Slashdot Mirror
Red Cross Debates If Virtual Killing Violates International Humanitarian Law
Ron2K writes in with a story about a Red Cross committee that is debating if people playing war video games should be subject to the same humanitarian laws as people in a real war. Seriously. "With 62 billion kills in Call of Duty: Black Ops alone, a committee of the Red Cross is debating whether the International Humanitarian Law is applicable to online gamers, and if they are violating it. From the committee's site: 'While the Movement works vigorously to promote international humanitarian law worldwide, there is also an audience of approximately 600 million gamers who may be virtually violating International Humanitarian Law. Exactly how video games influence individuals is a hotly debated topic, but for the first time, Movement partners discussed our role and responsibility to take action against violations of this law in video games.' While it's questionable if gamers themselves can be prosecuted for not obeying the Geneva convention, the Red Cross committee's actions seem to be aimed more at game developers — as first person shooters become more realistic, do game developers have an obligation to include humanitarian elements?"
What's next, virtual animal rights activists?
I can almost here Jack Thompson weep for not thinking about this first.
What a complete load of shit. Just like the movies. Its not real. Are we going to start arresting actors who pretend to kill in movies ? Its a bunch of pixels changing color and has nothing to do with laws against HUMAN rights.
.... the Red Cross had real problems to solve.
To me it sounds like the Red Cross is upset about the *depiction* of *fictional* violations in games. I don't think they're saying that gamers are literally violating real-world laws.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
this is so funny i fell of my chair. some ppl are living in paralel reality...
We have enough reall problems without inventing them. This is wrong headed. Games are just a form of expression like books, movies, other art, etc. I don't think you can accept the premis here without also agreeing that sOmething should be done anytime a film is made or a story is written where someone violates the Geneva convention.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
In a related scandal, Electronic Arts is being investigated for the use of virtual steroids in its pro sports game line.
Firstly, this is a Daily Fail story - take with a large pinch of salt. As shown in the Leveson inquiry, they're happy to run "Organisation wants to ban something" story one day, then "Our campaign has forced organisation to back down" the next - despite no such banning effort happening. In addition, they do have a "anything invented after 1900 is suspicious" agenda. Secondly, if the Red Cross actually are debating this, perhaps it's in an effort to revise International Humanitarian Law to keep up with the times, inasmuch as International Humanitarian Law actually exists.
I feel like I'm being trolled by an international organisation. This could only be more retarded if they changed their name to The Retarded Cross. And issued the statement in crayon. With a five year-old spokestoddler fielding questions from the press.
Why are games that let you perform crimes so popular. Because it is fun to be the bad guy with no consequences.
When you play the evil character it helps the person unwind from a day of balancing things that need to get done and done right. Having mean people being mean but you cannot fight back. So you play a game where you kill as many people you like as a quick release. It is better then start drinking or smoking at the end of the day.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
as first person shooters become more realistic, do game developers have an obligation to include humanitarian elements?
i tell you that it is past time that they did ! i am gaming since 1986, and im telling you, i am about to puke war/carnage/slaughter/disaster and shit.
i really really fed up with games - one way its total carnage, mayhem, slaughter, killing, and the other way is stuff like sims 3/second life.
there is no middle area. its as if either carnage/mayhem or total opposite exists, if you view the world from games' perspective. TOTALLY unrealistic, and tiring.
so its high time they included humanitarian elements in games. and, humanitarian elements even in carnage/war/destruction games too. REALISM requires that.
Read radical news here
Does this mean I can get a couple of virtual Nobel Peace Prizes for the trillions of e-lives I saved playing Mass Effect?
Movies are much more realistic, why not start there first?
Lo and behold, for I am a sig!
This is the daily mail, pretty pointless reading anything they say about computer without a quick fact check. The wired article make more sense: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/video-games-war-crime/ Playing the game is not a war crime, using a realistic game to train soldiers who then go onto commit the crime in real life could mean the trainer is commiting one as well as the trainee.
Someone relatively high up in the Red Cross plays BF3 and is disgusted by spawn campers. That's not as crazy as it sounds, after all the Princess Diana campaign has already got rid of persistent mines!
In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
Sorry but electrons don't have human rights.
Haven't the RC got famines to deal with rather than being a trolling NGO?
So, do fiction writers, painters, etc also should be rounded up as war criminals if they create art that demonstrates acts of killing?
How far should we draw the line between the "real" and "not real"? What is the abstraction level that is needed for it to be "abstract enough to not be a violation"?
Is chess also violating? Killing the pawn, etc.
Go?
Angry Birds?
If virtual killing breaks a law, then there should be a virtual court, and a virtual sentencing (if guilty) and put the person in a virtual prison.
What they haven't addressed is... What if I kill someone in my imagination? Should I put myself in an imaginary prison?
Violence is begotten!
Pixels keep you awake!
They are not talking about prosecuting the real gamers if they violate laws or international treaties inside of a game.
They want game developers to include features in their games, that your game character has to face court martial if the gamer breaks laws or rules of engagement. So they want virtual consequenses for virtual crimes. Sounds fair enough for me.
RedShirt
Microsft spel chekar vor sail, worgs grate !!!
It's simulated armed conflict. You don't shoot unarmed civilians, everybody is armed. What happens when you die, you re spawn, so in essence you don't die. I think kids playing tag is inhumane. Same concept. Can't believe I RTFA, time that I will never get back.
It sounds like it is straight out of a South Park episode... More seriously, there is an interesting article about the brain and video games which touches on these issues in the last issue of Nature Reviews Neuroscience http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v12/n12/abs/nrn3135.html (subscription needed).
