Slashdot Mirror
AU R18+ Rating Plans Put On Hold Due To "Interest Groups"
Dexter Herbivore writes "Australian gamers are yet again left disappointed by their government's response to a lack of an R18+ rating for games. Gamespot reports that Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor has blamed 'interest groups' for swamping the public consultation with pro-R18+ submissions. From the article: 'A strong response from gamer groups in the Australian Federal Government's R18+ public consultation has led Censorship Ministers to claim that more views from the community are needed before a decision into the introduction of an R18+ classification for video games can be reached.'"
Reader UgLyPuNk adds that support for the new rating is coming from unexpected places.
I feel like this is never going to go through. One hurdle after another, it seems.
The Australian government is surprised that a public consultation regarding controversial laws specifically pertaining to gamers received a high degree of interest from said gamers? How can this be?!?!?!
"I’m not sure how the [Home Affairs] minister pigeonholes them as an 'interest group' because gamers cover all facets of society. If consultations, by their nature, attract submissions from people who are passionate about an issue--and I assume passionate in both opposition and support--then why bother? Surely the government asked for submissions to gauge the feeling of the wider community, of which gamers make up 68 percent,"
It sounds like the submissions didn't agree with the minister's pre-determined outcome .. just keep trying until you get what you want to hear.
58,589 submissions with 98.2% in support and it's still not enough?
It's not like a 100,000 lemmings can be wrong, after all. This isn't a vote, it's the making of submissions. How do you know that 98.1% of them aren't made up of the kind of invalid arguments we've heard from games industry in recent months?
Australian Catholic Bishops support R18+ rating
Well my goodness, now I have to actually read the damned article.
Hmm Hmm Hmm...
The Australian Catholic Bishops (ACB) state that their preferred position is that R 18+ material would not be available in Australia. However, as material is currently available despite its illegality, it would be preferable to introduce an R18+ classification category for computer games so that access to such material, particularly by children, can be restricted.
Yessss. If it's out there, instead of making it illegal, regulate it.
Next up, Australia legalizes pot! Come on Aussies!
Problem is, when other submissions processes for other topics yield such results there doesn't seem to be a problem but when the results of your submission process show an attitude which you don't want then it's a problem. It's hypocritical.
Let's see, the government is blaming people that are IN FAVOR of the 18+ rating for the government's lack of action regarding implementing the said rating.
The government is telling people that by voicing their opinions they are actually harming their own cause. I can't imagine a greater way of suppressing political dissent. I'd be surprised if this had anything to do with video games at all. More likely it's the government using this as an issue that many people are passionate about to try and start discouraging people from expressing their opinions.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
The problem is that the "yes" camp may have the raw numbers but those who are in "no" camp are a lot more politically important to the government (I dont know the views of Family First Senator Steve Fielding on this issue but given his religious views and his views on other issues, he almost certainly falls into the "no" camp)
Also, because most of the "yes" responses came from people at the extreme "yes" end of the scale (and so few came from more moderate people) the government is likely thinking that just because a bunch of gamers want R18+ doesn't mean that regular people support it.
Its an election year here in Australia, if the government goes ahead with something like R18+ without knowing which way the vast majority of the population leans on the issue, it could hit him at the next election.
This group includes everyone. Go on, browse the Net; you'll eventually find something that offends you so much you want it banned. Child porn, animal porn, Dissected-chan, Pain series, snuff films, real rape films... If you can imagine something, it's there, and someone's getting off on it; that's the dark side of Rule 34. And you, no matter what you believe, will eventually find your personal limits to what kind of tastes you can tolerate.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
It was a fairly cynical manipulation to generate nothing but numbers of responses in favour, rather than actually arguing for the R18+ rating. It was a submission process, not a survey.
If they hadn't responded in such numbers, then they would have dismissed it as a niche issue without support. If they groups do respond, then they abuse the system. Either way, it's the gamer's fault.
Gamers should have used the process in the way it was intended and the outcomes for them would have been better. Before the submission process was announced there simply was no debate, rather than get involved in the debate process that they asked for, they've ruined it by flooding it with worthless submissions.
They demonstrated that there is a real issue. All gamers are for it and almost 70% of Australians are gamers. You say the submissions are worthless. I'm curious how many of them you read. Odd that your complaint doesn't even match the complaints of those involved. They didn't complain about the quality of the submissions one bit. They asserted that because so many came from "gamer" organizations that the process may have left out other groups. Why do your complaints not match theirs? Is the article about it wrong, and you have all the right information? How is that? Or are you making up things?
"Consultations, by their nature, attract submissions from people who are passionate about the issue. Ministers would like to consider other legitimate views from as wide a cross section of the community as possible." That doesn't sound like they didn't like the quality of the submissions. But that they are worried that the vast majority of the people liking something wouldn't properly represent the issues of the tiny minority opposed (especially when it comes close to election time).
Learn to love Alaska
dude, it takes HOURS to play any really good game. If your child can play a video game that you don't want him to play, given the dynamics of gaming, I feel pretty confident saying that you are pretty unplugged.
Frankly, I think that, if you are asking for a government rating to stop store owners from selling such a thing to your kid because you can't be bothered to police it yourself... given how much time is involved in playing a game to begin with, then some scapegoating is definitely going on, but its not other people who need to stop it.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Lazy parents huh?
And how, exactly, is a parent supposed to know whether a given game is safe for little Jimmy to play? Play the first two levels themselves? Perhaps it's not until the fourth level that the dismemberment and graphic porn starts.
One rather simplified example of violent BS in a kid-appealing wrapper: Happy Tree Friends.
I fail to see how anyone could regard R18+ labels as anything other than a _good_ thing. If people want gore and smut, they can hunt those labels out. The rest of us can avoid them. Sounds like win-win.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Who the fuck did the government THINK was going to respond? And what the fuck did they expect them to say?
OF COURSE gamers are an "interest group" when it comes to legislation that relates to gaming. It is in their interest. By definition.
This is like putting legislation allowing gay marriage on hold because you suspect that it is being promoted too strongly by the "special interest group" of gay people who want to get married.
The difference is that for some people their level of tolerance ends at exactly the point where their personal tastes are offended. A puritanical person might see gay porn and say "eww... now ban it for corrupting morals!" A reasonable person sees gay porn and says "eww... I'd better not go to that website again."