what is wrong with sex anyway? Is it corrupting? I mean, as an adult, do you feel you need to struggle against dark forces whenever 'its on'? What exactly is wrong with a 10 year old seeing a *OMG* vagina? Oh wait, you said it 'it jut nod riuurght!!!111!!'. I guess that justifies giving the freaking government (! never trust your government, don't you people remember anything?) control over media content.
I shouldn't shop there? I should shop where ever the hell I want! And I should be able to buy whatever I want and the retailer be able to sell whatever they want to carry. Its a little thing called liberty, people died over it. Where in this equation is the single responsible variable, the parents? THEY should regulate what their kids get to see and not see.
Lets make parents care for their childs past time. The set up a classification board, staffed by people who actually know how to raise kids, that you have to go to every year to keep your 'parent' status.
I hope you are not also a supporter of the income tax. That would put you in a spot full of contradictions...
PS: The principle of "if you don't play by our rules, we'll play by yours" actually would allow for such treatment, provided that the one receiving it has treated someone else in that way (or comparable) beforehand. Its quite a usefull framework, permitting the death penatly (indeed penalties period) while still guranteeing rights to those that acually respect them in others.
While I think that you are mostly correct I wouldn't make this about rich and poor. Seriously, people that are willing to invest in a game that is as time consuming as an MMORPG do probably not have to work two jobs. Also, consider the 40$ price of the box and the 10$ subscription (WoW). A better way, in my opnion, to think of this is Archivers vs. Buyers. Many people complaining about this could probably afford the money to buy that uber char or item effordlessly but it just wouldn't be the same. And their fun would be spoiled by knowing that the status symbol (char or item) needn't be worked for in-game.
I wasn't aware of those rules. Of course, this changes the situtation. Well, the problem with dishonor as I see it are the vast number of exploits that come to mind, regardless the model that is brought up. I guess they (blizzard) went a little overboard when accepting what surely was just a concept for the manual. The underlying issue is probably that computers are not quite fit to distribute justice and this is what any dishonor system would be about.
yes, obviously people that went on PVP servers *because* of the rules should yield to ones that moved there *despite* them. That seems perfectly just. What do I care for your guild?
well, giving people better things to do is definatly a discouragement. Think about it, the 'fun' in ganking lowbies can't last that long. Status and reward does. You only get it through 'fair' PvP. As with leveling, a competition will ensue where everyone that wants to play on top needs to partition their time carefully (to much PVP and you'd fall behind in leveling ie.). Many gankers interested in reward-based pvp just won't find the time to do a lot of ganking any more.
This is the correct answer. Dishonor in connection with human players is impossible. If introduced, such a system would cause even more mischief due to the various exploits that just can't be avoided. Killing a lowbe is solitary 'fun', even the biggest asshole won't assume that he won bragging rights for that. On the other hand, it's quite possible for 5 -11 players to kill one guy. To 'show them high lvls' is much more rewarding than what grieving could possibly do for you. There just is no way to do this right. As an example: Yesterday 5 of us (lvl ~39) tried killing a lvl 50 Ork NPC. A troll lvl 54 came along and naturally kicked our asses for attacking his faction. Everyone would agree that the guy was well within his right to do this but with dishonor points he would have been punished.
You are worried that playing GTA is encouraging more unreported crime at the expense of reported crime? Did you really just say that a game teaches kids to not be in view of a cop when commiting a crime? Wow. I didn't realize that kids nowadays are brain damaged.
its not about the argument. Company == money == root of all evil. Its just as well to hold them to way higher standards than the rest of society and make them responsible for things they can not fix.
yeah, you know those protesters are really the peaceful crowd. What with all the looting and storefront smashing, I don't even know why the police would be so upset about them. The fucking nationalistic ATTAC and violent Enviros need to get their asses kicked everywhere they start riots.
While I agree with your sentiment and appreciate it, this talk will only get the other things persecuted as well. Same as with marijuana. People have been saying 'alcohol and tabacco are just as bad'. Well, pot is still illegal while legislators all over the world do their damn best to banish cigs and beers.
In german there are signs at construction sites and such that state 'parents liable for their childrens'. Liable here in the legal sense. This should be the corner stone of every legislation concerning a kids actions.