I was thinking about reading a fake news article on The Onion about pretending to kill a virtual opponent in a video game I haven't bought yet. Even worse, now I feel bad about unnecessarily killing imaginary castle guards and not completing Thief Deadly shadows in pure stealth mode.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
....nothing to see here. The Daily Mail is the UK newspaper equivalent of the televised Fox News in the U.S.....
Will I have to pay taxes for my house in Skyrim? Will I be charged with manslaughter for the Tamagochi I dropped years ago?
Technically murder is defined as one human being killing another.
Of course "virtual murder" is nothing like a real murder. But, the depictions in video games do shape our perception of the real world, as do other media (like movies). Most recent high-budget shooters aim to present modern warfare, but tend to show only the positive aspects (adventurous, exciting, etc.), while omitting all the pain and suffering that comes with it. Additionally they show only the very limited viewpoint of one (US) soldier, not the view of the other waring party or civilians.
In film, we'd call that a "pro-war film" or even "propaganda film", and it's right to criticize those games. (On the other hand, I have no problem with shooters like UnrealTournament or Quake3 – they don't aim to show how the war is, so they don't fail while doing so)
It would stop noobtubers and all those dicks using anti tank rockets on people.
Don't regulation of virtual killing require virtual laws?
If the Red Cross would like to purport their law applies to frags, (the technical term for a virtual kill), are they not declaring their law is essentially virtual and should not considered in real wars between nations? Are humanitarian laws even really considered in real wars, or is it an after the fact type of consideration designed to "bring justice" to oppressors?
Maybe even, are they declaring that real wars are actually games that few have the privilege to play?
In a bold and ingenious move, the Red Cross formed a committee to determine if fantasy needs to follow the same rules as reality. Separating reality and fantasy has become increasingly difficult. We've all been aware since the Harry Potter movies came out that something needed to be done. It's about time!
It's time we all stood up and stopped all the needless Avada Kedavra related deaths!
(For the next part, image me painted up like Mel Gibson in "Braveheart" and screaming for the proper effect)
WHO'S WITH ME?!?!?!
I'm sorry, this is just so far beyond ridiculous I'm left wondering if it's actually the first of April. It's a freaking VIDEO GAME. IT IS NOT REAL. Anything you do within the confines of a digital game simply can't be a crime.
Geneva convention? It's a video game people, honestly.
If you want to address a real crime in relation of Call of Duty, how about charging people 60$ for a bugged out multiplayer experience that allows players to cheat and use glitches to their advantage while never, EVER actually plugging the holes that make this possible.
Couldn't find anything on the actual website, and the Daily Fail is known for sensationalism.
If they're genuinely concerned that games are glorifying wart and especially the violence, and are suggesting developers might want to include a slightly more intelligent premise, I think they have a decent point.
they should seriously try to do this in game then go to the developer, I don't think it'd ever be possible to follow the geneva convention in games as they stand right now and complete them
Do they hold the same views towards the film makers and their industry?
Video games are just another form of entertainment.
If I execute `kill 1`, am I guilty of killing an entire population (of processes)?
Fucking idiots.
Probably sympathizers with the American democratic party.
And how much money are they spending on the committee debating this (non-)issue? With all the humanitarian need all over the world Red Cross is really lowering their credibility even considering this.
This is the daily mail, pretty pointless reading anything they say without a quick fact check FTFY
It's not about arrests. They're basically talking about using moral suasion.
It's just another element of the game.
I know it seems ludicrous on first thought, but it's actually quite reasonable. Reason: People are crying out for "realism" in games down to the last blade of grass.
Well, if you're going to have realism, I guess you'd need all the other stuff that comes in a war: not just America's Army and the Taliban, but also the Red Cross. In fact, for a multiplayer game, some people could be Red Cross personnel. And it makes perfect sense to deduct points for illegal kills (i.e., after someone has already surrendered to you).
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
It's not real. War films can contain horrible war crimes, as can books - it makes sense because it's not real and sometimes you need those things to produce a good story or retell an event (not that you need to have a reason to do something horrible to stuff that doesn't exist). Games are just another medium, why are people being so stupid?
-- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
I mean, now that they've given up trying to influence the people actually involved in war, and are going after nerds instead, who'll be next? Tabletop gamers? Magic the Gathering conventions?
OMG, I've just realised than in Civilisation, units get totally obliterated. Maybe they could press for the next version to feature mass graves, investigative journalists and an international virtual court?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Of course they should be prosecuted. Virtually.
So does distracting your Sim until they wet themselves now count as cruel and unusual punishment?
How about this:
We'll administer real punishments for fake crimes against real people
We'll administer fake punishments for fake crimes against fake people
Rambo going to Haag international court in 3.. 2.. 1..
Don't they have victims of real wars to take care of? Whoever is spending donation money on this idea should be the one going on trial for war crimes...
I apologize for the lack of a signature.
Crimethink
The article is extremely flimsy on the details - the only thing I can imagine worth discussing for the Red Cross, of all organizations, is: the red cross is an internationally protected and recognized symbol of protection and according to the convention's rules, medical personnel and vehicles with that sign may not be attacked and/or destroyed. In turn, the symbol may only be associated with medical care; under no circumstances are personnel or vehicles baring that symbol allowed to transport weapons or engage in active combat!
With video games and gamers surely not caring too much about that, maybe the Red Cross just wants to make sure the symbol isn't being abused anywhere, video games included?
"Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." - Mark Twain
Please realise that this story is published in a far-right newspaper originally started to publish the antisemitic views of Oswald Moseley. The Daily Mail is anti-government, anti-Europe, against socialised healthcare or indeed any form of social responsibility, and run by people known to be members of right-wing extremist groups.
If you're not white, English and a good tax-paying servant^Wcitizen, the Daily Mail hate you and want you jailed, deported, or dead.
Thanks, shame you can't fix my missing words and bad title....
