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
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.
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.
Does this mean I can get a couple of virtual Nobel Peace Prizes for the trillions of e-lives I saved playing Mass Effect?
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.
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)
Wait, The Sims is in the butterflies and sunshine camp? I spent my childhood creating mass graves with manners of death to match any B-Grade slasher flick
Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
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
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.
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
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!
Picture the alternative where we live in a world where people arrive at adulthood and have no concept of war (from movies, games or other media) but, inevitably, it still occurs in the world. 10,000,000 dead is now just a number to them. They can't fight when they are called up because they have no concept of what will happen to them and are too shocked when it does. They don't understand why the Nazis were so bad because "they only killed X amount of people".
It's already happening today. A single soldier killed in Afghanistan can make front-page news, but people have no concept of how many died in the world wars, or how many are dying in Afghanistan that those soldiers were trying to protect.
That's just as bad, and extreme, an alternative as a world where we teach them that "atrocities are fun" and, as with everything, a middle-ground is required. That middle ground would not involve pretending these things don't exist OR encouraging players to commit virtual atrocities (which I've NEVER seen a game do).
When I went to a former-concentration camp in Germany, there was an uncensored video playing of bodies being thrown and pushed by tractor into a pit. Thousands of limp, lifeless bodies being manhandled like someone creating a landfill. It's probably the most scary and horrible thing I've ever seen (and never once has a major motion picture or video game disturbed me or made me wince). And it was playing, quite openly, in the place that they take school trips through. *That's* education, and that's more important than anything.
As soon as you start pretending to people that these things don't exist, that's when you start making them live in dreamworlds that will distance them from reality, make them lack understanding and inevitably shatter one day. You don't need to shove war crimes down their throats (I don't know of any video game that lets you imprison and torture foreign "combatants", without charge, totally against things like the Geneva Convention for decades and get away with it), but equally you should never pretend they don't happen.
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 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.
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.
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.
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?