsibly. I'm not sure that's entirely true. The minute "academic discrimination" becomes illegal, the amusingly-titled "education system" in this country loses it's central propaganda point.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[krotkruton]

Sorry for the late response, but there are a couple things I want to comment on.

When I said the curve was brutal, I meant the curve was brutal, not the way he set up tests. The sentence you left out when quoting me was about how the curve worked. The curve is different from the test. Maybe I should have separated that part into another paragraph to make that more clear.

As for pitting students against each other, I'll agree with you that there isn't anything inherently wrong with it. However, there are two problems with what you're saying.

First, it totally overlooks the way colleges work. Let's face it, college isn't only about learning. The majority of people go to college to get a degree that they can use to get a certain job. Students go to get a degree that certifies they have acquired some level of knowledge about a subject or are capable of doing certain tasks. By pitting students against each other and deciding their grades in that manner, the degree certifies something different each year. If I go in for a job interview against someone with the same GPA from my university, then the interviewer should base his/her decisions on some other aspect. However, if the other person graduated a year earlier and has a higher GPA than me because the students in his/her classes didn't do as well, then the interviewer might base the decision on the GPA even though I learned more and worked harder in all my classes. If I do well one year, I should do just as well the next year (assuming only the students have changed).

Also, I will argue that it's not like the "real world" (it makes me laugh a bit when people try to say College isn't part of the "real world") to pit people against each other in this manner. There aren't a whole lot of jobs that base your pay on how well you do on a project (comparative to the level of this class). Imagine if you went to work to start on a new project and your boss said, "Of the 100 of you working on this project, your pay will be based on how well you do the project. You will receive a percentage of your pay equal to your rank." I doubt many people would work at a company like that for long.

Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[Reservoir Penguin]

Whats is you point? That we shouldn't sell video games to people who don't want to go to college?

Weird Angle

[CubeNudger]

Asshole store manager is denying citizens the right to buy things in his store (the original article I read about him had crazy racist overtones, by the way - didn't like "gang members with baggy pants" hanging out in his store, i.e. black people) and his corporate overlords thankfully stepped in and put a stop to the chicanery. I know they're a corporation and all, but props to Gamestop for doing the common sense thing.

Re:Weird Angle

[Anonymous Coward]

[off topic] Baggy pants crackdown goes national [/off topic]

Re:Weird Angle

[Anonymous Coward]

"gang members with baggy pants" hanging out in his store, i.e. black people

How racist of you to assume that all black people are gang members with baggy pants.

Re:Weird Angle

[Anonymous Coward]

Asshole store manager was black. Baggy pants not in evidence. Brains not in evidence in slashdot or in manager.

Re:Weird Angle

[Anonymous Coward]

Racist against black people? Did you RTFA? It has a picture of Brandon Scott. He is black.

Re:Weird Angle

[Mark_in_Brazil]

Um, I know this is Slashdot, but if you had bothered to RTFA or even just open the page, you might have noticed a photograph of Brandon Scott that appears there. I'm not an expert on racial definitions, but from the picture, it looks to me like Mr. Scott is black.

Re:Weird Angle

[Detritus]

"gang members with baggy pants" hanging out in his store, i.e. black people

What planet do you live on?

Re:Weird Angle

[whosyourslashdotdad]

CubeNudger is a tool, the manager was black. Score one for the pale, friendless, black trench coat wearing virgins that sit in the basement playing video games all day while flunking out of school. The only kids that lost out in this deal were those whose parents wouldn't vouch for them. That means they didn't want them to play anyway... now the kids are back stealing money from their mom's purses so they can buy video games while getting F's.

Re:Weird Angle

[Watson Ladd]

So someone doesn't want people who aspire to be criminals in his store? How utterly unreasonable is that!

Re:Weird Angle

[Phil_At_NHS]

His Boss has the right to fire him for his actions. However, NO-ONE has a "right" to buy a damn thing. IF I don't want to sell to you, I don't have to sell to you, and the only right you have in the deal is to take a hike. If more people graduated from high school, (and public highschool actualyy TAUGHT stuff, more people would understand what IS and is NOT a "right."

Re:Weird Angle

[Anonymous Coward]

Newsflash! CubeNudger demands you uphold his right to remain ignorant!

"We donts needs no learnin!" claimed CubeNudger in an interview.

Re:Weird Angle

[Anonymous Coward]

(the original article I read about him had crazy racist overtones, by the way - didn't like "gang members with baggy pants" hanging out in his store, i.e. black people

More like "baggy pants are the stereotypical mark of classless morons with no money, so chances are likely they'll just loiter around without paying for whatever it is they're stuffing down those ridiculously huge pockets."

Re:Weird Angle

[photomonkey]

Wow. Talk about racist overtones. You hear baggy, oversized pants and immediately think he means black.

Where I'm from, good-for-nothing kids come in all colors and clothing styles.

Re:Weird Angle

[Anonymous Coward]

And black people can't be racist!

Dumbass.

I applaud him

[rehtonAesoohC]

Yeah, of course people are saying that it's bad business, but what he did was with good intent and in a perfect world, could have had a good impact.

The problem is that it's not a perfect world and people can easily just go somewhere else for the same products... His tactic isn't very effective in that situation.

But seriously, I applaud the guy for sticking up for a good principle and trying to motivate kids to perform better instead of being a corporate sales-whore, trying to sell as many games as possible.

Re:I applaud him

[neverutterwhen]

Really? So it would be acceptable for a supermarket manager to refuse to sell fat people chocolate? There are many reasons why people get bad grades and the moron who couldn't get a job as anything better than the manager of a games store is not the person I want judging a child's academic or intellectual ability.

Re:I applaud him

[Detritus]

If you owned a liquor store, would you sell booze to known alcoholics?

Re:I applaud him

[neverutterwhen]

If they were sober when they bought it. It's not a crime to be an alcoholic.

Re:I applaud him

[Enoxice]

If you owned a liquor store, would you ask everyone who walked in to bring a notarized document that proves that they are not, never have been, nor are in any risk of being dependent on alcohol?

Why are we equating bad grades to alcoholism, anyway?

Re:I applaud him

[xero314]

Why are we equating bad grades to alcoholism, anyway? I have to agree this is a bad analogy. Alcoholism leads to unemployability, crime and violence, while poor grades lead to unemployability, crime and violence. Hey wait a minute...

Re:I applaud him

[Enoxice]

Should we poll Slashdotters and find out how many of them had poor grades in school, and how many of them are unemployed, violent criminals? I'm not even going to begin to cite the numerous, well-known examples of "geniuses" that failed out of school.

Alcoholism can ruin your life in ways far worse than financially (distance you from family and friends, and let's not forget that it can kill you), bad grades just mean that school isn't for you. The US hasn't moved to a completely knowledge-based economy yet. We still need carpenters, mechanics, janitors, construction workers, etc. And, not to degrade those occupations, you don't need to get A's in Survey of Western Literature or American Government.

Re:I applaud him

[Anonymous Coward]

For standing up for a broken public school system that hands out grades like nothing in order to pretend their school is doing well?
 
I would be impressed if he encouraged self education and all that, but not this, this is just ridiculous and really backwards. Being a corporate sales-whore is what he is and what he applied for, and it's no surprise to me that he gets suspended for it, I would have too if it was my business. All these people praising him, please wake up and get out of your hippy mindless state.

Re:I applaud him

[Sj0]

[...]the moron who couldn't get a job as anything better than the manager of a games store is not the person I want judging a child's academic or intellectual ability.

Ladies and gentlemen. This is the sort of thing that the word 'pwned' was virtually created for.

Re:I applaud him

[Mathonwy]

Yeah, of course people are saying that it's bad business, but what he did was with good intent and in a perfect world, could have had a good impact.

It may have had good intent, but that doesn't make it a good action, or one that necessarily benefits society. There is in fact a proverb that applies here I believe, dealing with the road-building materials used in construction of the thoroughfare leading to the underworld...

Re:I applaud him

[rehtonAesoohC]

the moron who couldn't get a job as anything better than the manager of a games store is not the person I want judging a child's academic or intellectual ability.
The manager of the store wasn't judging ANYONE's academic or intellectual ability... He was letting the school system judge their intellectual abilities, and if the school system deemed the kids to be below average, he wasn't allowing them to buy games.

Try again.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[heinousjay]

Isn't it awful how you don't have a license to do what you wish with other people's money? I know I'd like it a lot better if I could just take as I want, do as I will, and have no consequences for it.

The real problem I see with this is 16-18 yr olds

[CrazyJim1]

Example: Someone has a car and good grades, but doesn't like to cart his mom with him. Result: No games for you!

Great idea, bad implementation

[Reason58]

Chuck E. Cheese used to have something very similar. You bring in your report card, and you would get free tokens for each good grade. When I read the title I thought this is what the manager was doing and thought it was a fantastic idea. After reading his negative-reinforcement approach, however, I agree fully with his dismissal.

Re:Great idea, bad implementation

[Anonymous Coward]

My thoughs exactly, very poor implementation here. The intent was to reward kids for getting good grades. The execution was to have a parent come in with the kid and vouch for him, otherwise no sale. So a straight A grade 10 student could walk in with his report card in hand, and would be refused sale. Meanwhile little Billy, who's not so good in school, simply has to convince his mom to come into the store and lie for him, and he gets service. It's really not the brightest way to do things.

What probably really happened though is he just wanted to kick certain cliental out of the store, so came up with this rule, then media picked it up and put a nice spin on it.

Re:Great idea, bad implementation

[enderak]

Agreed. The Chuck E. Cheese approach was the first thing that came to my mind as well. The tokens were never reason enough to strive for good grades, but when my report card came around, it's the first place I wanted to go to get my free tokens, and I imagine my parents spent a few bucks as well.

Chuck E. Cheese's approach seems like good business to me, unlike this guy's apparent practice of denying paying customers and having them walk around the corner, and probably causing them to avoid Gamestops altogether and sending them to the competition permanently. It's no wonder they let him go.

Re:Great idea, bad implementation

[insertwackynamehere]

I thought the same thing as well. However when I think about it, Chunk E. Cheese probably benefits more from this than does Game Stop. How many A's is a 1st grader going to have? 5? So what's that, 5 tokens? Is he really going to leave after spending 5 tokens and getting maybe 15 tickets and a useless trinket from the prize stand? No, his mom will probably buy some more tokens for him. GameStop on the other hand can't give out games for every A because a game is probably $50 retail on average (at least new ones and that's what most people will go for) unlike Chuck E. Cheese tokens which are worth pretty much nothing and actually increase sales. A kid with 5 A's a Chuck E. Cheeses will use his 5 tokens and then maybe buy 10-20 more. A kid with 5 A's at Gamestop will get 5 games ($250 of merchandise) and leave. Unless they make every A like $5 off or something in which case my argument is pointless :P

Re:Great idea, bad implementation

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not negative reinforcement.

Negative means take away, positive means introduce, reinforcement is always good, punishment is always bad.

So, negative reinforcement is taking away something in a good way. For instance, removing the rabid cougar from your room after you wash my car. I would be rewarding you (reinforcing) by removing something that is bad for you (negative).

This would be negative punishment. He is taking something away (negative) in a bad way (punishment).

For more examples:
Positive punishment - Spanking someone
Positive reinforcement - Giving someone a lollipop
Negative punishment - Taking away your favorite toy
Negative reinforcement - Turning off the annoyingly loud siren

Fsck grades

[Ethanol-fueled]

There are other diversions (electronic and otherwise) besides video games. If a student dosen't care about grades then holding their video games won't be much help.