Does this mean I'll get arrested from now on for cheating people out of money when playing Monopoly?
... would no doubt be swamped holding 600 million war crime law suits ...
Shouldn't they go after all those serial killers, car thieves and enemies of the state, who are playing GTA?
$(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
thus the ICRC should play the role of International Karma Police?
No. By this reasoning, the only reason a Goomba doesn't have "human rights" is that it doesn't look like a soldier.
They've already told game developers off for putting red crosses on medkits in games, which is why most new games they are green. Okay, the international treaties that govern that one are a little stupid too!
(n/t)
As a professional in the mental health field, I can assure you that actions in a video game (not real) do not have ANY impact on the real world. When Mario jumps and breaks a block with his fist, bricks do not rain over Chicago. When Sonic collects rings in Zone 1, Zales and Kay Jewelers do not lose any product. When Lil Mac defeated Iron Mike Tyson in Punch Out, the current heavyweight champ at the time did not lose his title. Seriously people... give it a rest. Video games are not evil. Video games provide a level of escapism that some people need to deal with the everyday stress of the real world. Stop trying to vilify them and start trying to understand them -- they're actually quite fun.
I hate to see the red cross used as a weapon... amnesty international, heh, even the salvation army fell into this satanic monstrosity... all weaponized against civilians during peace time.
One day in the far future we might have to worry about whether NPCs are sophisticated enough to be sentient. We might need legislation preventing the use of truly intelligent virtual entities as targets. Until then there's no worry.
Actually ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) conducts the war games in schools. Children are taught how to behave during a war and being a soldier. They learn about Geneva convention and other rules.
Why not in computer games?
The whole fucking article is clickbait. Read this one instead. They are basically debating what influence depicting armed conflicts witout adherence to international law can have on what people think about warfare. It's only the retarded journalists trying to make an upsetting story of something that absolutely isn't one just to drive traffic to their sorry excuses for news sites.
Football Odds
US Senate never ratified the International Criminal Court treaty, so it doesn't apply to US DoD. OTOH, I can see global condemnation and banning of violent video games coming as games become more and more realistic.
Let them try spending my virtual donations.
Did Jack Thompson become the new CEO of the Red Cross or something? Are people over there so bored that they have taken up whether blowing someone away through a game is a violation of the law?
It's only a game.
Obviously, all the pain and suffering in the world have been solved. Otherwise, the Red Cross wouldn't have time to waste on stupid shit like this.
Oh and how about Haiti - almost none of the money collected for Japan or Haiti actually went to those countries. In fact the only record I've ever seen was when they gave aid boxes to people who had been laid over at Tokyo Narita airport - yeah not disaster victims but people who were waiting for a flight. Check it out, read carefully: http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.1a019a978f421296e81ec89e43181aa0/?vgnextoid=f9efd2a1ac6ae210VgnVCM10000089f0870aRCRD . They even had the gall to claim the efforts of the Japanese Red Cross - which is a separate entity - was their own doing.
So this is what they spend their money on? Guess they need to justify paying their administrators somehow!
And this, my friends, is why international law is horseshit and we don't abide by it.
You got to wonder what happened to Slashdot when it so often presents a story from the Daily Mail as a serious subject. Nobody with an IQ over 100 reads that trash. It is not a newspaper, it drivel designed to sell ads by pulling in the less intelligent with outragous headlines they can rant over to each other and then forget about it. It is in its way brilliant, have the less intelligent rant about things that don't matter and often don't even exist and you can leave the running of the country to the 1%.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Virtual Life != Life, So by this logic if my Sim eat's a virtual meal then as the game player I should feel full?
They will lose their minds over all those 13 year old's...
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I can't wait to play Polio Vaccinator 2, over 60 hours of thrilling humanitarian work painstakingly realized in a virtual world. Enjoy all the sorrow and heartbreak of working with a large aid charity without any of the inconvenience, malaria or job satisfaction
If they agree that this is valid, then just thinking about robbing a bank is the same as actually doing it. Thoughtcrime, anyone?
One should think about this seriously. As a infantry combat veteran of the Vietnam war, I am sensitive to atrocities and Geneva Convention violations on both sides. The second piece of evidence is that games are a form of learning. Combat is a grizzly business. If you are not strong in your moral convictions then there are times when atrocities will happen. Remember My Lai? If we teach, through games, that atrocities are fun and OK, then what stops that from becoming the way wars are fought?
D. E. (Steve) Stevenson, Ph.D. Emeritus Associate Professor,School of Computing,Clemson University.
No. Next question.
Informatus Technologicus
Doesn't surprise me, but they should clean their own house before messing with others.
If they force battlefield game developers to insert Red Cross trucks and field hospitals
The last time someone inserted Red Cross insignia into a video game, the Red Cross slapped them with a cease and desist. A lot of games had their medkits revised to carry a red heart symbol instead of a red + sign for just this reason. Is the Red Cross trying to make its own tax on war games ("you must include our cause in your video game, and you must pay us for the privilege")?
You know, all that kicking a bucket in the game makes the bucket go bouncing around.
America's Army has your game END if you kill your drill sergeant in the game.
Ban this game: Its a sick, violent and racist game that cannot be played without a high body count. The whites versus the blacks in this war against race, but the people who make the game decided that whites are superior and must start with an advantage. There is a strong caste social system in the game and players are encouraged to happily send the poor people out to die so that the more wealthy characters are more likely to survive. The sick bastards who play this game never feel remorse with the violence. I tell you, speaking as a mother, this game is making our children into sociopaths. We must ban chess now!
Playing multiplayer with a shitty connection on a server located on the opposite side of the planet should definitely be considered a war crime.
video games are not permanent,you die, then respawn. if they start prosecuting gamers, i want respawn points in real life. its only fair!