Should have used preview. Here it is with formating:
Sorry, I really don't see your point. So a kid has parents that appearantly don't give a damn (and probably not only when media is concerned) and you still think the biggest threat to their development comes from the tube? How very convinient. Neglectful parents are the number one cause of ill-raised childs is all I'm saying and you seem to agree. Had the parents not been neglectful, the TV program wouldn't be an issue. Those are the implictions of your post. Why address misc causes before addressing the main one?
Also, a glance at the TV set reveals something different entirely. It shows how once decency standards are legislated ("won't anyone think of the kids?" is a powerful argument, appearantly) the whole affair degenerates into a 'me too' fine-fest. Yeah, I'll let you censor nudity if I can censor swearwords etc. and at the end of this you are suddenly stuck in the political correct hell hole that society is today. Not because the mayority deems this necesary but because a tiny but very vocal minority had its way.
I know you are not advocating legislation but once it is established that supposedly the good of society is better served if some people kept their mouth shut, it won't be long befor congress passes the bill.
Finally I would like to say this: In germany, where I live, legaly binding ratings for movies coupled with an index list of 'banned' games serf the purpose of withholding adult content from adults quite well. Mature games can't be advertised or displayed in stores because, guess what, 'think of the kids!'. Reasoning being: If kids see something they can't have they want it even more and get it then through other channels. The consequences are those: Games with mature ratings (OV) do not get released in the original but in a toned down 'kids' friendly way only. I can't buy my gore-enabled HL and the kids will just get it off of edonkey anyways. So why bother? Why not just let everyone do what they are supposed to do. Content producers should express whatever they like and parents should regulate their kids access to everything they deem dangerous.
Looking at an example shows how illusionary your self censorship call really is:
Manhunt Design Lead: Ah I guess I'd like to make a game glorifying senseless violence but I can't because I have this morality thing going where I want to make sure that kids can't get their hands on harmful stuff, to the extend that said harmful stuff shouldn't exist at all.
Kid on the edge: Damn that super brutal video game got canceled because the producer is a pussy. I guess nothing to do today. Lets see, what do we have here: The Illiad. Hmm, I guess I'll see what the fancy pants greek child molester Homer was up to. Whats this about really kicking some Trojan ass and being a hero? Oh, lets just try this on the nerds at my school, I'll be a hero too.
LOTR the Book hardly was mainstream popular. When discussing LOTR with a reference to its popularity I just assume its about the film. Sorry if thats wrong.
Sorry, I really don't see your point. So a kid has parents that appearantly don't give a damn (and probably not only when media is concerned) and you still think the biggest threat to their development comes from the tube? How very convinient. Neglectful parents are the number one cause of ill-raised childs is all I'm saying and you seem to agree. Had the parents not been neglectful, the TV program wouldn't be an issue. Those are the implictions of your post. Why address misc causes before addressing the main one?
Also, a glance at the TV set reveals something different entirely. It shows how once decency standards are legislated ("won't anyone think of the kids?" is a powerful argument, appearantly) the whole affair degenerates into a 'me too' fine-fest. Yeah, I'll let you censor nudity if I can censor swearwords etc. and at the end of this you are suddenly stuck in the political correct hell hole that society is today. Not because the mayority deems this necesary but because a tiny but very vocal minority had its way.
I know you are not advocating legislation but once it is established that supposedly the good of society is better served if some people kept their mouth shut, it won't be long befor congress passes the bill.
Finally I would like to say this: In germany, where I live, legaly binding ratings for movies coupled with an index list of 'banned' games serf the purpose of withholding adult content from adults quite well. Mature games can't be advertised or displayed in stores because, guess what, 'think of the kids!'. Reasoning being: If kids see something they can't have they want it even more and get it then through other channels. The consequences are those: Games with mature ratings (OV) do not get released in the original but in a toned down 'kids' friendly way only. I can't buy my gore-enabled HL and the kids will just get it off of edonkey anyways. So why bother?
Why not just let everyone do what they are supposed to do. Content producers should express whatever they like and parents should regulate their kids access to everything they deem dangerous.
Looking at an example shows how illusionary your self censorship call really is:
Manhunt Design Lead: Ah I guess I'd like to make a game glorifying senseless violence but I can't because I have this morality thing going where I want to make sure that kids can't get their hands on harmful stuff, to the extend that said harmful stuff shouldn't exist at all.