The guy's quite clearly a cretin

[goldcd]

but as has been pointed out, he may have been onto something.
Refusing to sell is a bad idea, but as has been pointed out, using good grades to get a discount could work. Could even conbine this with good old-fashioned gambling. Stick your $10 pre-order for Halo3 (or whatever) down with us and as well as your $10 deposit, you'll get $5 off for a B and $10 for an A.
Actually to expand this a bit further, in the same way stores have loyalty cards have one that get you stuff for grades - money off, discounts etc (The old-crumblies seem to get this stuff merely for coffin-dodging). Back in my youth I was always short of cash and got 'alright' grades. I'm well aware I could have worked for better ones, but wasn't any real point. Got bad ones you'd get a bollocking, get 'fine' ones and everything was 'fine', get great ones and *shrugs* pat on the back maybe. Never actually got anything that was worth the effort.
If nothing else the scheme would be great PR - Company X supporting the intellectual future of the country blah blah.

really?

[nobodyman]

Idiolistic? certainly. Misguided? probably. But why is he an idiot? He wanted to do have a positive effect on kids in a position that is generally associated with destroying our childrens minds (just ask Jack Thompson). Furhermore, he knew that he was probably going to get suspended and/or fired and was not surprised when it finally happened. So it's not as though he's shocked that he got fired.

Gamestop is famous (or infamous) for having generally odd store managers. You typically get the Simpsons Comic-Book Guy variety, the hyperactive upseller, or you get the nutjob that tells you that he spoke with the Bungie devs and that "Halo 3 is TOTALLY coming out on the Playstation 3 in Q4. You should really pre-order it". So a gamestop manager that wants my kids to have good grades is a welcome change.

  I think Gamestop was justified in firing the guy, but I applaud him for at least sparking a dialog on the issue. If GameStop is smart, they'd find some way to turn this into a promotional deal ($20 off with a straight-A report card etc., etc.).

Re:really?

[nuzak]

> Idiolistic? certainly. Misguided? probably. But why is he an idiot?

Because, regardless of his intentions, he made everyone purchasing games justify their purchase through his approval. If Brandon Scott didn't think you deserved the game because you didn't meet his approval process, he would not sell you the game.

The idiocy comes in whatever thought process he had that allowed him to think that he had any right to continue being employed by GameStop.

Re:really?

[nobodyman]

The idiocy comes in whatever thought process he had that allowed him to think that he had any right to continue being employed by GameStop.

Well, according to article he knew that he would get in some kind of trouble. Who knows what his true intentions were but it seems like he wanted to have the issue come to a head and illicit a reaction from gamestop. Perhaps this was his way of quitting. Who knows. I do hate it when people in joe-jobs go on power trips, and I'd fire the guy if I were his district manager. Still though, you gotta give the guy style points.

I'd be interested to see, on the other hand, how many "rogue" gamestop managers got suspended when they powertripped-out and forced people into wii bundles on launch day. I'd wager the number hovers around zero.

Re:really?

[TubeSteak]

I think Gamestop was justified in firing the guy, but I applaud him for at least sparking a dialog on the issue. If GameStop is smart, they'd find some way to turn this into a promotional deal ($20 off with a straight-A report card etc., etc.). Kinda like Pizza Hut's Bookit program?
http://www.bookitprogram.com/

If you read books and got your teacher to give you a sticker for it, it'd go towards pizza. Ditto for good grades. My school was signed up for that when I was a kid and it was great for me, since I got good grades and loved to read anyways, I got tons of free pizza.

There was actually a fuss raised over the program recently, because some group felt it contributed towards bad eating habits and obesity. Pretty much everyone (Senators, Congressmen, the Dept of Education, non-profits, etc) came out in support of the program.

I'm not sure a video game program would get the same level of Government and school support. And it would certainly get plenty of criticism

Really Now?

[morari]

Who goes to GameStop anyway? Those places are dives, and have to put up with being in a mall just to visit them anyway. No thank you.

Furthermore, who cares about grades? They mean absolutely nothing and have little to no bearing on real life. School isn't a place to learn, it's a place to be socially conditioned.

Re:Really Now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to agree with you, but I have to. I was in GameStop yesterday and the employees there are super pushy about pre-orders. And they're not even good salespeople either. Literally, the young blonde guy behind the counter invariably asked of each customer, "Would you like to preorder any upcoming Wii games?" It was especially annoying because his tone was really high pitched and fake. The dude didn't even know what the "upcoming Wii games" were (plus, he assumed everyone in the store owned a Wii because it's the "best system evarrrrrr!11!@!!")

I simply asked for the release dates of Zelda: The Phantom Hourglass and the new Phoenix Wright and they pushed for me to reserve those. The blonde boy even got support from another employee. I simply told them that I was going to buy it off of Amazon and have it delivered to my door and save a few bucks and walked out.

They were also selling PS3 component cables for $25 when Best Buy was selling them for $20. What tools.

Re:Really Now?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is an argument typically put forth by someone who has very little schooling.

Re:Really Now?

[Sj0]

I graduated high school on the honour roll and after finishing college with a solid GPA, I design industrial control systems for a living. Great job. I love it.

Grades are useless. I was utterly wasting my time doing well, I would've done just as well with shit grades and a social life.

Because it's not his place to do so

[Rix]

He hasn't the authority to be making those decisions. If the president of GameStop decided to do this it would be fine. When a peon goes behind the President's back and does it, it's a different story.

Re:Because it's not his place to do so

[rpillala]

That's a separate issue really. The hierarchy of a business is not germane to policy of this nature. If the president of Gamestop decided to do this, there would be a parallel hue and cry about it. Many of the arguments here are along the lines of "if parents don't do the right thing for their kids then no one else should either." The president of Gamestop could and would be suspended or removed by whoever can do that. Everyone is someone else's peon. Besides, parents were still allowed to go in and buy games for their flunking child at the Oak Cliff store. The manager only placed a restriction on school-aged kids buying games.

Re:Because it's not his place to do so

[Alegery]

Because there is no crime like a "peon" thinking for himself.

Not necessarily

[DogDude]

If he was the business owner, and he didn't have any franchise agreements that prevented him from doing so, he would be able to refuse to sell to anybody he'd like, so long as it wasn't discrimination. In fact, an advanced retailing technique is to be selective with customers, which usually in turn, drives up demand (think "Soup Nazi"). It's not always bad business to turn away customers, depending on the situation. In many cases, the best thing a business owner can do is to turn away certain customers. It's pretty common among good business owners, in fact.

Do NOT condemn the salesman...

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO, he did the RIGHT damn thing. If anyone within Gamestop corporate had a backbone, they should have supported it too. My logic? Simple. Name one other sport in high school that does NOT consider your GPA as a factor for participation. And yes, this is a SPORT now, thanks to marketing giants like the CPL. When EVERYONE starts realizing this, they'll realize how to treat it more and more like any other professional sport.

Re:Do NOT condemn the salesman...

[nuzak]

God damn, I could feel my IQ being drained with every word of your post.

I award you NO points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Re:Do NOT condemn the salesman...

[schnikies79]

I agree.

Re:Do NOT condemn the salesman...

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me a break. So because some corporation can potentially sponsor you for your video gaming ability because your lazy ass sat on a couch for years wasting your naturally honed hand-eye coordination on beating people in first-person shooters, suddenly it's a sport?

I guess Shoots n Ladders and Candyland will be sports once Milton-Bradley sponsors their first International Boardgaming Tournament on the Hallmark Channel, just like how winning a tournament in Texas Hold'em, Scrabble, and Boggle will earn you a spot on the next Wheaties box or Gatorade TV spot.

Get off your ass and learn to swing a bat, shoot a basketball, or, even better, learn to be a surgeon. Trust me, you'll have a better chance of making money that way, be it through a major/minor league sports contract or college tuition leading to a degree an higher earning power.

Oh yeah, by the way, requiring a certain level of academic performance to participate in school sanctioned sports teams is a great idea. Maybe all the gamers out there will be held to the same standards once public schools start selling out tickets to see the local high schools go at it in an all-out Madden 2007 tournament!

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[Esion Modnar]

When you work for corporate America you follow the proper channels

If the owner is not you, you OK it with owner first. This is just common sense. This is not all about "Corporate America."

He's an idiot because it's not his store

[Sycraft-fu]

A manager is a person hired to oversee operations for someone else. He doesn't own the store, he doesn't make the policies, he just runs it. If it was his store, great, but pulling that at a place you don't own could even get you sued for lost revenue in addition to fired.

Also it is stupid because it really isn't a store's job to play police over what people buy. If parents don't want their kids playing games, that is their responsibility. It isn't his responsibility to make that decision for them. Maybe a parent decides that Cs are good enough. Maybe their kid isn't all that bright and Cs are all they can do, and that's doing well for them and thus they are rewarded for it.

As I said: If you want to open a store based on this, go right ahead. However don't be surprised if you find your business suffers for it. If you choose to work for someone else as their representative, your duty is to do what they tell you. If their policy is "Sell to anyone who has the money," it is your duty to do that. You were not hired to play morality police, you were hired to do a job. If they had a policy prohibiting all sales to minors, it would be your duty to do that as well, even if it was costing them money.

I get real tired of people trying to play morality police with others. How about you decide how you and your family are going to live your lives, and I'll decide for me and mine?

Re:He's an idiot because it's not his store

[Trillan]

If parents don't want their kids playing games, that is their responsibility.

I see. Short of removing the computer entirely, how do you suggest a parent implement a game ban for a failing student?

Re:He's an idiot because it's not his store

[fotbr]

Only let them use the computer with supervision.

If that means they lose their computer and have to share one with their parents until they earn it back, tough cookies.

Being a good parent doesn't mean giving your kids everything they want. Sometimes it means putting your foot down and telling them no.

Re:He's an idiot because it's not his store

[rat10177sd]

Why do you say get rid of the computer there are plenty of other Platforms out there. It's the parent's job to know what their kids are up to. Once again we see the nanny-staters dodging their Responsibilities. Go crawl back under whatever rock you came from. ..."What a Maroon." Bugs Bunny

Re:He's an idiot because it's not his store

[Anonymous Coward]

And we should let them drink too, right? That should be up to the parents, according to you, or you're a hypocrite.

Re:He's an idiot because it's not his store

[stephanruby]

Put his/her computer in the living room/kitchen. Or buy him one of those crippled computers for kids. If there is a will, there is a way.

Re:He's an idiot because it's not his store

[Rakishi]

Legally minors can drink in the presence of their parents, in most places at least. In many cultures it is abnormal for minors to NOT drink. It is likely that a very low drinking age is actually safer than a high one as it prevents the horrid binge drinking problem when people turn 21 (or go to college).

Re:He's an idiot because it's not his store

[Rakishi]

1. Don't give them money to buy games with.
2. See what programs are installed on the system.
3. Actually pay attention what your damn kid is doing.
4. Yes that means you need to actually act like a parent.
5. No X is not an excuse. You can live on less income, watch less tv and have less shinny things. It's your kid for god's sake, you're supposed to make some sacrifices for him or her.

Re:He's an idiot because it's not his store

[TheCrackRat]

Actually, a lot of parents DO let their kids drink, with supervision. In fact, I'm not sure it's even illegal(IANAL).

Re:He's an idiot because it's not his store

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, GameStop sells very few "computer" games, so you just remove the consoles.

Re:He's an idiot because it's not his store

[Trillan]

Actually, that doesn't prevent a kid from buying a PS2.

Re:He's an idiot because it's not his store

[Trillan]

Actually, "public area" is probably the best option, thanks.

Re:He's an idiot because it's not his store

[Talgrath]

Yeah, but hiding a PS2 is a hell of a lot harder than hiding Playboys. And most kids who have that kind of money have jobs (ie, 16+) and can make their own decisions.

Re:He's an idiot because it's not his store

[stephanruby]

And we should let them drink too, right? That should be up to the parents, according to you, or you're a hypocrite.

Yes, cultivating that habit at an early age sounds like a good idea. Numerous studies have shown the positive effects of drinking moderate amounts of wine (the keyword here is "moderate"). And by making the kids drink at an early age, like the other poster said, you would probably avoid the binge drinking phase that most American kids seem to go through (although I do not know if studies exist on that). In France, my mom was actually served wine in her school days by school officials. Granted, the amount of red wine wasn't much, and whatever amount there was -- it had been diluted in water, and this was done a long time ago (after the war), and I have no idea if this is still customary now.