Wow, another organization that will never see a dime in donations from me because they are incredibly stupid.
I'm the god damn dexter/hitler/jack the ripper/steal everything not nailed down/donald trump you could ever dream up in that game.
I kill for sport, I steal everything, I own everything they let me buy, and I have killed everyone in a few towns just because I think the nord race should be exterminated.
these lame ass stories.have there lame ass fragged after X number of said lameness.
Get up!
Modern Warfare 2 has that one mission where a character is allowed to kill civilians but required to refrain from speaking Russian. Russia required that the game's CIS publisher cut that mission.
Don't they have something better to do? Something in the realm of actual humanitarian activity...
Would 'virtual eating' feed hungry children in Africa? Didn't think so.
Slashdot: Where opinions are just opinions until you have mod points.
Next they are going to tell me that online poker is gambling and hentai is pornography, and that "Daily Mail" is real news.
What exactly that problem is depends on the game. Be it a puzzle in an Adventure, a resource shortage or a logistics problem in an economy sim or a RTS game or a physical confrontation in a FPS or beat'em up game.
Good point. Remember how Spore was five different games played sequentially as the player progressed? Perhaps the scene depicted in this XKCD strip is taken from the cut scene in the transition from the first-person-shooter phase to a phase of simulating one's daily peacetime business. There are plenty of games about solving a problem without any sort of war: SimCity, Aerobiz, Harvest Moon, Animal Crossing, Recettear, and more.
At what point did people loose the ability to tell between "make believe" and the real world?
Personally I'd prefer slow news days to be be just that. If there's little news to report, then report little news.
I'd rather be educated by few good articles that are worth reading (yes, I often read TFA) along with the interesting discussions that follow, than to spend my time skimming many poor and misleading articles trying to find the gems.
Why don't they convene Virtual International Criminal Tribunals, conduct Virtual Fact Finding Missions, issue Virtual Arrest Warrants and put these murderous bastards in Virtual Prison Cells in Virtual Hague. How'd you like not being able to respawn, camping motherfuckers?
Finally Second Life can be about something more than flying cocks. Something.. real. Something moral!
They're just mad because they got no game. I stab you fools!
I just don't know what to say. Are they telling me all those bits of information I have altered while killing things in games were real people? I never should have gone on those killing sprees....
Do the death of Mario mushrooms and turtles count at horrific death? I mean they are being squished and popped. And what about those cloud turtles, they're just doing their job sending spiked creatures after Mario. Does this make Mario the bad guy? And what humanitarian efforts are being done to protect the mushrooms and turtles of the gaming world.
I think the Red Cross is too narrow in it's scope of just targeting War games....
They are a little early (or perhaps late)
so ergo this is a stupid issue.
Don't forget the gender bias! The queen is obviously many times more capable than the very limited king but sacrificing her means nothing if the king survives.
every now and then, the Onion gets it right [about Gillette Fusion]
That and a slightly exaggerated article about the digital television transition, and an article about someone who doesn't own a TV that someone mentions in every single Slashdot article about cable TV or Internet VOD.
Insightful grants karma. Funny doesn't. So marking insightful rewards the writer.
I'd be inclined to suggest it is insightful, too; I can easily imagine a crowd of soccer mums getting upset about a racist game. If you were careful to avoid actually naming it, I reckon the movement to ban it would make an awful lot of headway.
The same idiot that hopefully has one point left to mod you troll?
lol!
there are games where you can do whatever you want, but cops will come if you break the law. that means the law is written into the game. I think they would like geneva conventions written into the game; and why not.
you guys always want realism. can't get more real than that.
Hahahaha..You really had me for a second. That was way to funny.
I have completely lost all respect for the Red Cross.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I've been donating to the red cross and I think I'm now going to find another charitable organisation that will put the funds to a better purpose than debate if I breaking human rights while playing cod. Everyone who plays online knows that they will be killed and that they will kill others but its just a game and everyone knows that as well. With all that said I thought they would go after tea-bagging in Halo first :)
So once again video games are under fire....And they want the developers to be more responsible....Time out; What is honestly more disgusting and influential(?), These scummy reality TV shows such as the Jersey Shore, and The Kardashians, etc, or a person confined to a closed virtual environment that causes no bodily harm and pales in comparison to real life events and aren't viewed as a life style such as the shows? Nothing should be censored, granted responsibility should be taken in all things, the actual influence of video games is ludicrous compared to that of reality TV shows. How many people do you see after playing a video game running off shooting someone etc? Now how many people started and do dress like guido/guidette morons and follow reality TV shows lifestyle with their own? All and all, its simple, its reality versus virtual reality.
62 billion in CoD? I'm sure that's nothing compared to CS.
WTF, insightful?! Come on, it's hilarious!
If this goes through, I'll have to exile myself from this dimension for fantastical bounty that's surely to be placed on my head.
So long as there are real people killing other real people, games will depict virtual people killing other virtual people.
Back in the day, I played the original Warcraft (when it was a 1 player game and not a MMPORG). I killed many orcs during my campaigns. Could I be tried for those "crimes"? Do non-human kills count? Also, what's the statute of limitations? This was over 10 years ago. Am I safe or should I have my online avatar flee to another virtual country for awhile?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
As I recall Ender was surprised to find out he was actually in a real battle, and spent the rest of his life making amends.
You say, "it's just a game." But, it's not just a game, it's also a story. And stories help us form our worldview and our culture, and we spend countless hours immersed in them. Do we want a culture built on stories of blowing up everything in sight for no good reason (too many to name, really), raping "ho's" and stealing their "shit" (GTA), or building a civilization? I'll take building a great civilization, thank you.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
...does this mean the end of Hollywood movies and books where people die?