Kid on the edge: Damn that super brutal video game got canceled because the producer is a pussy. I guess nothing to do today. Lets see, what do we have here: The Illiad. Hmm, I guess I'll see what the fancy pants greek child molester Homer was up to. Whats this about really kicking some Trojan ass and being a hero? Oh, lets just try this on the nerds at my school, I'll be a hero too.
Maybe those parents are different from the way overused stereotype. Maybe they are so assured by how they brought their kids up that they just know that at a certain time nothing can happen that would turn their child 'bad'. Certainly nothing that happens exclusivly on a screen. To get to this point is the 'moral responsibility' of parents. I wonder how it is that the main factor in child development always gets of light. Yeah, sure companies and indivuals should suspend their right to free expression because some nut claimed that their product turned him into a beast meanwhile parents can just excuse themselves with 'well, my kid whined for so long, I just couldn't not let him play'.
kids lacking the right guidance (PARENTS!) sure won't get turned around by any media they consume for entertainment. Also, no one is going to put up with anything that tries to teach morals that they don't share (out side of intellectual experiments, of course).
When I was 18 (a time where video games started being controversial) my mom came to me asking 'do you play those shooter games too?'. I asked her what she thought what else I did on my computer since I was 15. Pretty funny because understanding that I was in the demographic that 'researchers' have made out as potential serial killers ( inspired by the games, of course), she realized how absurd the whole debate is.
PS: NOT a serial killer.
your post prompted this thought: GTA players are genrally those that actually have morals, thats why they are only hurting pixels instead of pulling this crap in real life. Noone is going to convince me that the car-jacking, pedestrian over-running, 10$ whore banging thug is going to 'waste' his time playing the PS/2.
then tell me, whats the point of starting such a debate? Of course pundits won't initially say 'hey, lets legislate morality'. It's subtle brainwashing. First establish that someone is obligated to do X. When everyone agrees (or ignores you) push for laws.
Slashdot Mirror
what is wrong with sex anyway? Is it corrupting? I mean, as an adult, do you feel you need to struggle against dark forces whenever 'its on'? What exactly is wrong with a 10 year old seeing a *OMG* vagina? Oh wait, you said it 'it jut nod riuurght!!!111!!'. I guess that justifies giving the freaking government (! never trust your government, don't you people remember anything?) control over media content.
I shouldn't shop there? I should shop where ever the hell I want! And I should be able to buy whatever I want and the retailer be able to sell whatever they want to carry. Its a little thing called liberty, people died over it. Where in this equation is the single responsible variable, the parents? THEY should regulate what their kids get to see and not see.
Lets make parents care for their childs past time. The set up a classification board, staffed by people who actually know how to raise kids, that you have to go to every year to keep your 'parent' status.
I hear some nazis where using telephons ... Is there anything more to say?
I hope you are not also a supporter of the income tax. That would put you in a spot full of contradictions ...
PS: The principle of "if you don't play by our rules, we'll play by yours" actually would allow for such treatment, provided that the one receiving it has treated someone else in that way (or comparable) beforehand. Its quite a usefull framework, permitting the death penatly (indeed penalties period) while still guranteeing rights to those that acually respect them in others.
Gnomeregan truely sucks. I wonder why anyone would fight for that shithole ... stormwind on the other hand ...
While I think that you are mostly correct I wouldn't make this about rich and poor. Seriously, people that are willing to invest in a game that is as time consuming as an MMORPG do probably not have to work two jobs. Also, consider the 40$ price of the box and the 10$ subscription (WoW). A better way, in my opnion, to think of this is Archivers vs. Buyers. Many people complaining about this could probably afford the money to buy that uber char or item effordlessly but it just wouldn't be the same. And their fun would be spoiled by knowing that the status symbol (char or item) needn't be worked for in-game.