...or you're a hypocrite.

Absolute rules are unnecessary, the average human being is full of contradictions. Name-calling is not the most effective tool either, it's just as possible to flesh out contradictions without it.

Failed exam = free vodka

[eknagy]

Next to my Uni, there was a pub, where you got a free shot of vodka if you shown your index and there was a fresh "exam failed" mark in it.
Those were the days...

Re:Failed exam = free vodka

[Anonymous Coward]

Next to my Uni, there was a pub, where you got a free shot of vodka if you shown your index and there was a fresh "exam failed" mark in it.
Those were the days...

I'm guessing you cost that landlord quite a lot of money!

Why is this news?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he were one of my employees, he would be fired. Not "suspended". (What is he, a school kid?)

His idea of not selling games to kids with bad grades was a good idea in general, but not if it isn't his own business. His employer should have decided whether or not to implement something like that.

If one of my employees decided, without my knowing, to refuse to work for "stupid clients" I'd have him canned immediately. So why is this front page news? The headline should read "Man refuses to do job, gets fired."

Re:Why is this news?

[Sj0]

So when did "He doesn't get to make the choice because it's not his store" stop being common sense?

Oh, is this the People's Gamespot, where our mighty Comrades have liberated the oppressed Gamespot from it's parasitic capitalist oppressors? Did they establish a dictatorship of the proletariat so everyone in the People's Gamespot could benefit?

Nope, no private ownership! You don't need to do what your bosses tell you to do! The Gamespot belongs to THE PEOPLE, not the capitalist swine!

Faulty logic?

[Falcon_Delta00]

What's ridiculous about this policy is that it's a denial of access based on the principle that children with good grades should be allowed to play computer games, while those with bad grades shouldn't. What's the assumption that is being made here? Games are the cause of bad grades? OR playing games prevents children from getting good grades? It's true that games can be a huge waste of time, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they should be linked to merit in the educational system. What if my kid isn't that smart and he gets C's whether he plays video games or not. Is this guy at the store going to prevent him from buying a vieo game?

Re:Faulty logic?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, dipshit. It means you have to go to the store with your little Johnny. Why the fuck are you sending a 10 year old alone to a video game store with $50 anyway?

It's the Precedent

[sweatyboatman]

This is not about lost sales. In fact it's actually a fantastic sales idea. Not only do you get the kid (highly motivated customer with little money) to associate his life's work (aka. school) with video games, but you get him to drag in his parent (wary customer with tons of money) to vouch for his good grades. So the kid comes in to get his game and while the kids in the back picking out the latest Pokemon his dad's in the front checking out the latest PS3 release.

No, this isn't about lost sales. This is about fear of federal/state legislation.

If they let this guy run his operation and it became successful then they would be establishing a VERY strong precedent for preventing children from buying games. And the Organization of Out-of-Touch Parents or whoever will jump all over any whiff of such a thing. A short way down this slippery slope is a federal age-limit for buying video games and something of a disaster for the entire gaming industry. And that's why this guy got spanked.

Re:It's the Precedent

[jmac1492]

If they let this guy run his operation and it became successful then they would be establishing a VERY strong precedent for preventing children from buying games. And the Organization of Out-of-Touch Parents or whoever will jump all over any whiff of such a thing. A short way down this slippery slope is a federal age-limit for buying video games and something of a disaster for the entire gaming industry. And that's why this guy got spanked.

Before reading this comment, I thought his policy was a good idea. Afterwards, I agree with GameStop. Sorry I don't have any mod points.

Re:It's the Precedent

[gujo-odori]

It really is, to a great extent, about lost sales. While is policy was well-intentioned (like a lot of schemes of that nature), it wasn't well thought-out. The kids without the grades will just buy from the competition, and so will some of the ones with the grades, because of the extra hassle factor he adds to buying a game.

A better solution would be the more tried and true approach of a discount (in some form) for good grades.

Apart from lost sales, the other issue is that he was probably exceeding his authority as a store manager. If GameStop doesn't have a corporate policy like that, they aren't likely to take very well to a manager implementing it on his own, without consulting his bosses.

Giving an interview probably didn't help, either, as he speculates.

Sounds like a leader.

[clubhi]

I heard this game stop manager went to MIT. But seriously, every time I go into Gaystop they make me feel like the loser because I haven't played such and such game. Not everyones mother has a nice basement ok.

Enough with the busybodys in retail already.

[Sheetrock]

Keep your store clean, your employees in line and your customers happy. There's more than enough to do without inventing new policies on-the-fly.

Everybody wants to be big brother. What's next, tiny plastic cups and a private room to make sure the little bastards aren't toking up before you'll deign to allow them to make a purchase? It makes me ill to think where we're headed.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[joe_bruin]

When you work for corporate America you follow the proper channels or you end up like this poor bastard. Let me give you another headline and see if you still object:
"CVS pharmacist fired for refusing to sell birth control pills to unmarried women."

Now, all I've changed is the company and the *personal belief* that an individual was enforcing. If GameStop doesn't want to sell games to kids with bad grades, it's their store and I have the option of not shopping there. If some employee decided that he knows what's right for the customers and chooses to enforce his views on how the world should work, I would hope that he be fired.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[Doc Ruby]

Who's taking someone's money and just doing as they would? This story is about someone refusing to take kids money unless they were passing their classes.

Yeah, it's against the corporatist attitude that you went way overboard trying to defend. But it was an admirable act. Which is why that corporatism sucks.

Isn't it cool that the people defending corporatism aren't as smart as those who can see that humans are more important than money?

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[shentino]

They can just say "we fired you cause we felt like it and it's our payroll so to hell with you and your failure to yield to our absolute authority to hire and fire as we damn well please" Bosses don't have to explain anything. Period.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[spun]

Remember when blacks were considered property? Would you say that they shouldn't get to do what they want with other people's property? Meaning, themselves. The majority of Americans today are wage slaves, and have little say over what is done with the value they generate in society. That does suck. Corporations take what they want and have no serious consequences. I guess the rules depend on whether you are a human or a corporation, eh?

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[MicktheMech]

Your argument has a flaw. I believe that any reasonable person would consider achieving high grades in school as a good thing. They would also consider achieving poor grades as a bad thing.

When looking at your example we have to ask: Will most reasonable people believe that being married is good and unmarried is bad? Probably not, at least not in North America.

This is about using their management authority to promote a social goal at the possible expense of sales. In the article it is a universially held goal, in your's it's that of only a segment of society.

FreeAdvertising

[Anonymous Coward]

It appears Gamestop has just received an assload of free advertising. Looks to me as if this guy should have been promoted instead.

Bad rap

[rossz]

At the moment, you have to pass a test to graduate to prove you actually learned something. Most kids don't have any real comprehension that slacking off today is going to have dire consequences tomorrow. So this guy decides to get their attention through something they actually give a shit about, and everyone here on slashdot calls him an idiot.

"It's not his job to be those kids mom". Yep, you are right. So mom could lie and say he got good grades, or just buy her idiot son (with a promising future in the fast food service industry) the latest game. Problem solved.

I don't have a problem with what he was doing, though I think he would have been in a better position to offer discounts for good grades.

I also don't have a problem with certain types of games requiring an adult to purchase them. Again, it's not the store deciding if the kid gets the game or not. The parent will make the ultimate decision. Without the limitation, the parent doesn't get any say.

Oh, for you idiot teenagers with mod points today that will be modding me down as flamebait or a troll. Kiss my ass. You'll have kids one day. Your entire attitude will change.

Note to dad: Uhm, you remember when I was a teenager and was a complete asshole. I'm sorry about that. You were right.

Re:Bad rap

[Mr2001]

I also don't have a problem with certain types of games requiring an adult to purchase them. Again, it's not the store deciding if the kid gets the game or not. The parent will make the ultimate decision. Without the limitation, the parent doesn't get any say. Uh, sure they do. If you don't like your kids buying video games, don't let them go to the game store unattended. Keep an eye on them instead of expecting the rest of the world to enforce your house rules for you.

Oh, for you idiot teenagers with mod points today that will be modding me down as flamebait or a troll. Kiss my ass. You'll have kids one day. Your entire attitude will change. Just because your attitude changes doesn't mean your new attitude is any better than the old one. A sharp blow to the head will change your way of thinking too, but it won't be an improvement.

It seems to me that some people, after having kids, just become lazier and more self-centered, expecting the rest of the world to change to make their lives easier. Perhaps those people should've waited to have kids until they were better prepared to handle it on their own.

Re:Bad rap

[rossz]

Say what? Wanting certain games to require parental approval to be purchased does NOT make me lazy. Just the opposite. It means I have to drive down to the game store to puchase the stupid thing instead of letting the kid do whatever he/she wants.

It means I MUST DECIDE WHAT IS RIGHT, not you, not society, not the store. I MAKE THE CHOICE.

In your crazed logic you were somehow able to get the exact opposite meaning.

ARE YOU ON DRUGS?

Re:Bad rap

[nnull]

"Oh, for you idiot teenagers with mod points today that will be modding me down as flamebait or a troll. Kiss my ass. You'll have kids one day. Your entire attitude will change.

Note to dad: Uhm, you remember when I was a teenager and was a complete asshole. I'm sorry about that. You were right."

Yes, we kids learned, we learned that the system is terrible. Would you send your kids to a prison camp, knowing you came out of one and how it is? No, I don't think so, unless you really don't give a damn about them. My father actually listened to me when I was a teenager and believed me, sent me to private school, then home schooled and regrets having sent me to public school when I was younger. My kids won't be going to public school and nor will I encourage them too. Maybe your child even mentioned it and you refused to listen as many parents do and called them an asshole instead?

So yes, my attitude changed alright, I am 100% against these policies, and any encouragement for public school systems. They destroy lives and family with their indoctrination. I am a full fledged libertarian and will find other means to educate my children because the state doesn't provide any encouraging benefits at all but decreases my children's chances for a good or better life. I've met so many home schooled children and private school children that have excellent relationships with their parents (myself included), doing excellent academically and well off in life, unlike those from public schools. No one will decide what is better for my children, and that includes store managers.

Perhaps it was different in your time, but this is how it is now. I am glad this manager got suspended, and most likely fired. I am all for encouraging privacy and that manager crossed the privacy line and had no business whatsoever to do it. If my kid wanted to buy something, by all means. Let me deal with it myself at home. All I see this encouraging is more socialism, which I want less of (Coming from a European), showing children they have no rights as a human being until they're 18.

<end rant>

Re:Bad rap

[Mr2001]

Say what? Wanting certain games to require parental approval to be purchased does NOT make me lazy. Wanting store employees to do your job--the job of keeping "inappropriate" games out of your kid's hands--does, in fact, make you lazy. Sorry.

Just the opposite. It means I have to drive down to the game store to puchase the stupid thing instead of letting the kid do whatever he/she wants. No it doesn't. You could just as easily say "No M-rated games for you, son" and never leave the couch, safe in the knowledge that the guy making minimum wage down at the mall is doing your parenting for you.

It means I MUST DECIDE WHAT IS RIGHT, not you, not society, not the store. I MAKE THE CHOICE. You made the choice when you let him go to the game store on his own. Either keep an eye on him or don't; don't assume that everyone else has nothing better to do than help you enforce your house rules.

Re:Bad rap

[servognome]

I've met so many home schooled children and private school children that have excellent relationships with their parents (myself included), doing excellent academically and well off in life, unlike those from public schools.

I've met many public school children (myself included), doing excellent academically and well of in life. It doesn't matter if the school is public, private, or at home; the most important thing is parental involvement.
Private or home schooled children have involved parents, otherwise they'd just let them go to public school.

Re:Bad rap

[Zebedeu]

Wanting store employees to do your job--the job of keeping "inappropriate" games out of your kid's hands--does, in fact, make you lazy. Sorry. Do you honestly believe that parents should monitor their children 24h per day?
Do you honestly believe that this is even possible for most families?

Because that's the alternative to having stores refuse to sell some games/porn/alcohol to minors.