Is the answer! The most realistic game possible, with absolutely no violence (if you're into things that are hard to eat)
Dear Mr./Ms./Mrs. Red Cross Busy Body - People, it’s a game. It’s always been a game and will always be a game. It doesn’t matter how good or realistic the graphics get, it’s a game! Get over it! People aren’t actually being killed. How in the name of Hades can the Geneva Convention be violated virtually or otherwise? This is some busy body trying to get violent games banned. Ok, so the next component of the video came will have to include a prisoner of war camp. Some players will have to be prison guards. I wonder what boring dreg of humanity will want to play that role. Although a virtual Sgt. Schultz would be mildly amusing for brief moment. Then, we’ll need some people to play Red Cross representatives to make sure that the prisoners of war are being treated fairly. In addition to that we’ll need some people to play the UN and monitor the whole thing. So the next thing crosses my mind. What will happen when little Jonny gets his character captured and thrown in the prisoner of war camp, and he then quits the game and goes off to dinner or bed? At that point his character dies by suicide in the POW camp. Think of the millions of virtual suicides there will be as a result of this. What is the UN going to do about that? Are they going to force little Jonny to stay online so his virtual character stays alive? Give me a break people. It’s a game. It’s entertainment, there are no laws being broken. Enough said. I’m going to have a Lewis Black moment with this one.
Someone higher up at the red cross is having an ego trip and trying to make the red cross stand for something it has no business talking about.
Since it is a preconceived notion, it is inevitable that they will determine that Virtual Killing Violates International Humanitarian Law.
They will act upon this. Look stupid to the public. And 2 months later walk awy from their stand with tail between legs.
The Bible is chuck full of human rights abuses not to mention war crimes. In some cases the war crimes it pictures are far worse than anything that happens today.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Final Fantasy games have this covered with white mages. They wear Red Cross colors (the distinctive white robes with red triangles are in use through most of the games), they are forbidden from wielding bladed weapons (their primary weapon is the club), and their major function in the games is as a medic and defensive specialist. Most other games also have some form of medic as well, but few people enjoy playing the medical team and it tends to be the "short straw" role that not everyone enjoys.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It could be fun to sail an RPG into a virtual red cross shelter in COD.
You assume of course that anyone gives a shit about their karma score on some website somewhere
No sooner do I get over one, then you put a better one right next to me. Bastards.
And it was not a moderation abuse either: an insightful remark doesn't lose it value because it was said in a witty manner.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
if by should they mean... in the games the red cross produces? Then yes, absolutely. In any game the red cross produces, especially any war game, players should be held to international standards of war. I can't wait... I bet its going to be a best seller. Maybe they could make it really realistic and have you only get caught if there is a camera nearby?
Maybe they could have a journalist babysitter mode where your team has an embedded journalist and does nothing but driving around missions, and is kept away from any real action.
This is just stupid. I agree, it is an avenue for providing a certain degree of realism and expanding plot lines, and probably has a place in some games, but...as an imposed requirement? Perhaps we should rename the King in chess to the President? Maybe pawns can no longer be attacked or attack?
I think they totally miss that people play games to blow off steam.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Given the way I play Spy versus enemy Medics, the Red Cross may want a word with me. Good thing I can turn invisible and stalk away. Wait, I can't? But I can in the game! Maybe that means this virtual combat is... imaginary? Nah, that's crazy, right?
White & male is carrying the burden for the rest of you slackers.
But we're rewarded by your whinging the rest of the day about how "the man" is "keepin' you down".
No, "the man" is "holding you up".
The fundamental error here is a confusion about what a virtual world is and how virtual worlds relate to the real world. A virtual game world must, to be worth the name, and to be worth entering, be like our world: a world with physics and freedom of individual action. Any restraints on action of the players must arise via social organization within that world. If the characters want to create laws and build prisons, or apply peer pressure to others, fine. But for the human beings running the game to reach in and impose what amount to magical constraints from the in-world point of view, such as striking characters dead every time they commit certain actions, is deeply wrong and undermines the whole business. It's worse than playing God.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
I thought Red Cross had a deal where UNICEF would have the REALLY stupid opinions. Will there be a stupidity escalation now? Today CoD, tomorrow Super Mario Bros!
/// Not a super-genius . . . yet. ///
Let's just solve this like the American government, by changing the definition of an enemy combatant. Add the word "virtual" in there somewhere and we can do whatever the f&*k we want in video games. Torture, imprisonment, etc.
Seriously these people need to have their heads examined.
"You're on my side and the dark side, like Lando Calrissian?" --Gimpy, Undergrads
If this goes through I may be the greatest war criminal in human history 8-(
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The Daily Mail is publishes almosthttp://games.slashdot.org/story/11/12/08/0425240/red-cross-debates-if-virtual-killing-violates-international-humanitarian-law# as much fiction as The Onion. It isn't even about biases - they do everything for a hook at all times. They make, say, Fox News or DU look like reputable sites.
...he said before tending to his virtual crops / fantasy world character / spaceship fleet.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Guess who's not going to donate to them.
... it is virtually violating a virtual international law. That is to say simulated (imaginary) killing violates a simulated (imaginary) law.
It's very simple.
And the minute they attempt to apply virtual sanctions to this virtually not-really-illegal act, they will discover lots of real players, companies, and nations ignoring their real idiocy in droves.
Sometimes you really do just have to say no...
rgb
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
Natural rights, individual liberty, and property rights. All tie together and are more or less the same thing. Nobody was harmed or killed from a video game, nobody's property was damaged or stolen. There is no crime, since there is nobody who was harmed to claim a grievance. Sorry, third parties have no legitimate case against anyone unless they were harmed by the loss of someone killed (spouse, employer, etc.). If the Red Cross pursues this, I will stop donating blood to them.
am I liable for rape?