I wasn't aware of those rules. Of course, this changes the situtation. Well, the problem with dishonor as I see it are the vast number of exploits that come to mind, regardless the model that is brought up. I guess they (blizzard) went a little overboard when accepting what surely was just a concept for the manual. The underlying issue is probably that computers are not quite fit to distribute justice and this is what any dishonor system would be about.
yes, obviously people that went on PVP servers *because* of the rules should yield to ones that moved there *despite* them. That seems perfectly just. What do I care for your guild?
well, giving people better things to do is definatly a discouragement. Think about it, the 'fun' in ganking lowbies can't last that long. Status and reward does. You only get it through 'fair' PvP. As with leveling, a competition will ensue where everyone that wants to play on top needs to partition their time carefully (to much PVP and you'd fall behind in leveling ie.). Many gankers interested in reward-based pvp just won't find the time to do a lot of ganking any more.
This is the correct answer. Dishonor in connection with human players is impossible. If introduced, such a system would cause even more mischief due to the various exploits that just can't be avoided. Killing a lowbe is solitary 'fun', even the biggest asshole won't assume that he won bragging rights for that. On the other hand, it's quite possible for 5 -11 players to kill one guy. To 'show them high lvls' is much more rewarding than what grieving could possibly do for you. There just is no way to do this right. As an example: Yesterday 5 of us (lvl ~39) tried killing a lvl 50 Ork NPC. A troll lvl 54 came along and naturally kicked our asses for attacking his faction. Everyone would agree that the guy was well within his right to do this but with dishonor points he would have been punished.
You are worried that playing GTA is encouraging more unreported crime at the expense of reported crime? Did you really just say that a game teaches kids to not be in view of a cop when commiting a crime? Wow. I didn't realize that kids nowadays are brain damaged.
Also, traffic is like that in real life.
its not about the argument. Company == money == root of all evil. Its just as well to hold them to way higher standards than the rest of society and make them responsible for things they can not fix.
yeah, you know those protesters are really the peaceful crowd. What with all the looting and storefront smashing, I don't even know why the police would be so upset about them. The fucking nationalistic ATTAC and violent Enviros need to get their asses kicked everywhere they start riots.
While I agree with your sentiment and appreciate it, this talk will only get the other things persecuted as well. Same as with marijuana. People have been saying 'alcohol and tabacco are just as bad'. Well, pot is still illegal while legislators all over the world do their damn best to banish cigs and beers.
In german there are signs at construction sites and such that state 'parents liable for their childrens'. Liable here in the legal sense. This should be the corner stone of every legislation concerning a kids actions.
Should have used preview. Here it is with formating:
Sorry, I really don't see your point. So a kid has parents that appearantly don't give a damn (and probably not only when media is concerned) and you still think the biggest threat to their development comes from the tube? How very convinient. Neglectful parents are the number one cause of ill-raised childs is all I'm saying and you seem to agree. Had the parents not been neglectful, the TV program wouldn't be an issue. Those are the implictions of your post. Why address misc causes before addressing the main one?
Also, a glance at the TV set reveals something different entirely. It shows how once decency standards are legislated ("won't anyone think of the kids?" is a powerful argument, appearantly) the whole affair degenerates into a 'me too' fine-fest. Yeah, I'll let you censor nudity if I can censor swearwords etc. and at the end of this you are suddenly stuck in the political correct hell hole that society is today. Not because the mayority deems this necesary but because a tiny but very vocal minority had its way.
I know you are not advocating legislation but once it is established that supposedly the good of society is better served if some people kept their mouth shut, it won't be long befor congress passes the bill.
Finally I would like to say this: In germany, where I live, legaly binding ratings for movies coupled with an index list of 'banned' games serf the purpose of withholding adult content from adults quite well. Mature games can't be advertised or displayed in stores because, guess what, 'think of the kids!'. Reasoning being: If kids see something they can't have they want it even more and get it then through other channels. The consequences are those: Games with mature ratings (OV) do not get released in the original but in a toned down 'kids' friendly way only. I can't buy my gore-enabled HL and the kids will just get it off of edonkey anyways. So why bother?
Why not just let everyone do what they are supposed to do. Content producers should express whatever they like and parents should regulate their kids access to everything they deem dangerous.
Looking at an example shows how illusionary your self censorship call really is:
Manhunt Design Lead: Ah I guess I'd like to make a game glorifying senseless violence but I can't because I have this morality thing going where I want to make sure that kids can't get their hands on harmful stuff, to the extend that said harmful stuff shouldn't exist at all.