Re:Bad rap

[Mr2001]

Do you honestly believe that parents should monitor their children 24h per day?
Do you honestly believe that this is even possible for most families?

Because that's the alternative to having stores refuse to sell some games/porn/alcohol to minors. I honestly believe that parents should have to decide whether keeping those things out of their kids' hands is worth the hassle of keeping an eye on them. Parents who want their kids to have G-rated lives should pay the cost of enforcing that ideal out of their own time, instead of having it subsidized by the rest of society.

And yes, I do believe it's possible, although it might be inconvenient. You don't literally have to monitor your kid 24 hours a day to make sure he isn't playing video games. He spends 1/3 of the day at school and another 1/3 asleep, and while he's awake, you only need to check in every so often to know what he's spending his time on.

Re:Bad rap

[Zebedeu]

The point is that the schedules for the parents and the children are rarely aligned, and even when they are, you cannot really follow them around for the 1/3 of the day like you claim.
I think you're imagining a nice middle-class family with two parents and normal to light working hours. What's your suggestion to the single-parents who are working hard to keep things afloat?

Even in your utopia, you can't expect that a friend with less strict/paranoid parents wouldn't just get the stuff for them. I remember when I was a kid I would come up with all sorts of schemes to do stuff I wasn't supposed to -- it's what kids do.

Anyway, I wonder if you worked at a store, you would really sell a pornographic magazine or a bottle of vodka to a 13 y/o.

Re:Bad rap

[Mr2001]

What's your suggestion to the single-parents who are working hard to keep things afloat? "Let your kids live a little." Or, "Find a job with a schedule that works with your Big Brother plans."

Even in your utopia, you can't expect that a friend with less strict/paranoid parents wouldn't just get the stuff for them. I remember when I was a kid I would come up with all sorts of schemes to do stuff I wasn't supposed to -- it's what kids do. Of course - so did I. And we turned out all right, didn't we?

If parents really want to keep this stuff out of their kids' hands, then they can get to know their kids' friends' parents and decide whether they trust them to enforce these house rules. If you don't trust little Billy's mom not to let your little Johnny rent Mortal Kombat, then don't let Johnny play at Billy's house.

Anyway, I wonder if you worked at a store, you would really sell a pornographic magazine or a bottle of vodka to a 13 y/o. Maybe if it were legal to do so. There's nothing illegal about selling video games to kids, though - even M-rated ones.

games and school...

[netsavior]

Video games have significant more relevance in my daily life than school. You tell me which is more like debugging legacy bank software: Finding out that what the hell the old guy meant by "spectacle rock" and then realizing you could bomb one of them by methodically canvassing all of hyrule... Or Diagraming a past participle.

I happened to be pretty got at scamming teachers into thinking I should get good grades, but the major way I exercised and developed my critical thinking skills was by walking around in Maniac Mansion, trying not to kill the clockwork bird in Zork, and trying to think like gannon to solve the master quest, realizing that the Zelda game engine could only support 1 secret passage per screen in the overworld, and therefore you could actually efficiently discover all secrets screen by screen.

Of course if this guy had critical thinking skills he probably wouldn't be a failed gamestop manager.

This is Texas

[Anonymous Coward]

He could have been fired for any reason whatsoever. Somebody at GameStop likes him if he still has a job.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[pokerdad]

Remember when blacks were considered property?

No, and neither do you.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[Sj0]

It's not his store to be making that decision in.

I work in a paper mill. I'd much prefer we make delicious candy.

Even though re-tooling the mill to create delicious candy would make everyone very happy, it's not my paper mill, and thus I'd get fired, and probably charged.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[Sj0]

Maybe this is the People's Pharmacy, because this guy established a dictatorship of the proletariat and took control of the pharmacy from the capitalist pigs who owned it?

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[wsherman]

If some employee decided that he knows what's right for the customers and chooses to enforce his views on how the world should work, I would hope that he be fired.

Your attitude highlights an important difference between the kinds of people who are labeled conservatives and the kinds of people who are labeled liberals.

The people I know who are the most fervent supporters of the Bush administration are all closely associated with organizations that have a strong authority hierarchy (e.g. the military and the kinds of churches where the minister tells you what is right and wrong).

Modern conservatives believe that a properly functioning society requires a strong authority hierarchy where the good people at the top of the hierarchy control the bad people at the bottom of the hierarchy. In order to move up the hierarchy and gain authority you have to demonstrate that you are a good person. In order to demonstrate that you are a good person you have to obey your superiors who are above you in the hierarchy because they are better than you.

In contrast, modern liberals believe that sometimes authority is necessary but that everyone is human and flawed - "power corrupts". The liberals believe that the important thing is to make sure that those who have power are not abusing those who do not have power (they look at relationships going down the hierarchy).

Conservatives believe that the important thing is to make sure that those who do not have power are obedient to those who do have power (they look at relationships going up the hierarchy). This is illustrated by Monica Lewinsky scandal. Conservatives were not outraged due to their concern that Bill Clinton had hurt Monica Lewinsky. They were not outraged because of their deep compassion and sympathy for Bill's wife Hillary. Instead, they were outraged that Bill Clinton had failed to obey a standard of conduct laid down by a higher authority (whether that higher authority was the church or the implied wishes of the founding fathers depended on the particular conservative).

Anyway, in the conservative analysis what matters is that you had a manager at GameStop who was not obeying the proper authority. In the liberal analysis, though, things get complicated. The manager had a position of authority over the children so the question is whether he was using that authority to hurt the children. You could argue it either way. While he was taking away the children's freedom which is generally bad, it is also recognized that children may sometimes need their freedoms restricted.

"CVS pharmacist fired for refusing to sell birth control pills to unmarried women."

Well, sure. We can find even more extreme examples than that. How about the gun store manager who refuses to sell a gun to someone who says he intends to use it to kill his wife? How about the hospital employee who refuses to treat a patient who's dying of a heart attack because the patient is Jewish? Sometimes it's good to refuse service and sometimes it's bad.

With this GameStop thing, the conservative analysis looks up the hierarchy (how did it affect the corporate profits) and the liberal analysis looks down the hierarchy (how did it affect the children).

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[Dun Malg]

When looking at your example we have to ask: Will most reasonable people believe that being married is good and unmarried is bad? Probably not, at least not in North America. Work on your reading comprehension. That was not the argument presented with the analogy. The question wasn't about marriage, but the implication of premarital sex. Ask around in north america, and you'll find plenty of people against it.

Was it, though?

[Foerstner]

policy that's popular within the community

We don't know that. Just because the guy who did it says it didn't get many complaints, and even has a few outspoken proponents, doesn't mean it's necessarily a popular one.

Re:Was it, though?

[cduffy]

Well, I'm trusting the local media on that one; they're closer to the ground than anyone else. (To a significant extent, too, the local media is what makes it popular within a community; they put a positive spin on it, hence people think about it in those terms, hence it's popular).

Shame on GameStop

[Anonymous Coward]

Before I get FLAMED for "not understanding business", I have an MBA and I certainly DO understand where GameStop is coming from in their side of this. The employee enforced his own personal beliefs as a store-wide policy that prevented business from being transacted without proper authorization. At the same time, suspending the employee really isn't the right message to send to the public. While he was wrong in his methods, he was right in his message. Students in school should be putting grades before games, and I think it was a wonderful idea to require proof of good grades in order to purchase games. Before you go thinking that I'm some conservative nutjob, I'm a 27 year old liberal Democrat life-long gamer who has been lucky enough to be able to balance my studies and my gaming obsession during my school years. I certainly can attest that I know more than a few people who were not as fortunate as I was. A number of my friends would game before or in-lieu-of schoolwork and in one case it cost them the ability to stay in college. Gamestop should have stopped the offending action, but suspension sends the public the message that GameStop as a corporation puts profit before education, even though I'm certain that was inadvertant and not the intended message.

Invent a promo in your own business....

[dindi]

What is so surprising? Really.

I am sure the kids who buy the most are not the ones who have the best grades. Inventing something like this at someone else's store is not acceptable because it will kill sales.

He is not a marketing expert there and this special promo is definitely not a good promo to be honest.....

just my 2c ...

ps: yes I also felt like making a lot of changes ... free internet for nice chicks, let's not answer the phone if the boss is nasty, and pay 50% back to the customer in cash if our service sucks .... all kinds of nice ideas, which were all bad for the business .....

So how old was this educational marketing genius ? That will suck on his resume, unless his next application is in education...

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Birth control is far closer to a necessity than video games, especially if it's the morning after variety. Being refused a game will in no case result in an unwanted child. In addition, Pharmacists are licensed by the state and , in small towns, are often the only show in town.

Gamer points of view

[belunar]

Looking over this article there are a few things I have noticed in it. For one, he was suspended, not fired, those are two different things.

The article states he was a manager, which meens he didnt own it as a franchise. Which all leads to the question, what is company policy?

Some companies have policies setup that allow managers to experiment and create their own promotions, some are strict on it. Some cities do have laws that allow the seller to refuse sale to anyone. If the company has an open promo policy, and the business is in an area with a refuse to sell law, I see no reason why he was suspended. Sounds to me like its a case that might have been against company policy.

Quote from article "On his own, Scott decided to stop selling video games to any school-age customer unless an adult would vouch for the student's good grades." A few things to look at with that comment. 1) not selling to unacompanied minors, which I dont think any game store should be doing anyway, and 2)adult verification that they could buy the game. Im not seeing that as refusal to sell, Im seeing that as keeping the parents in the loop as to what their kids are doing. Parents should know what games their kids are playing, and if the game stores dont sell without parental approvial, then the parents will have a better idea of what the kids are wanting and playing.

I am all for rewarding good grades, were allot of programs like that when I was growing up, should be more now. Giving a discount or free games to those that get good grades, charging full price to those that dont seems fair.

What it all boils down to, is the guys heart was in the right place, someone in the company didnt like it cause they thought it would loose them sales/give them bad PR and suspended him untill they could research it. Personaly I hope they do institue this as a company wide policy, as then the parents will have to get more involved with their kids.

Where's the grades for SEX initiative?

[blahplusplus]

I'm sure those interested (both boys and girls) would raise their marks if they could have sex with hot women and men...

Prostitution? Please... this is just business. I am such a capitalist, sometimes I scare myself.

Speaking seriously though, I can see things like Virginia tech not happening if guys had a sexual outlet to deal with stress. I've often wondered if we should legalize prostitution and have laws regarding involuntary celibacy (i.e. government sponsored sex, to keep men from turning into rapists / pedophiles)

Re:Where's the grades for SEX initiative?

[Anonymous Coward]

government sponsored sex, to keep men from turning into rapists / pedophiles

I don't think that would work, not for rape anyways. Rapists don't commit rape because they want sex, they commit it out of lust for power and violence. As for pedophilia, that's a bit of a mixed bag, most pedophiles prey on children because they have trouble relating socially with adults so prostitution *might* help, but most pedophiles are, again, rapists as well so I don't think giving them the opportunity to have sex with adults would help them enough because really sex is not all they need.

Re:Where's the grades for SEX initiative?

[1u3hr]

I've often wondered if we should legalize prostitution and have laws regarding involuntary celibacy (i.e. government sponsored sex, to keep men from turning into rapists / pedophiles)

Rape isn't just about finding a hole to ejaculate into, it's an act to assert power. While prostitution is not legal in most countries, it's widely tolerated. And one might argue that it contributes to reducing the rape rate, in no case has having cheap sex available stopped rape from occurring. Those that way inclined just use it an excuse "They're all prostitutes". Rapes between acquaintances and family members will not be reduced.

Re:Where's the grades for SEX initiative?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Rape isn't just about finding a hole to ejaculate into, it's an act to assert power"

It can't be all about power, there are MANY MANY ways to act out in dominance, like killing people, robbing a bank, etc. It's about sex just as much as power. Violence and sex are intimately related in males.

Re:Where's the grades for SEX initiative?