Geneva convention will need LOT of update. What are the right of a Zombie ? What are right to aliens (good and bad) ? Vampire ?
Now the only good thing that come from this is maybe even more realist game in the full army simulation games, where you might be virtually prosecuted for doing something bad. But if we apply the Geneva conventions...
Heu wait a min... Ain't game virtual and no one actually get hurt (except feeling sometime) ?
... who aid and abet the Taliban. "War crimes" my ass.
It is just idiotic that they are wasting time on this issue with such serious issues that actually do need addressing... Red Cross-painting a public opinion target that will lower donations. Good job! What is next? Violations of the law when no law is broken? Oh, wait ...
These idiots have tempted me to break into the video game industry to create a game where the player is rewarded for breaking the Geneva Convention and punished for following it. Just to spite these fucking idiots.
Not to mention that the pawns can achieve a promotion to any level through hard work and accomplishment, which we know is a lie put forth by bourgeoisie capitalists.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Maybe speeding will get you fined, even the games where you play the hero, people invariably 'break the law' whether it be from speeding, accidentally shooting the wrong person, etc. I know in the last GTA you could drive drunk and MADD tried to have the game banned or modified to not allow that, but if you actually tried driving under the influence in the game it wasn't fun at all. Might even prevent some from trying it.
What about movies like Saw? Texas Chainsaw Massacre? Or any wartime movie depicting chemical warfare or movie which someone unleashes some sort of chemical weapon/plague on the population and wipes everyone out? I mean hey, those were people too. And now they've caught a case of zombie because some madman instigating the situation.
Once you start applying real well intentioned laws to pretend situations, where do you draw the line?
This whole idea has to be nothing more than a quick grab for attention to remind everyone that the Red Cross is still out there and accepting donations.
Oh virtual jesus, dead avatars everywhere! Oh the avatarnage! Oh the avatarity! We must DOooOoOooOoooOOoOO something to save all these non-lives and stop all this senseless pretending!
Everyone agrees that the headline is sensationalist and basically fiction. And, of course, the /. summary is based on the headline.
But the article actually makes some sense:
The Red Cross doesn't prosecute war criminals. They see war as an opportunity to do what they are trained to do -- provide medical help, and assist refugees.
They aren't against gaming. They see that gaming is becoming closer and closer to real life, yet the part that they play in war is not represented. Can "assisting refugees" ever be present in a way that would be fun? It seems like a hard sell, but possible.
If a game did focus on that part of the war, it could also focus on other war-related issues, such as determining what actions in the game could be considered violation of human rights. The Red Cross probably had someone write this up as an idea, and then the Dailymail got ahold of it, and wrote a sensationalist article.
Free unix account: freeshell.org
I'd be all for a greater reality component. If you shoot civilians rendering aid and wikileaks releases the video, you might get in some sort of trouble, though probably not. No leaked video and you can do pretty much what you like.
...for the genocide of Creepers that I committed in Minecraft
/. please, please, please stop using stories from the daily mail.
This story is FALSE. Just like almost EVERY OTHER story from the mail. Stop.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/game-on-red-cross-says-players-of-combat-simulations-wont-face-war-crimes-prosecution/2011/12/08/gIQAivwAfO_story.html
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sometimes the brilliance of a post is in the underlying meaning of the text. In this case, it seems that the moderator was somebody who understands irony and that a particular slant can be applied to almost anything, video-game or otherwise. This is similar to the old gags in trying to ban dihydrogen monoxide.
As described, chess does seem to fit the description nicely. White VS black. Whites start first. Pawns are sacrificed to protect a queen/king. etc
If somebody said that books about war should include humanitarian measures, people would cry out against censorship. For whatever reason, games are an easy target for censors and narrow-minded people.
What about games that take place in the future, in space, where such laws might not exist. What about games that take place in the past before such laws?
This makes much more sense. The daily mail story is outrageous, like an April's fools joke.
In those cases, the parameters are set by the armed forces ordering the simulations, including penalties for simulated Geneva Convention violations if desired.
Thoughtcrime is bad
Again, Slashdot really will print anything. The Daily Heil has a excuse - Slashdot doesn't.
Next week - why watching Terminator 2 means you value machines more than people.
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/08/4108979/red-cross-gamers-safe-from-war.html
TLDR version - you're idiots for falling for this
Lookin' for a Crusade....
Replace game with movie or book. Replace player with reader/author and/or director/viewer.
Does your committee still sound like a good idea?
I find being offended by me offensive.
All right Red Cross we'll add your humanitarian efforts into the game. How about we give the gamers 100 million fake dollars to buy aid, but everytime they get that money say after every mission 90+ million of it gets taken for administrative costs another 2 or 3 million goes to pay of leaders in the area in question to allow the red cross there and then the remaining 7 or 8 million can buy food and water to be doled out to those remaining. Of course after the money is spent there is a 6 month processing time that plays out real time in the game. Of course gamers will also have to have the ability to misappropriate that money to their families, big business and their own pockets. Does that sound real enough?
So when a driving simulator (classroom version) is used to teach kids to drive, anything those kids do in the future while driving should be a direct reflection of the simulator, it's designer and the teacher. Your argument is specious,
Thanks for explaining it bro.
Which online games let you manage a virtual spaceship fleet instead of just one ship?
Do game developers have an obligation to include humanitarian elements? See above.
http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/362/a/c/facehoof__twilight_sparkle_by_atomicgreymon-d35wxoo.jpg
"...do game developers have an obligation to include humanitarian elements?"
Well, I don't know, you tell me. How many "humanitarian elements" are present in the real-world activities that the game emulates?
Nothing against the fine men and women who make up our special forces teams in the various branches of service, but they have a job to do, and it ain't making donuts with pink sprinkles. When you try and accurately portray that particular element of combat, don't expect it to be pretty.
