Slashdot Mirror
Australian Attys General Agree in Principle on R18+
dotarray writes "In Adelaide today, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General was again unable to reach a unanimous decision on the topic of whether or not Australia should have an R18+ rating for video games." Nonetheless, the committee has reached a decision in principle to allow such a rating, with only one Attorney General having abstained from today's vote.
So now our governments stupidity has made world news. Pathetic.
You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
"We're in agreement that this should be done, but not that we should actually do it."
The New South Wales Attorney General claimed he had to discuss it in cabinet, despite the topic of discussion being known for months (years, in fact) beforehand. Bloody coward.
Fortunately, the Federal Government will over-rule the abstention by the coward, so we will finally get our R18+ rating.
I'm looking forward to a more rational rating system for games.
Now all we need is the death of the stupid ISP filter.
Australians are such a contradiction, relaxed and uptight at same time. It's a weird attitude we seem to inherited have inherited from the Brits. This insanity serves as an example of the unbearably slow pace of reform in this country, in a social environment that is changing quicker than most people realize.
The NSW Attorney General abstained because it hasn't been discussed in the NSW Parliament, despite (in his own words) "the issue being around for over 9 years".
I really do despise Conservatives that are unable to make a decisions without asking someone else. Why do you think you are in that position? It's because obviously people trust you to make the right decisions from time to time without having to go back and ask them all the time!!
Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
which is somewhat silly .. but this is Australia after all ..
Ratings may not be the whole story when it comes down to a game or movie's content, but the purpose of a rating is to restrict the sale of a product so that the proper authority (e.g. the parent) can make a final decision.
And I do support the state restricting the sale of a product to minors. While the authority on if the child watches or plays it rightfully belongs to a parent rather than the state, that authority also rightfully belongs to a parent rather than a retailer. Handing the retailer the authority to make that decision is pure idiocy since they are more likely to be motiated by money or apathy than the rights of the parent. Handing that authority to the state gives ratings legal standing, which self-regulation just doesn't have.
If this means that formerly banned video games are available to adults then i'm 100% for whatever will get Yahtzee his games legally.
From the rumblings I've been hearing, rather than adding a new R18+ rating about the MA15+ rating, what they may be intending to do is simply to change the current MA15+ rating into an R18+ rating. All the games currently ending up as refused classification because they go beyond what's allowed for the MA15+ rating would still be refused classification. Such a change would be fairly dangerous for our marketplace, I'd think. With the way the general public treats R ratings for film and TV, an R18+ sticker would be a death sentence to games that would have gotten an MA15+ before, where they would have expected good sales to teens. Under that kind of situation, we could potentially see games even more dramatically cut here in Australia, so they could scrape in with an M or even a PG rating.
what's the advantage of using atty instead of getty?