[ElleyKitten]

Speaking seriously though, I can see things like Virginia tech not happening if guys had a sexual outlet to deal with stress. I've often wondered if we should legalize prostitution and have laws regarding involuntary celibacy (i.e. government sponsored sex, to keep men from turning into rapists / pedophiles)

The problem with prostitutes for everyone is that some people have to be the prostitutes. Would you like your mom, your sister, or you to be one of the prostitutes? How would you feel about dating a girl who was a prostitute (hey, if involuntary singledom becomes a problem for women because of too much prostitution, we could have government sponsored dates, to keep women from going crazy and killing the guys who won't date them)? How would you feel about a woman you care about having to have sex with would-be rapists, as her job? What could you do to make sure every guy could see a prostitute, yet the conditions don't suck for the women involved? What would you do about guys who can't get laid and have AIDS or another STD? Would you make a non-positive prostitute have sex with him? Would you push HIV-pos women into prositution? What happens if no one, even prositutes, want to sleep with a guy, because of diseases or whatever other reason?

I think the answer is to tell everyone to meet their sexual needs with masterbation. Sex shouldn't be about getting something from someone else who you don't care about, sex should be about sharing intimacy and closeness with someone you like. If you can't find someone who happily wants to have sex with you, you should masterbate.

Re:Where's the grades for SEX initiative?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're being a little sensationalist there, girls do not have problems getting sex or even relationships. Guys do, big difference! This is exactly why prostitution is the world's olddest profession. Women are more choosy because evolutionarily speaking: They're designed that way, they bear the huge risk of bearing a child, and whether or not they have sex for love, recreation, or procreation, their psychology is still geared to be choosy.

Next it would not be hard to find working prostitutes to do the job, prostutition, 'escorts' and 'call-girls' will never go away, we mine as well use them to stop tragedies like VT.

You have to understand that sexual deprivation, depression and violence (suicide / agression against self or others) are linked, and girls are the choosers in society.

For guys on the losing end, what's the difference between prostitution and a expensive date(s)? Or a guy with few options marrying a woman? A guy is ultimately paying for pussy if he doesn't have many options and a real choice (power) in the in the matter.

I don't think you really grasp the lack of close phsyical affection has on guys, guys feel loved and valued primarily through physical acts, women in more nuanced ways. I'd say its something like 80% Physical /20% other. This is a generalization of course, but it's exactly why guys leave relationships... they're needs aren't being met.
I'm not trying to objectify women here, but men have natural needs just everyone else.

The truth of the matter is most people ignore evolutionary biology, you're trying to model the world based on your own EGO and project that to how everyone elses body and mind works. People have different needs, this is what speerates gays from hetero's from bi's, etc. They have natural 'law of being', and their psyhological rewards and motivations are different.

Re:Where's the grades for SEX initiative?

[ElleyKitten]

You're being a little sensationalist there, girls do not have problems getting sex or even relationships.

I was being a little silly with that side comment, but I was referring to girls not getting dates because guys could just see a prostitute when they wanted sex, or, because that would require so many prostitutes that would mean more girls would be prostitutes and guys would be less likely to date them. Would you date a prostitute? Anyways, beyond that hypothetical, girls are not always the choosers. If a girl doesn't meet a minimum standard of beauty it can be very difficult for her to get a date. Of course, you'll probably say that she should lose weight or wear makeup or whatever, but couldn't you say similar things to a guy who couldn't get a date instead of arguing for prostitution?

I don't think you really grasp the lack of close phsyical affection has on guys, guys feel loved and valued primarily through physical acts

I get that, but prostitution isn't about love or being valued. Prostitution is about taking a special form of intimacy and making it into a monetary transaction. A prostitute won't love or value a john, she values his money. She's at best bored and waiting for it to be over with, at worst hating his bad breath and his butt-ugly body and/or any other reason other girls won't sleep with him without money. If guys knew or cared about what prostitutes think they'd definitely masturbate instead, your hand isn't going to be grossed out by your beer belly. If guys feel loved and valued through prostitution they're delusional. I agree that everyone should feel loved and valued, but prostitution is not going to help with that at all.

We need to come up with a new model for sex, one that doesn't involve "paying for pussy" (through dates or whatever), one that doesn't dehumanize women as a product that men need. Sex should be about sharing and being close with someone. It doesn't necessarily have to be about love, but it should never just be about getting off without caring about what the other person thinks. If you don't care about the other person, just masturbate.

Re:Where's the grades for SEX initiative?

[mdwh2]

Rapists don't commit rape because they want sex, they commit it out of lust for power and violence.

Actually it's a myth that most cases involve random strangers attacking women, or involve violence - in many if not most cases, it involves people who know each other, things like "date rape". Now I guess it's possible that these people are going out with women on dates, and then just hoping that the woman turns them down. But what happens if the woman does want sex? "Oh sorry, I'm not interested after all, I only wanted the power and violence. Goodbye". That seems rather ludicrous to me.

Re:Where's the grades for SEX initiative?

[tbannist]

As I understand it, the main benefits of legalizing prostitution is legal protection and economic prosperity for prostitutes. Why are these the main benefits? Because prohibition doesn't work. There are always going to be men who prefer to have sex with someone else rather masturbate, and they're going to be willing to pay for it. There's also likely to always be women who are willing to have sex for money.

You can't stop that exchange from occuring by making it illegal.

Now, I should also recognize that there are different "levels" of prostitution. The ones who are most likely to be dehumanized by their customers are the ones who hang around on street corners waiting for a John to pick them up. The least likely are the self-employed "escorts" who have a regular clientele.

I'm not sure if that indicates the same thing to you as it does to me. Making prostitution legal might actually make it less available to bad Johns who treat the women poorly. Why? Economic prosperity enhances the ability of the prostitute to refuse a client she dislikes because she is less desperate for the money. It also might reduce drug addiction problems among the poorest prostitutes, depending on how the regulations to govern prostitution were written.

In the end, it's a difficult problem because many people agree with you. They think that the law shouldn't allow something that we don't think is right to occur. I agree with you that sex is an intimacy that should be shared with someone you love, however, I also have to recognize that there are a lot of people who don't view it that way. I have to recognize that even though it's illegal, prostitution is a thriving industry everywhere. There are even Islamic prostitutes in places such as Iran where the punishment for being caught is death. Of course, if the alternative to being stoned for prostitution is dying of starvation, at least you have a chance against the morality police.

The most fundamental aspect of the prostitution problem is probably this:
If prostitution is the last thing a woman wants to end up doing, then by making it illegal you force any woman who would become a prostitute into this choice: Become a criminal or die.

Re:Where's the grades for SEX initiative?

[ElleyKitten]

The problem with legalizing prostitution is that it doesn't really help prostitutes. Most prostitution in an area that has legal prostitution is technically illegal, in the sense that it doesn't follow any of the laws because most places don't have the resources to regulate it and it isn't a priority to get those resources, so you still have just as many street prostitutes and sex trafficking in just as bad conditions. Even for the women working under legal conditions, the laws aren't made to protect them, they're made to protect their clients. Look at mandatory STD testing. That sounds good, right? But, it's something she could get for free at any Planned Parenthood, so instead of helping her it's just something she can worry about losing her job for. If we wanted to protect prostitutes, we'd test the men before they could see them so they wouldn't get the STDs in the first place, but I've never heard of any place doing that. Legalized prostitution also means that there's now a record that she was a prostitute, so she can't move on and forget about it, it's on her credit report under past jobs and sometimes there's even government databases other people can access. In Nevada, some cities have laws against prostitutes living there, so there's another thing infringing on her freedom that she wouldn't have had if she worked illegally. We think that legalizing prostitution would help them, but for the most part prostitutes don't want to deal with the hassles that brings.

There's also ways of making prostitution illegal without locking up prostitutes. In Sweden, the laws against prostitution effectively make pimping and being a john illegal, but the prostitutes themselves are not criminals and are given resources (drug treatment, job training) to help them out of it. They've significantly reduced the levels of prostitution and sex trafficking is almost nil, while the neighboring countries that have legal prostitution have huge problems with sex trafficking. It's not perfect, but it's done a lot of good.

Re:Where's the grades for SEX initiative?

[tbannist]

I suppose that's because it's easy to make things worse, and difficult to make things better. Sweden's got a lot of stuff going for it beyond outlawing pimps and johns (though, that should be an effective tool that prostitutes can use against people who try to exploit them). They also have one the world's largest and most effective welfare systems which ensures that women are not forced to choose between prostitution and starvation. They have free education, a socialized medical system, and even free dental care for anyone under the age of 20.

It's not a simple problem to beat, but if what you say is true, then we should all be looking a little more closely at what Sweden's doing right.

In Other News...

[aldheorte]

A manager of a Barnes and Noble has recently stopped selling books to high school students in his area who are getting failing grades. It's uncertain on how they will learn without books, but the manager is taking a tough love position: "Kids should know at an early age that life isn't fair and that choices you make early on determine if you are going up or going down."

!GREAT Business, !GREAT sense

[mobby_6kl]

This guy is a fucking moron. I mean the guy from TFA, not the parent poster. I'll refrain from insults for now although I completely disagree on all counts. To get this out of the way, let's ditch the ratings too, they're bullshit. This way there shouldn't be any confusion about standards.

First of all, declining to sell the games to customers on random basis (he defines what "good grades" are, doesn't he?) is not what he was supposed to do. If he thought this would be beneficial to the business, he should've talked to the actual owners. He didn't and he got in trouble.

Secondly, the reason schools are all fucked up is NOT video games. I repeat, video games are not the reason schools suck. I'm rather big on procrastination, and I don't need any games to avoid working on the thesis. Neither do these kids. They'll find something else to do, which would be inevitably more interesting than doing homework. There are many options available, one could argue on slashdot, get drunk with their underage friends, watch paint dry, or, hell, even read a book.

And finally, even if we ignore the above two points, his negative approach is still stupid. Positive reinforcement would've worked just as well if not much better, without attracting any of the criticism. Simply give kids discounts for good grades. I've seen this done in a local computer hardware store, and while the discount wasn't huge, it was a nice touch. Maybe make each subject graded above X points worth a 5pp discount, or something. The more good grades the kids have, the more games they can buy. Everybody wins.

So in conclusion, fuck that guy. I'm glad they put a stop to this retarded policy before it could spread anywhere.

Re:!GREAT Business, !GREAT sense

[im_thatoneguy]

I was always a huge fan of sitting in a chair staring at a wall. It was *always* more enjoyable than homework.

Also grades *are* relative. They're relative between classes. Ever heard of "the easy" class. I'm with parent. It sounds great in theory but forbiding purchases based on grades is not a standardized process. I had friends who went to a public highschool who were failing every single class at my highschool. As soon as they got to public highschool they got straight As because the teachers graded so much easier.

Re:!GREAT Business, !GREAT sense

[forgotten_my_nick]

They should just make it illegal to sell computer games to anyone under the age of 18. That would stop a lot of messing around.

Re:!GREAT Business, !GREAT sense

[Lunzo]

I'm rather big on procrastination, and I don't need any games to avoid working on the thesis.

I spent the first half of this year "working" on my honours thesis. I'd take 10min break from procrastination to actually do work. Enjoy it while you can!

Re:!GREAT Business, !GREAT sense

[cmat]

Negative reinforcement? Stating that while not selling a game to a kid that was failing, he was also supposedly saying that if a kid walked in with a stack of A's, he'd buy them a game (using his personal funds). There are many things that this guy couldn't fix/solve/make better. In his view, trying to couple doing well at school with gaming was something he could do, and decided to try it. And he got suspended for it.

Re:!GREAT Business, !GREAT sense

[the dark hero]

And finally, even if we ignore the above two points, his negative approach is still stupid. Positive reinforcement would've worked just as well if not much better, without attracting any of the criticism. Simply give kids discounts for good grades. I've seen this done in a local computer hardware store, and while the discount wasn't huge, it was a nice touch. Maybe make each subject graded above X points worth a 5pp discount, or something. The more good grades the kids have, the more games they can buy. Everybody wins. So in conclusion, fuck that guy. I'm glad they put a stop to this retarded policy before it could spread anywhere.