I kill all the red cross people I see in video games, so this has no bearing on my online activities because in my virtual reality they no longer exist.
EVE lets you manage fleets but you can only *pilot* one ship.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
...for the day when Judges tell these people, "Will you do something productive and stop wasting the resources of the court, the people, and the government? Case dismissed with prejudice."
Someone from the IRC must have watched the movie "Toys" recently, when the general goes after the red cross trucks in the video game. With all the people that are in desperate need of help, why does the IRC consider this even something they should be concerned with at all?
Agreed. Just like the famous junk science of "Dihydrogen Monoxide" or "Hydrogen Hydroxide" being an extremely fatal and yet widely used chemical compound. Sensationalism appeals to emotion, and once you get that going... well, people like to think they're still right even when proven wrong.
What's next ...
Your virtual character is virtually arrested and gets a virtual trial in a virtual hague.
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/faq/ihl-video-games-faq-2011-12-08.htm
It is a cultural issue. But it's global, too. Yes, you do care whether dictators' kids are exposed to these behaviors in games because you don't know who the next Gaddaffi is. Could be sitting across the room right now.
D. E. (Steve) Stevenson, Ph.D. Emeritus Associate Professor,School of Computing,Clemson University.
While you ponder that, go hide your plastic army men, too.
I think, with all the suffering in the real world, we and the Red Cross should focus on the living first and when no one dies of hunger, AIDS, wars, genocide, etc... then, we can start tackling the virtual worlds...
See here
We'll make the sanctions virtual, too. We can put the UN in charge of them.
JADBP
This is literally the stupidest thing I have ever read on the internet. And I read /. a lot.
FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS
Plus the serious delving into the Dark Arts--players coming back to life?!?
Twelve-and-three-quarter inches. Unyielding. This wand belonged to Bellatrix Lestrange.
The case study for this type of thing is the ban dihydrogen monoxide movement.
open source modern art: laser taggi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI
Warren
killall firefox
And it encourages sex changes!
Absolutely disgusting.
... good to see that Slashdot has (finally) stopped using the Red Cross symbol for medical stories.
If this was already posted, and I missed it, apologies. Apparently, the Daily Mail story is crap (whoda thunk?): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20111208/eu-red-cross-video-games/
Well, it virtually violates the virtual-human rights, absolutely.
I fail to see what real humans have to do with it, though.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
This is just an attempt by the Red Cross to be put into Video Games in order to garner more publicity and donations. They want to be included in games to be the "Humanitarian Experience." When some kils 100+ People then the Red Cross swoops in, sets up tents and flies in much needed medical supplies. DO NOT SHOOT THEM IF THEY HAVE A RED CROSS ON THEIR TENT OR PERSON!!!!
LOL
"I think you know what I'm talkin' about, Mr. President; We're gonna kill us a mummy!" - Bruce Campbell as Elvis Presley
What law did they break? Right, none. Fuck off.
So at the moment I'm playing through a Japan campaign in Victoria 2, which is Paradox's pseudo-realtime complex conquest and development game simulating from 1836-1936. The Brits obviously start the game with a huge advantage (as do the other European powers) and indeed, Japan starts as an uncivilized nation, with major penalties to research and the inability to industrialize among other things. There is however, a path to becoming civilized (which Japan can do through the Meiji restoration decision) and indeed by 1878, I'm in a war with my allies France and (uncivilized) China against Great Britain and the North German federation in an attempt to take Northern India. In this war, about 2.5 million men are fighting on either side, and there will be about 3 million dead (mostly through the British and Chinese armies marching over the Himalayas) by the time the war is over.
In Victoria 2, each soldier is a member of an individual 'pop' living in a certain province, and having its own needs, incomes and political positions. In this war, there are many conscripted regiments who belong to specific 'poor strata' pops of jobs such as farmers, laborers and craftsmen (which I will note, separate men of working/fighting age from women and other parts of the population). Each death on the battle field decreases the size of the 'pop' by the same number of men. Also, I've enacted policies of minority building restrictions, and a discriminatory schooling system to speed assimilation.
By this rationale, aren't I doing worse (in both war and peace) in a single playing session than all the Call of Duty players can do in a similar session combined?
Hey, I'd love to have played Call of Duty without having to kill anyone, but I was surrounded by a bunch of people who were constantly trying to kill me, so I had no choice but to defend myself. It was kill or be killed. I have the right to defend myself, don't I?
It takes a lifetime to know which charities spend your money well and which waste money so their staff get wealthy. Thanks Red Cross for letting me know to redirect my charity money elsewhere.
And the the only 2 women in the game are also the most dangerous pieces, killing brave men left and right.
Much of military training is conditioning soldiers to be able to follow orders unquestioningly even when it means the death of enemy or compatriots, something they wouldn't naturally do and would be considered murder outside a battlefield. It wouldn't be the least bit surprising for a military to use games in that process, but the concept is thousands of years old. The basic issue is not the tools used for this training but the utter cognitive dissonance it's designed to overcome. This episode from Gwynne Dyer's 1983 documentary "War" explains it very well.
I know I'm gonna get totally reamed for this, but I don't think they're entirely nuts for suggesting this, whether or not the story was fabricated. I used to play a lot of first person shooters, and then I tried to distance myself from games all together because I legitimately felt they were using up too much of my time.
Now, years later, as I look back on the activity of holding a virtual gun and making a virtual kill, it occurs to me that I must have symbolically killed thousands. I really do think that activities like that can get to you after you've been immersed in them long enough.
I'm not saying that gamers should be put on the same level as war criminals or murderers, but would a little moderation hurt? Not to sound too idealistic, but I really do believe that our actions, no matter how small or insignificant, eventually come back to us. We shape our minds with what we do and the seeds we plant can eventually take root in ways we might not realize.
