The empirical evidence from the current regime is that where a game is refused classification, the publisher will almost always make the necessary alterations (toning down certain amounts of gore etc) in order to achieve an MA15+ rating. The current system has thus been reasonably effective -- ensuring that games are made suitable for a 15+ audience, and given that anyone in the 15-18 category is unlikely to be prevented from accessing a title simply by its having a higher rating that is a defensible approach (by which I mean "there is an argument for it" not "it is the correct approach").
To respond to your specific comments -
Children in Australia are very easily able to afford to purchase computer games -- at current prices, a game is likely to be around one to two months' pocket money (not counting additional money from a part-time job, which many 15-18 year olds have).
Regarding BitTorrent, the speed with which a title can be downloaded (ie, the number of active downloaders) isn't actually relevant to availability. There's no part of classification law that says "it's better if you have to leave the download going overnight". The speed of the download isn't difficulty-to-obtain, it's just latency-to-obtain, and I doubt anyone would consider a few extra hours of waiting significant.
In reality, the vast majority of items made illegally available to minors are purchased from shops in defiance of 18+ ratings: cigarettes and alcohol. The number of 16 year-olds who can get a PS3 to play an illegally downloaded game, while large, is much fewer than the number who can get cigarettes illegally from the local store. From an evidence-based perspective, if you want to prevent illegal access by minors, it really is physical availability from shops that should be targeted.
Unfortunately you're spot on: The current system has stopped the most people I know obtaining the types of games that jerk Michael Atkinson doesn't approve of. In terms of his objectives, his policy is completely effective.
The problem is that it's also stopped me playing many games (Left 4 Dead 2 comes to mind -- There's no way I'm spending my money on a second rate version). Why should I, as an adult, be told what I can and cannot do with my free time?
Basically we have to decide:
a) Whether we believe the rating system works & if it doesn't, why we have it at all?
b) What makes games different than any other type of media, such as movies.
c) Whether we accept having our rights restricted for the sake of someone else's kids (notwithstanding the fact that it's hardly proven that these games create social problems).
I hate to come off as a jerk but I couldn't give a rat's ass about nannying someone else's child. If parents don't want their children to have access to a game I'm playing then they can watch their own children. Furthermore, even if games are detrimental to children, the damage done by games is substantially less than by alcohol or cigarettes so comparisons between the two are mostly nonsense.
I would avoid making any ultimatums. The problem with ultimatums is that you have to follow through, and that puts the other party in charge of your actions.
It's not very often that I read something which, as simple and obvious as it may be, makes me feel wiser for having read it. Thank you.
And most matters should -not- be confidential. If we are going to waste our tax dollars on a court case all records kept from it should be public. Don't take it to court if it is confidential, otherwise we have press manipulating facts that should be public.
So the only alternative would be vigilante justice? How pragmatic of you!
Frankly, I find it amazing that Usenet is still on anyone's radar. Even the alt.binaries groups. It's been a long time since I've found an ISP that includes a free usenet server. The reliable ones are the ones that you have to pay for, and honestly, if you're going to pay to pirate things, you're probably doing it wrong.
Here in Australia most of the major ISPs provide a free Usenet account. My current ISP has a link straight to Giganews with 300+ days retention. TBH I'm surprised people still use torrents when Usenet is so much faster, easier and safer.
And yet, the rather flamebait-ish response is completely valid and correct. A lack of incentive will lead to a lack of success - so you need to address that before you can address the actual problem (and once you do, traditional approaches will probably work fine).
Nevertheless, in this case the incentive *is* the problem that the OP is trying to address through the use of computer games. The OP is asking how to address this problem, and instead of answering directly, Freeman basically responded "you shouldn't solve this problem" or asserted that the problem is inherently unsolvable. Both of those answers are very much unproductive.
If they have no incentive then don't bother with them. If someone isn't willing to work at something then there's no point helping them, they're still going to fail. If they have trouble getting employment, then that's an incentive right there. You don't need to create incentives for someone who doesn't want to try..
It's clear the OP doesn't give a toss about why the clients "have no incentive", he just wants to solve the problem regardless of your feelings about people needing to motivate themselves. I respect his position much more than using emotions or jealousy as an excuse not to solve the problem.
I happen to agree that we should question the intelligence of anyone who's a member of the Facebook group "petition for Obama to show his birth certificate"...