Have you ever been to Oak Cliff? This is the neighborhood you're afraid to drive through for fear of getting SHOT. Somehow, i doubt positive reinforcement will work on some of these kids. I certainly don't degrade myself to spouting insults, but i do agree that you catch more flies with honey. Get off your high-horse and quit calling everyone stupid. The man only did what he felt was right for his particular environment.

Re:!GREAT Business, !GREAT sense

[twosmokes]

So how many times did he refuse to sell you games?

Almost ironic...

[mr_josh]

"I don't like your grades, you can't have a game!" "I don't like your business practice, you can't have a job!" There's always somebody one rung up the ladder from you.

MODULATE PARENT RATIO

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone wants to reward and punish my children for me, they are COMMUNISTS.

Re:MODULATE PARENT RATIO

[freyyr890]

If someone wants to reward and punish my children for me, they are COMMUNISTS.

In Soviet Russia... ah, forget it.

Re:MODULATE PARENT RATIO

[KDR_11k]

I thought we call those teachers?

Re:MODULATE PARENT RATIO

[drakaan]

You know what? There's an old saying: "It takes a village to raise a child"

Fat jokes aside, that's substantially true. It seems to me that before everyone went lawsuit-happy, other adults that didn't even *know* a kid would tell them to stop doing something (assuming they were being miscreants), and maybe even drag them home by the ear to their parents.

Now, we have one of the very first responses to an article about a guy that was worried about kids wasting too much time on video games and not enough on homework displaying an attitude that suggests that he not only doesn't have children, but that he doesn't give a crap about how any prospective children he might have will do in school.

I love that idea...of course, if my kids aren't getting good grades, they're usually doing a lot of homework and complaining that dad gets to play video games, but they have to do homework...

It probably doesn't make good business sense, especially in this day and age, for a manager to try and make that kind of decision on his own, and I have no problem with GameStop for firing him...social engineering isn't his job. I get that. On the other hand, if said manager opened a similar store nearby on his own, and with the same policy, I'd probably shop there instead of GameStop.

If you think this is a reward or punishment, you're nuts. And "socialists" would have made a lot more sense than "communists" in your bold declaration.

Re:MODULATE PARENT RATIO

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a stupid saying: "It takes a village to raise a child"

This is nothing but an excuse for bad parents not to do parenting. If parents were actually paying attention to what their children were doing, this kind of idiotic policy wouldn't be necessary. Instead, morons like you keep enabling the bad parenting and blaming their failures on everyone else. How about we stop taking our social clues from people who can't afford shoes and still cook their food in the dirt*? Lets stick with what made us the best in the first place: "It takes PARENTS to raise a child."

You're right about one thing: this is neither reward nor punishment. It is negative reinforcement, which is almost never a good idea.

*Yes, African villagers still cook food in dirt on top of hot coals.

Re:MODULATE PARENT RATIO

[drakaan]

This is nothing but an excuse for bad parents not to do parenting...

Assuming the parent thinks that everyone else should take care of their kid and they don't have to, sure.

...If parents were actually paying attention to what their children were doing, this kind of idiotic policy wouldn't be necessary...

First of all, that was half of my point. Second, I mentioned the fact that my kids wouldn't have a problem with it because if their grades aren't good, they're grounded from games and doing homework instead

...Instead, morons like you keep enabling the bad parenting and blaming their failures on everyone else. How about we stop taking our social clues from people who can't afford shoes and still cook their food in the dirt*?...

You're posting anonymously, so I can't *prove* by referencing any of your past posts that you better represent the level of intelligence you're tyring to label me with. Instead, I'll point out that you're ranting about shortcomings in my parenting ability while ignoring the fact that I've pointed out that I personally wouldn't let things get to the point where such a game-selling policy would affect my children. How about we stop blindly raving about what we think somebody might have said because we only paid attention to the first sentence or two and we're too busy waiting to click the "post anonymously" checkbox.

...Lets stick with what made us the best in the first place: "It takes PARENTS to raise a child."...

It does, indeed take parents to raise a child. In fact, I like that saying better. However, lets not say "not my problem" when we see other people's kids doing stupid things. Again, I don't think it was the manager's place to institute a policy like that. Again, I support GameStop's right to fire him, and again, if the guy opened a game store right down the block, I'd probably give him some of my business.

...You're right about one thing: this is neither reward nor punishment. It is negative reinforcement, which is almost never a good idea...

I take it you don't believe in grounding kids, then. I respect your difference of opinion...whoever you are.

Re:MODULATE PARENT RATIO

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who can't remember the latin:

i.e. = in explanation
e.g. = example given

Maybe not any easier, but that's how I keep them straight.

a good idea

[sentientbrendan]

although as others have mentioned a discount would probably be a better approach.

All in all

[Nazlfrag]

You're just another prick.

Err, brick in the wall that is.

No it isn't

[Rix]

If the president of GameStop weighed the loss in business from retarded children against a potential gain in business from pleased parents and decided to implement something like this, there would be no complaints from anyone that mattered. Provided, of course, that his analysis was correct and resulted in a net gain for GameStop.

Of course, anyone above mongoloid level who looked at this would realize the gross stupidity involved. GameStop isn't going to get any new business from this, and it's going to lose a lot from people who play too many games. Which is why this "manager" is (or was) working in a McJob.

Do you see any huts here?

[Rix]

Perhaps leather curing on racks? Hunters in loincloths returning with bits of mastodon?

No? That's because this isn't a village.

Re:Do you see any huts here?

[Anonymous Coward]

A village is determined by charter and size, not by technology.

Grades for Games, BULLSHIT!

[bronney]

Let's do a thought experiment, what if tomorrow ALL video/pc games are banned in the entire earth world, all games disappear, heck even casinos disappear. Are we supposed to see a rise in the average GPA?

There's nothing to prove that gaming is related to school grades so what this guy did might not even be "good" for anyone but himself in feeling "wow I did something to save the world". What a selfish bastard. I bet he got straight A's too when he's in school and land the job at GS. -- Sarcastic? It could also be true. Good grades in school don't guarantee a good job, duh. But that's OT.

How many of you guys knew of someone in college or high school that is just Ace, leet, they just score high no matter what they do? I know a few of them, and it really doesn't matter what they do during the day, they just score the exams and mid terms.

Re:Grades for Games, BULLSHIT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's do a thought experiment, what if tomorrow ALL video/pc games are banned in the entire earth world, all games disappear, heck even casinos disappear. Are we supposed to see a rise in the average GPA? What if they disappeared and then the next day they were told they would only reappear once the average GPA was 3.5. Would you thinkt hat would make a difference?

The guy had the right idea, unfortunately it's not his kids he is dealing with. As much as I would like to take a few brats and strip them of their games, it's not my place and nor is it his. I'll just have to settle for snapping one day and picking people off from a bell tower.

Re:Grades for Games, BULLSHIT!

[bronney]

Please choose razer mouse for sniping purposes. And please have your report card with you. :)

GREAT forum, LARGE cookout.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Because, after all, gamestop should be parenting rather than, oh, I don't know, the parents. If parents wants to let their kids play games all day instead of studying they're not exactly right, but more power to them. You can't force people to make the right decisions."

You can however get a forum who don't know the individual(s) to burn them at the "slash-stake" with little provocation.

Wait a minute....

[LittleGuy]

They're high-schoolers in 21st-Century America.

What makes them think they deserved to have the privilege to be considered 'consumers' like adults? /sarcasm off

That just wouldn't work

[pxc]

as someone who is in school right now and has pretty awful grades at the moment, this wouldn't encourage me to get my grades up at all. I know where my grades stand, and I know what I have to do to improve them. I'm working on doing that, and I don't need some jerk at gamestop to tell me that I need better grades. I'd just shop somewhere else, or not shop at all. Either way, it's Gamestop's loss.

Idiot Gets Fired, Corporate HQ Baffled

[Shihar]

There is a world of difference between being told that you can spend X dollars on charity, and deciding without consulting corporate HQ that you are going to pick out a class of customers and refuse to sell to them.

Look, the idea could have been genius. His policy might have resulted in increased sales because it made parents feel empowered and more likely to go buy from there. That still doesn't change the fact that unless you own the company, it isn't your place to make such a sweeping policy decisions as kicking out a portion of your shoppers because their grades suck.

This is more an issue of responsibility and trust than it is bad policy (which it probably also is). Even if his policy had resulted in increased local sales, it is still the sort of thing that you really need to check back with HQ about. There could very well be unintended consequences. Notably, some people could look at what he is doing and imply link between bad grades and video games. His store could be used as the poster child for some retarded crusading politician looking for a way to regulate on free speech (Romney and Hillary in particular have an ugly record in free speech). There are a whole host of things that made this a really bad idea. If he wanted to float the idea to corporate and take responsibility for a drop in sales, he would be in the clear. Deciding unilaterally to refuse to serve to certain customers? That will get you fired in just about any store, and rightfully so.

Nice sentiment, but...

[Coyoteold1]

Wouldn't a discount on a game, based on a report card, have been a better idea?

Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Oak Cliff is a very low economic area just outside of Dallas. There are quite a few after school programs there to help turn kids' lives around and keep them off the streets. You can blame the parents, but the truth is that they're both working two jobs to make ends meet or turning to crime. This guy has the right idea.

It's ironic. From the article: "Online blog and web comments have been largely negative but the community support has been overwhelmingly positive."

Outed as a plagiarist

[Anonymous Coward]

Great contribution! plagiarism is a form of flattery, however trying to swipe posting even from an AC is lame.

Re:Outed as a plagiarist

[Anonymous Coward]

"plagiarism is a form of flattery, however trying to swipe posting even from an AC is lame."

Great contri---ah, fuck it.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[servognome]

I believe that any reasonable person would consider achieving high grades in school as a good thing. They would also consider achieving poor grades as a bad thing.

There are many reasonable people who would believe that grades can be meaningless. Some people like myself prefer to challenge themselves to the breaking point. I learned more getting a "D" in algebra in 6th grade than I would have getting an "A" in arithmetic that everybody else was taking. Even in college I learned more failing Solid State Physics than if I took Intro to Astronomy.

When looking at your example we have to ask: Will most reasonable people believe that being married is good and unmarried is bad? Probably not, at least not in North America

What about states that refuse to recognize same sex marriages? The majority of reasonable people in the US are against such marriages, that doesn't mean that it is legally right to refuse to acknowledge them.

WTF?!

[i_b_don]

Look, when i send my kid to the store to buy a game for me, I expect him to come home with the game, not some store manager to give him crap about his grades!!!

d

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

But it was an admirable act.

No, it's not. One of the best things about the vendor-customer relationship is that it is essentially amoral. It's not the job of the seller to decide whether or not I'm "worthy" of purchasing their product.

This kind of bullshit would never fly with adults. What if the store asked for a letter from your manager that you're performing well at work? What if the food store asked for a doctor's note so that you could prove you're healthy enough to eat butter?

Isn't it cool that the people defending corporatism aren't as smart as those who can see that humans are more important than money?

Don't be so fucking righteous. This isn't about "humans vs. money". This is about the belief that it's not the place for a store to decide who is and is not an acceptable customer. Stores can't turn away customers based on race, religion, sexual orientation, handicap, or a wide variety of other categories. Why should we let them turn away people based on their grades?

Re:Bad idea - but here's why

[bilabrin]

WOW, everyone on this entire thread missed the point, namely, that he did not own that store. When you manage a Gamestop store, you do it the Gamestop way. Had that guy opened his own independent shop, more power to him. And frankly as a business strategy, it might get alot of business from parental support of his concept. He should apply for a startup loan and open up shop but, c'mon, I think we all saw the writing on the wall here.....it said "GameStop" in big red corporate letters. Nice try.

You have died. Game over player 1.

my 2 cents

[neuro88]

Okay, flat out denying sales to kids, because of bad grades is a bad idea.

Offering a discount to kids with good grades is a good idea.