Kid on the edge: Damn that super brutal video game got canceled because the producer is a pussy. I guess nothing to do today. Lets see, what do we have here: The Illiad. Hmm, I guess I'll see what the fancy pants greek child molester Homer was up to. Whats this about really kicking some Trojan ass and being a hero? Oh, lets just try this on the nerds at my school, I'll be a hero too.
LOTR the Book hardly was mainstream popular. When discussing LOTR with a reference to its popularity I just assume its about the film. Sorry if thats wrong.
Sorry, I really don't see your point. So a kid has parents that appearantly don't give a damn (and probably not only when media is concerned) and you still think the biggest threat to their development comes from the tube? How very convinient. Neglectful parents are the number one cause of ill-raised childs is all I'm saying and you seem to agree. Had the parents not been neglectful, the TV program wouldn't be an issue. Those are the implictions of your post. Why address misc causes before addressing the main one? Also, a glance at the TV set reveals something different entirely. It shows how once decency standards are legislated ("won't anyone think of the kids?" is a powerful argument, appearantly) the whole affair degenerates into a 'me too' fine-fest. Yeah, I'll let you censor nudity if I can censor swearwords etc. and at the end of this you are suddenly stuck in the political correct hell hole that society is today. Not because the mayority deems this necesary but because a tiny but very vocal minority had its way. I know you are not advocating legislation but once it is established that supposedly the good of society is better served if some people kept their mouth shut, it won't be long befor congress passes the bill. Finally I would like to say this: In germany, where I live, legaly binding ratings for movies coupled with an index list of 'banned' games serf the purpose of withholding adult content from adults quite well. Mature games can't be advertised or displayed in stores because, guess what, 'think of the kids!'. Reasoning being: If kids see something they can't have they want it even more and get it then through other channels. The consequences are those: Games with mature ratings (OV) do not get released in the original but in a toned down 'kids' friendly way only. I can't buy my gore-enabled HL and the kids will just get it off of edonkey anyways. So why bother? Why not just let everyone do what they are supposed to do. Content producers should express whatever they like and parents should regulate their kids access to everything they deem dangerous. Looking at an example shows how illusionary your self censorship call really is: Manhunt Design Lead: Ah I guess I'd like to make a game glorifying senseless violence but I can't because I have this morality thing going where I want to make sure that kids can't get their hands on harmful stuff, to the extend that said harmful stuff shouldn't exist at all. Kid on the edge: Damn that super brutal video game got canceled because the producer is a pussy. I guess nothing to do today. Lets see, what do we have here: The Illiad. Hmm, I guess I'll see what the fancy pants greek child molester Homer was up to. Whats this about really kicking some Trojan ass and being a hero? Oh, lets just try this on the nerds at my school, I'll be a hero too.
Maybe those parents are different from the way overused stereotype. Maybe they are so assured by how they brought their kids up that they just know that at a certain time nothing can happen that would turn their child 'bad'. Certainly nothing that happens exclusivly on a screen. To get to this point is the 'moral responsibility' of parents. I wonder how it is that the main factor in child development always gets of light. Yeah, sure companies and indivuals should suspend their right to free expression because some nut claimed that their product turned him into a beast meanwhile parents can just excuse themselves with 'well, my kid whined for so long, I just couldn't not let him play'.
kids lacking the right guidance (PARENTS!) sure won't get turned around by any media they consume for entertainment. Also, no one is going to put up with anything that tries to teach morals that they don't share (out side of intellectual experiments, of course).
When I was 18 (a time where video games started being controversial) my mom came to me asking 'do you play those shooter games too?'. I asked her what she thought what else I did on my computer since I was 15. Pretty funny because understanding that I was in the demographic that 'researchers' have made out as potential serial killers ( inspired by the games, of course), she realized how absurd the whole debate is. PS: NOT a serial killer.
your post prompted this thought: GTA players are genrally those that actually have morals, thats why they are only hurting pixels instead of pulling this crap in real life. Noone is going to convince me that the car-jacking, pedestrian over-running, 10$ whore banging thug is going to 'waste' his time playing the PS/2.
You are not the one to teach adults or kids of other adults! Got it?
then tell me, whats the point of starting such a debate? Of course pundits won't initially say 'hey, lets legislate morality'. It's subtle brainwashing. First establish that someone is obligated to do X. When everyone agrees (or ignores you) push for laws.