Now, flamers commence!
What next? Do I have to pass a plumbing certification to play Mario Bros?
On reading the synopsis, the first phrase that entered my head is "thought crime".
I wonder how far this will go. Virtual animal rights have already been discussed... I suppose the case can be made that virtual aliens have rights too...
This of course will cross over into movies and TV shows, which won't be allowed to show behavior that violates humanitarian laws. (Hawaii 50 will be off the air...) And fiction, of course. A lot of thriller authors are out of a job.
Oh, fer cryin' out loud. I can't even write that with a straight face. Can someone please explain to these clowns that it's just BITS ON A SCREEN?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I still find it interesting that in most RTS games, it is fine to massacre the peons of the enemy, while our modern military learns that this is not supposed to happen.
I think Cossacks: European Wars was the exception, where peons and farms would actually convert to your side if no enemy military unit was near them.
Some outer space conquest games penalize you by harming your relations to other players that is AI if you use biologic warfare. So the concept is not totally unheard of in games.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
There are billions of computer-generated data objects displaying animated death sequences! Clearly, this is at least as important as the actual and rampant abuses of human rights going on throughout the world!
Since sarcasm might not be enough: Whoever wrote this piece is an inconsiderate idiot and should consider the perspective of real victims of genocide, oppression and torture before comparing their situation to a game.
I would take this article with a very large grain of salt. The article vaguely names a "committee" of the Red Cross as the source of the story, but does not provide any links. The Daily Mail is known for making up silly bullshit.
I'm sure it's already been said. TLDR. But how on earth did this even come up for debate? There are issues out there that actually need attention, such as daily and brutal gang rapes in Africa or families that should be able to publicly acknowledge that fact. Why not do something about that so REAL LIFE people don't have to suffer instead of worrying about bits and bots that couldn't care less. Why couldn't they? Because they have no sense of self, the world, or emotion!
My actions in Skyrim are alerady checked by the various in-game law enforcement units, so I'm confident that this won't affect me...unless I'll get reamed over genocide in Civilization?!?
Di-hydrogen monoxide, anyone?
I'm a donating member of the Democratic party and liberal...
And this is the kind of nonsense that gives liberals a bad name.
It's kinda amusing that Red Cross would pursue this kind of thing. Of course, there are those rare gamers that suddenly decide to go kill everybody in the world (never really heard of one before) but they'd have a better chance of stopping violence by finding domestic abusers. Idk, just thinking that that would be more useful.
The crack in the wall that leads to this nonsense is the idea that cartoons or depictions of characters who are of legal age but give the illusion of being under age may be a crime. Once that nonsense crept into law it was only a matter of time before efforts began to place bans on all kinds of computer generated entertainment. The real crime is the ongoing waste of tax dollars on this nonsense.
US Senate never ratified the International Criminal Court treaty, so it doesn't apply to US DoD.
And nonsense like that described in this article is part of the reason why.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
There isn't enough REAL killing going on in the world that they have time to go after gamers?
I'd say that gaming is a lot like pro sports... it provides a non-harmful outlet for aggression.
Idiots.
Check your premises.
The Hague Tribunal and ICC is running out of things to do. By allowing people to be sentenced to death in real life for having too many 'kills' in an online game, that is exactly what the world needs.
With these garbage articles. If this continues I will just quit reading this site.
Their "reporting" and slants can even make Mother Teresa appear as a devil.
Oops, you made a typo. Here 's the corrected version:
Their "reporting" and slants can even make Mother Teresa appear as a saint.
Just go the Call of Duty Route and have a prompt at game start to disable offensive content. It could turn all humanoid targets into low poly count giant spiders.
The poor people are also crippled, given that they can only move one space at a time, and only forwards.
Video games have a lot of choice with regards to the enemies it provides. Have any of the game companies done a serious study to find that we do or do not prefer to encounter artificial humans instead of say artificial aliens, monsters or demons.
What part of making the in game 'enemy' look realistically like humans that exist today is positive?
The tactics employed by the AI is not being written by those the AI represents, so there is no learning about the people the AI is representing.
The landscapes that are used can add a lot to a game as they have been able to quantify them to a level of detail that would allow one to visit such places and remember a time when they played in a similar environment.
The same cannot be said about the AI. So are they demonising them by only showing a small subset of interactions available with the real thing?
If lynching someone for the colour of their skin is not okay in a video game why is killing someone for the colour of their skin in new ways a regularly celebrated event?
-Justin Perreault
Do not forget the animated buildings! If that's not occult then what is?
... as long as the red cross trials and accusations will also be built into the game.
Now, under the new rules, every wave of Space Invaders involves you taking the last, overmatched invader prisoner, and giving him cookies at your base.
He's still just as hard to catch, though.
Now that people can be prosecuted for child porn for having hentai that features characters that are very young looking having sex, the next natural step is to give other human rights to drawings and animations.
I could see gamers taking this in the complete opposite direction that the Red Cross is wanting... I'm hearing the Halo multiplayer voice-over saying: Double Kill... Killing Spree... Killtacular... War Criminal.... Or I could see the game developers appeasing them by having you watch a cut-scene of being drug before the Hague War Crimes court after you call in a Nuke in Modern Warfare.
~theCzar
What about Checkers? As a mother myself, I believe that we shouldn't allow racism between red and black, either. I mean, they are both minorities trying to king each other like it was some sort of female homosexual killing game. I do not condone this behavior for my children or anybody else for that matter. Nor are they allowed to watch movies like Good Burger, because you know there are racist connotations there as well.
"Red Cross Debates If Virtual Killing Violates International Humanitarian Law"
surely this only applies if your forced to report to the dis-integrator beam station within 24 hours!
Are they retarded???? Are they????