So far a lot of slashdotters have stated the first, and many have stated the 2nd as a good idea (I think it's probably a good idea myself).

But what I haven't really seen is that denying sales to kids with bad grades might be a bad idea,
because bad grades are not necessarily an indicator of playing too many video games or being lazy.
My grades in high school were often bad (and at times very bad though sometimes I got pretty good grades),
because I hated being there so much. I hated all the busy work. I wasn't learning anything interesting
(I wasn't learning much at all), I was just being told what to do. It wasn't until college that I finally
realized why I did so bad in high school. I did pretty well at the junior college, and I'm currently doing
well pretty well at the university. Both of which are far more difficult academically-wise (my high school
before it was shut down was one of the worst performing schools in San Francisco).

So yeh, giving a discount to kids with good grades while neither rewarding nor punishing the kids who
didn't get good grades would have been a much smarter route to go.

Not their place.

[SanityInAnarchy]

If the parent brought in documentation saying that their kid had bad grades, and that it coincided with him playing more games, you might still have a case -- of course, correlation is not causation, but it'd be better than "Them video games be promotin' bad grades, y'hear?"

We haven't even decided whether games cause violence, let alone bad grades. I know, as a kid, that it wasn't the games -- take away the games, and I'd watch TV. Take that away, and I'd read a book. If I wasn't motivated to get the grades, I wouldn't, and the games just happened to be what was there.

What's more, grades aren't everything, as has been clearly shown in other posts. Take this guy as an example.

Oh, now that I've presented a valid argument (I think), here's a relevant strawman for you: Would you take away other toys? Say you've got a 3rd-grader who's not doing so well in math. Do you refuse to sell his parents a toy train set for Christmas?

If not, what makes video games especially bad?

There's the IF.

[SanityInAnarchy]

IF parents don't want a child to play a game, then by all means, involve the village. Have the parent go to that Gamestop with their child (or a photo of them, if the child won't come), and specifically ask the store not to sell any games to this particular kid without going through the parent first.

However, what this guy was doing was restraining the child not based on the wishes of the parent, but based on his own idea of what the child needs. It's not his place.

Burden's on him.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Burden's on the shopkeeper to show that the parent's out of line, as far as I'm concerned. Not the other way around.

Since when is getting grades even close to as important as not killing people?

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[tftp]

The question wasn't about marriage, but the implication of premarital sex.

And here lies the problem - what makes the pharmacist think that the customer would use the drug herself, as opposed to, say, buying the pills for her married friend? Or for herself because she is getting married tomorrow? Who are you [the pharmacist] to even ask those questions?

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[tftp]

Actually, the less the bosses say the less likely they are to be sued for wrongful dismissal.

All work

[Anonymous Coward]

... and no play makes Jack a dull boy.

Really?

[TheLink]

It depends a lot on what sort of power he has been given.

Was it a clear/obvious breach of Gamestop's corporate-wide policy? Is it clear that he has to go through with upper management for this? If it isn't, then maybe they should just look at sales figures after his policy. If it doesn't actually reduce sales and increases PR stuff, then it could be a good thing.

Otherwise, you tell him off, and retract (or get him to retract).

Suspension should be for cases like the UK pc world manager still refusing to fix the broken hinge because of Linux when the official announced stance was "Sorry, we were wrong, we'll fix it now".

Manager is not trying to parent

[merlinokos]

Both the summary and the article point out something that most of the /. community seem to be missing. The manager is not trying to do the parenting. He is not refusing to sell games to kids based on his own estimation of how they're doing in school. What he's done is very simple. If a school-aged child wants to buy a game, they have to bring their parents in to vouch for their grades. Therefore, if a parent knows that no matter how hard their child works in a particular area they will never get better than a C, they can say their child has acceptable grades. A different child who could earn an A, but is earning a C, could be told by their parents they are not getting acceptable grades. This guy was FORCING parents to be involved and to make decisions on 'good grades.' He wasn't doing ANY of the work for them, he was just insisting they vouchsafe the child's behavior.

The market decides Re:GREAT Business, GREAT sense

[rhyre417]

Let the marketplace decide. People (and parents) are free to buy from whatever merchant they want. There probably is a market for this, since parents will support this philosophy.
There are parents who buy music from Wal-mart, censored lyrics and all
If he has a committed group of parents/customers, that's enough to set up his own shop. And I'll bet he's looking for investors

Nice idea - bad execution

[KimmoV]

As a father of 2, I applaud the idea....just too bad about the execution of it... I agree with others that the discounts would've been better. To those who say that it is their right to do their shopping in that shop...yeah maybe so...but it's also your right not to shop there. You don't like the policies of the shop...don't go there. As far as the rights of the kids go, let's face it...the age-limit of 18 (to be considered adult)is there for a reason. They do not have enough life-experience to understand the value of education. Yes I know there are exceptions and I am sure some here will violently disagree with me, but hey...what do I know... As far as the comments about parents being responsible for the education of the kids, I agree...this is their responsibility. What's wrong with the business giving a hand in it? Just because you devise a program to encourage good grades in school is hardly them taking over the parental responsibilities! I think the store-owner should've checked with the owners first but the principle was fine I think. cheers, Kimmo

It takes a village to raise a child

[cherokee158]

Y'know, I think if someone conclusively proved video games caused global warming, the slashdot crowd would still be screaming about parental involvment while poo pooing any attempt by society to pry their bent little fingers from their joysticks.

And you guys wonder why many people think of the stuff as digital crack.

Face it, these things are going to be so immersive in less than twenty years that they'll have to be a controlled substance. Otherwise, when the apocalypse comes, no one is even going to notice until their controller stops working.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[SunTzuWarmaster]

I couldn't agree more. I used used to work at a restaurant and should be able to unilaterally infuse my views onto the consumer. Too fat? You may not purchase soda or fried foods. Too skiny? You may not purchase salads. This is for the good of society, whose will it is for me to decide.

Never mind that my manager disagrees with me. Never mind that the company disagrees with me. Never mind that it reduces sales. Never mind that it makes customers angry.

Let's review:
Employee does an act that is disagreed with my management, corporate, and customers. Employee is fired. Capitalism triumphs.

My take, FWIW

[argStyopa]

First, 2 points tactically:

1) From a pragmatic point of view: as a company, Gamestop should be free to sell to whomever they want. If the marketplace feels their decisions are arbitrary or unreasonable (for example if they were motivated by racism), the marketplace will tell Gamestop if this was a good idea or not - in a capitalist sense where good=profitable, not in a pure moral/ethical sense of "good".

2) From TFA this store manager made the choice himself, without even notifying Gamestop. Such is the life of a member of a franchise. If it was "Brandon Scott's Video Game Store" he could make these sorts of decisions and live with the consequences, but in this case he's a member of the 'Gamestop corporate identity' and thus beholden to them for decisions he makes which might impact the value of the brand name. Thus they have a right to make their OWN choice on whether they agree or not, whether they will support him or not, and whether he can continue, or not.

Then from a larger perspective:
I entirely agree with his position. He's a manager, and if he's responsible for his sales numbers, then he's culpable for the market consequences of his decision. I know that if he was in my area, I would immediately make his store my 'vendor of choice' for game purchases because I agree strongly with his policy. Others may not. At the end of the day, the dollars will decide if it was a good decision or bad decision, financially. But we cannot complain publicly about companies being 'faceless' and 'immoral' if we criticize them for occasionally TAKING a (to me, justifiable) moral stand, in this case regarding kids and games. His point holds: if you're not getting good grades, there are other things you should be spending your time on than GTA4.

Is that your parent's decision? Yes, it is. And if you don't like it, take your business elsewhere, buy your kid GTA4 and then you can b1tch all you want about how horrible the schools are because your precious little one is failing. But we'll all know who's really to blame, won't we?
(HINT: it isn't Mr. Scott.)

Reminds me of Spinal Tap

[Chriscypher]

It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever.
-David St. Hubbins

(when the crawling-naked-girl cover for the album "Smell The Glove" was universally decried as sexist)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088258/quotes

The guy is a genius

[plurgid]

Day after day, this guy has to sell games to little bastards who can barely read the package, and can't tell how much change they're owed.

How much money do you think a manager of a Game Stop makes?
I don't really know, but I'd venture to guess, magnitudes less than most of the IT professionals commenting in this thread.

What do you think the guy had to lose, really? Did he really think his corporate masters were going to stand for FEWER sales where they could have been MORE? Hell no!

This guy knew full well WTF he was doing, and it was absolutely brilliant.
He made his statement, and got his 15 minutes ... Game Stop will fire him, no doubt, but with any luck he'll land a sweet "gamer community correspondent" gig with CNN, or write a book or something.

If you've got to burn out of your just-barely-more-than-minimum-wage job, I can't think of a better way to do it, and with flourish, no less.

excellently played, sir. Bravo!

Re: Not Selling Games

[sudden.zero]

I think an even better plan would have been to give away free games to kids with good grades. The company would not have caught him as soon, because they wouldn't have been loosing sales they would just have been loosing inventory. It would take them at least until end of month inventory to figure it out, and then he would have provided an even bigger service to the gamer community by giving out free games!

Bad Grades, Different store

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had bad grades I would take my business elsewhere.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[Doc Ruby]

Yeah, of course that's the same as not selling videogames to kids with bad grades.

You should really look into what it means to have a conscience. Hint: it's not in your employee handbook.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[Doc Ruby]

Fuck you, asshole. One of the best things about having morals is that they don't get suspended for a buck.

Of course it would never fly with adults. Don't you realize that you've just introduced the change that makes it different? Children need adults to guide them - adults are mainly on their own, with all guidance voluntary (until they actually damage someone else).

You might have noticed that stores turn away children when they try to buy cigarettes and alcohol. This guy wasn't even withholding videogames from "children", but "children with bad grades".

It might not be consistent with corporate policy, but that does suck. Because a person's urge to protect children when their own parents won't, from something as negligible as videogames, is admirable.

You corporatists don't really understand being humane. You're begging to be replaced by machines.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[Doc Ruby]

If the corporation let children work 20 hour days in the mill, but you stopped them on their way to work and scared them away to go to school instead, you'd be admirable.

And fired.

But you'd still be admirable. It took a lot of people fighting (often literally) for a long time to make the government take over forcing children out of factories into schools. Corporate interests conflict with human interests - and often, in the longer term, with their own corporate interests (like an educated workforce). Human interests are more important. But often conflict with the way we run our economy. That sucks.

wrong

[everphilski]

I used to have university profs say "everyone starts with an A, it's yours to lose".

Except your profs were wrong. It's a cute saying, but you start out with 0/0 points, which is indeterminant. And the vast majority of my classes were graded on a curve (I'm an engineer, but I can count several electives that were curved as well... )

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[Doc Ruby]

I do. And you don't because you never lived in Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas or elsewhere in the Deep South.

Screw Gamestop

[Brew Bird]

I'm not buying there anymore.

Corporations claim to be all about profit. I can accept that. I WORK for a decent sized corp. But if you don't nurture and maintain the community your profiting from, before long there won't BE a community. This is an incredibly short sighted response. Most people understand you don't shat where you eat.

Those of you who want to whine about how 'it's the parents responsibility', go ahead. I happen to think this store manager is right on the money. He actually CARES about his customers, which is something that is sadly lacking at most layers of business these days.

That right there will get him more business and more REPEAT business than all the marketing dollars that trickle down to his store from corporate.

  I don't know where they learn it, but the lack of ethics, morality, or a sense of community consequences in the last 20 years or so of corporate history is just appalling. This is just one more example.

Power school, and the like

[RingDev]

My Dad was the Computer Coordinator for a multiple small town school district (roughly 300-400 per graduating class). When I went to school there, computers were the new thing. There were a few digital systems, but grades, attendance, reprimands, lunch money, etc... was all handled the old paper and pen way. Since I've graduated my Dad worked on implimenting a system called 'Power School'. All I can say is that if that system where in place when I was going to school... I would have been screwed. I would have had much better grades, but I would have been screwed. Grades, homework assignments, teachers notes, lunch money accounts, detentions, all sorts of goodies. And it is accessible to parents via a simple web log-on.

Gone are the days of cutting class to catch a movie, making out in the back of the US History class with that cute blond girl, or getting booted out of auto for ripping on your teachers car... Heck, I will be able to know what kind of trouble my kid gets into at work before I get home.

Unfortunately, I fear what adventures in life he might miss out on as there are good lessons to be learned from snubbing authority, good memories to be had of cute girls, and pride to be taken in knowing that your car will smoke your auto teacher's POS.

-Rick

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fuck you, asshole."

Exactly what I would have expected from you when you know you're wrong.

Attack because you're not smart enough to formulate an adult response, then justify it because you're not mature enough to accept that you're not smart enough to form an lucid reply.

Ah well, some of us grow up and then there are people like you who continue to argue like children

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[Supergood-ape]

"If the corporation let children work 20 hour days in the mill, but you stopped them on their way to work and scared them away to go to school instead, you'd be admirable."

If you can't make your case without resorting to a long illegal policy as your comparison, it says a lot about the lack of strength of your position and your inability to argue it intelligently.

So far, the only thing I see that sucks is your posting history.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[Doc Ruby]

The comparison is perfect. The reason child labor is illegal is that it was finally rejected over corporate interests after a very long time of people accepting it. Forced into the public conscience by people who violated corporate policy (and the previous law) to literally fight to stop it. Now those people who stood up are heroes. This guy's own stand is admirable in its lesser proportions.

Your only complaint about the argument is that it's been illegal a long time. Well, it was legal for a lot longer. You're so spoiled that you take for granted all the many people who stood up in the past against corporate policies to make your life so much easier.

Your ability to think abstractly, or understand how to use history as a comparison to the present, sucks. You probably played too many videogames, instead of paying attention in school.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[Doc Ruby]

And why should't I call an asshole an asshole, when they start posting at me cursing at me? Fuck you too.

I'm right. In addition to my completely justifiable "adult language", I pointed out exactly how. To which all you've got, Anonymous baby Coward, is to cry about bad language, ignoring the rest, even claiming it doesn't exist.

You're not even "arguing". You're just pulling the typical Anonymous Coward stunt of crying and denying. You need more adult supervision. I'm busy, so get lost kid, you bother me.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[Supergood-ape]

"The comparison is retarded"

FYP.

His mistake was refusing business...

[Midnight Thunder]

He wasn't forcing anyone to do anything. He was reserving his right to refuse business to anyone. He doesn't even need a reason.

His mistake was refusing business. Had he provided a discount for people with good grades, then chances are he would still have his job. The problem with refusing business is that people end up going elsewhere, where as providing an incentive for reduced cost doesn't prevent people handing over their money.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[Doc Ruby]

Thanks for proving you corporatists can't think through much if it isn't in your official employee sniveling manual.

Fuck you too, prick.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[Supergood-ape]

Thanks for proving you can't post without attacking the people you reply to.

See I was right. Again.

You're an idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Grades have nothing to do with anything. Its a measure of your willingness to submit to authority without question. While you average joes smugly talk about high school drop outs as if they are doomed to flip burgers, the smart people who saw what a waste of time high school was are making 6 figures and laughing at you. Slacking off back then had the consequence of giving me lots of time to learn instead of wasting my time repeating the teachers opinions back to them as though they were facts. Instead of learning about why Shakespeare hated women from crazy feminist teacher, and why the earth is only 6000 years old from absolutely fucking insane drafting teacher (where only 15% of your grade was based on drafting, and 85% was based on "attendance and classroom participation, ie not telling him he's full of shit), I got to read all those novels they wouldn't let you read in English (Animal Farm, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, etc, etc) and learn to program, and learn unix, and become a part time network admin/sysadmin, and even hang out and have fun playing video games (oh no!).

Note to dad: Uhm, you remember when I was a teenager and told you how school was a complete waste of my time, and you said "yes it is" and helped me to drop out and start working instead? Thanks, you were right. I would be stuck paying off student loans while making less than a quarter of what I make now if I had stayed in school like a drone.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[Doc Ruby]

No, you're wrong about everything. Sure, you might have expected I would attack you back, after you did nothing but attack me. So what? What does that prove, except that you're so stupid as to attack me, and stupid enough to think I shouldn't attack you back, and stupid enough that you can't even muster a meaningful statement about the subject that we (really just me alone) are arguing about?

Nothing. Wrong about everything. Put down the videogame and learn yourself some reality. Shithead.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[MBGMorden]

Congratulations on missing the point. The original poster wasn't saying that the pharmacist should be doing the above, he was presenting it as an example of the same equally inappropriate behavior as the Gamestop manager. Pharmacist shouldn't mess with birth control buyer because it's not his damn business; Gamestop manager shouldn't mess with game buyer because it's not his damn business. Clear enough?

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[Supergood-ape]

"No, you're wrong about everything"

Well, I think you're a pretty bright guy.

But as you say, I'm wrong about that.

Goodbye FLGS....

[rtechie]

People seem to be missing the real story here, which is about how Friendly Local Game Stores are a thing of the past. In the not-too-distant past this guy could have been running his own games store which could have chosen this sort of policy on it's own, regardless of lost sales.

Now all the FLGS have been eliminated by EBGames/Gamestop, who have a monopoly on video game stores in the USA. And these are bad people. Among other things, they blatantly ignore local laws by selling broken shit to kids and then refusing to accept returns.

I'm not that AC, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the lower level classes had straight percentages, so you got 80% or whatever and you had a B (almost all were 90/80/70 cutoffs, though a handful went lower and the D/F cutoff was often different).

The biggest 'curves' I saw were in the higher level classes, where no one would pass the thing if they didn't do some adjustments. I don't fully remember how they muddled things, but I remember getting horribly low scores like 30% on tests and coming out with a C somehow. I remember *high* scores of something like 50% on some tests, too.

Ironically, these were in MATH, where there was no arguing about whether the answer was right or wrong, even if you might get partial credit for using proper technique and just missing a minus sign or something. To be honest, I think my profs just played it by ear. I don't even know if they had a set way to do it, but I assume that they looked at the scores, made a cutoff just to the left of the "hump" (assuming the scores had a normal distribution) and passed everybody above there.

My understanding was that they were just looking for reasonable gaps in the scores and dividing it up in whatever way felt best to them. Mind you, they were only doing this because even the top student in the class would probably fail if they used standard 90/80/70 divisions.

My liberal arts classes, conversely, were almost always more rigorous (although I hardly did anything above sophomore level classes). One particular history class I took had a VERY harsh point scale. If you, say, flunked the first test badly enough, you could immediately know that you'd never be able to get more than, say, a C, even if you had perfect scores on everything else. Oh, and even attendance counted for points.

Strangely, I did much better in that class. Top score, plus the most extra credit he thought he'd ever given (293 natural + (10+5) extra credit out of 320, next closest was 289 or something, with no extra credit). Maybe I picked the wrong major? I aced those classes and barely made it through those in my major...

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[SunTzuWarmaster]

Myself and the previous poster share a similiar sentiment and upon both of us you have played the "you don't have a conscience"/"you are a jerk" argument, which is so faulty as to have a name. It is called ad hominem for the record.

However, how can you argue that I don't have a conscience? I said that I would withhold bad food from fat people such that they would not get fatter. This is a simliar case to withholding video games from distracted kids such that their distraction may stop hindering them. Just because it is a morally correct action doesn't mean that it has no consequences.

If you refuse to sell video games to *any* group of people that ordinarily buy them as an employee of a person/firm/corperation, you can expect to be fired. If you refuse to sell food to people on behalf of a food vendor, you can expect to be fired. If you let your animals roam free because you believe it wrong to cage them, that is your choice. If you let your neighbors dog outside because of the same beliefs, you can expect to be harrassed/arrested. Just because you beleive it to be a moral act doesn't make it right or free of consequence.

However, if you owned the store/firm/corperation/chain and wouldn't sell to kids with bad grades*, it would be a different story. Chuck'E'Cheese used to give me more tokens for good grades. Hell, you could impose almost any restriction on people (save race/religion) that would be encouraged by some and spoken out against by others. That would be your right though. If your employee did something like this though (which, for the sake of example, let's say that you disagreed with), you would likely urge him to stop. If he refused to stop (as I imagine there was a warning), the natural consequence is firing him.

Actions, whether moral or amoral, have consequences.

*just to mention it, there are many reasons to get bad grades that don't involve being a bad student (I always scored poor in gym, I've had teachers that hated me (and said so), I've actually had a teacher give me a D because she thought I forged something (went to the principle with no evidence, when I wasn't suspended she just told me I had failed the exam that she wouldn't let anyone see). Should these prevent me from buying video games with the money that I make at my part-time job (the last actually occured in high school)?

I have to wonder...

[Loligo]

If this guy had gotten better grades when HE was in school, would he be working at GameStop?

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[Doc Ruby]

When you demonstrate you lack conscience, I'll tell you. That wasn't an argument undermining your argument, but an appeal to your desire to be thought to have a conscience. When your character is in question, the "ad hominem" is relevant.

And yes, if you defy your corporate policy, you can expect to be fired. It still sucks when you're doing something small to protect children, even from themselves. When you're protecting adults from themselves, you're in an other moral space, which is much less defensible. If you required children to pass a fat or cholesterol test before selling them fattening foods, you'd probably be just as admirable.

Since you agree that the person setting the policy is less admirable for peddling videogames to kids who would be better off without them, you're saying this guy, at the retail end, is also responsible. Unless you think "just following orders" is a moral excuse - it's not. Even when you're just following orders to make more money, if it's at the expense of kids' education. And even if you can expect to be fired.

The sales guy, Brandon Scott, didn't say anything about his firing being "unjust" or "unexpected", or demand it back. All he said was that he's committed to his stand as the decent thing to do. That's admirable. Taking the hit for doing the right thing is a mark of a hero, even if just on such a small scale as this.

He wasn't hired to think

[Rix]

He was hired to shut the fuck up and follow instructions.

If he wants something better, he should get an education and a real job.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[geminidomino]

Work on your own.

Ask around in North America, and you'll also find plenty of people who have NO PROBLEM with premarital sex. Thus making it a contentious issue.

Outside of the rebel-without-a-clue teenager and the single-toothed "I don't need no fancy book learnin'" hayseed, GP was saying you'd be hard pressed to find someone who thinks getting BAD grades is better than getting good grades. Thus, it is less contentious.

Re:They can just say that they fired him for lack

[geminidomino]

Meh, the bosses could use the GP quote verbatim. The store was in texas, an at-will employment state.

Just a hunch...

[Luckymew]

Something tells me that 99% of the bad comments that was commented that he was getting for implementing the policy from blogs and from we comments was from kids that are doing cruddy in school anyway.

Why does everyone forget...

[geminidomino]

that that little nugget of "wisdom" was uttered by a homicidal maniac?

Then you support a pharmacists' "morality"

[the_skywise]

To refuse giving out contraception? Day after pills? Based on their morality?

Because, y'know

"One of the best things about having morals is that they don't get suspended for a buck."

Re:Then you support a pharmacists' "morality"

[Doc Ruby]

First, the guy is not serving adults, he's serving children.

Second, neither the videogame salesman nor I have said that he shouldn't expect to be fired. OTOH, the pharmacists who refuse to sell some drugs they don't like do refuse to be fired. And their corporate employers are not even threatening to fire them. Plus, pharmacists swear an oath to follow the law. Videogame salesmen do no such thing.

So your comparison is really not appropriate.

Tell you what. Instead of parsing to try to find words that will sound like they support the position you already have, like a lawyer, why don't you try just thinking about this guy like a person. Try thinking whether his asking kids to have grades before buying more videogames is something you think is admirable. Then let you conscience be your guide.

The worst part of this whole scenario is all the people not thinking about what is decent, but rather what the corporate rules would prefer. Sacrificing conscience to money, even on such a small issue of this, shows the price of the money.