I'm sorry but you're way off base. I don't see how you can equate libertarianism with a high (and possibly misguided) expectation of privacy. If anything, in theory, it'd be the exact opposite.
Well in Australia it's your responsibility that whomever you outsource your telemarketing to, whether they are located inside or outside Australia, do not call people on the DNC. It has to be in your contract with them or *you* will get hit with massive fines.
I have several friends who are working in the field, as psychiatrists, psychologists, and counselors, and they all say that most people who start on antidepressants will in fact never get off of them.
Well unfortunately I couldn't find a study to indicate one way or the other, and both of our evidence just just anecdotal, but I personally know numerous people who have started and weaned off anti-depressants. It most definitely can be done.
Some won't because they will always truly need them, and some because of inertia. The medical establishment that prescribes seems not to have the ethical problem continuing to prescribe medication that could be eliminated
That's unfortunately true. I also think that (through no fault of their own) many GP's don't have to time to ensure that anti-depressants are followed up by cognitive therapy or lifestyle changes, which would often result on a dependence on the drug.
, and the patients who could go off of them probably just never find the time (it's got to be a process, and perhaps a fairly intimidating one if the drugs have made a noticeable difference in their life).
Well it can be intimidating, that's true, but that's why it's done slowly. Furthermore, the side effects of SSRIs (memory loss, loss of libido, unable to be 'happy', etc.) means many people will themselves decide when its appropriate to stop.
But I do agree, for some people this might be a problem that will need to be addressed by their practitioner.
me: Because using pills as a crutch, instead of fixing the underlying problems, doesn't allow the brain to get back to normal.Keep in mind, we have no idea how depression gets cured.
I disagree, we have many "cures" for depression (medication and cognitive therapy come to mind). I suppose it's more a problem of identifying the right solution for that person's specific circumstances. Of course, there's a few things that will almost always prove beneficial, such as exercise.
If it were a simple chemical imbalance then restoring the balance would restore normal function. But once prozac came out we stopped the research. If it were an imbalance, you wouldn't have a waiting period of several months for it to kick in, it would work immediately.
There's nothing simple about a "chemical imbalance". I also don't follow as to why anti-depressants should work immediately -- it takes time, even with anti-depressants, to build up serotonin levels in your brain. Google SSRI (the most common anti-depressant) which specifically targets serotonin -- the chemical that makes you feel happy (and if you don't believe that, go have some ecstasy).
Also I certainly don't believe that research has stopped in the area of depression -- the markets worth way too much for that.
The latest research I found before this report suggests the brain actually gets damaged, and restoring the chemical imbalance allows it to heal, which takes time. Once it's healed you can function normally again.
However this new research/theory suggests that using medications simply buys you enough energy as you suggested to fix the problems, letting the brain return to its normal state and then probably physically healing. In short, pills are good but you have to address the cause as well.
-
I completely agree and would in fact suggest a combination of SSRIs to get people to a stage where they are open to cognitive therapy, then cognitive therapy, in combination with exercise, to address the cause. I strongly believe that anti-depressants without cognitive therapy will rarely produce lasting changes, but that not everyone will be receptive to cognitive therapy alone. I think of anti-depressants as a tool to increase the effectiveness of other treatments.
-
According to this new research, depression is not a modern disease. And according to this new theory, distractions which take your mind off your problems are the opposite of helpful. They don't let you solve your problem and get past it - they just prolong the problem while making you feel better. Like a pain reliever that masks the symptoms.
Entirely untrue: This study says nothing as to how distractions affect depression. The only thing this study says is that depressed people are better problem solvers. You might want to read a little more in to it and infer that depression is a tool to solve difficult life situations.
To understand why distractions can be beneficial to your state of mind, you need to have some understanding of the underlying biology. Depressing thoughts lead to more depressing thoughts and each comes with a cost. Simply put, those negative thoughts decrease the levels of serotonin in your brain & overtime, without the stimuli, the serotonin receptors begin to die off. This makes it physically impossible (almost) for you to be happy (any depressed person can tell you how this feels and how shocking it was at first to even find out you could feel this way). If not for the constant barrage of negative thoughts, this might not be a problem (of course its a lot more complicated than that, but at 2:16AM I have not the motivation).
That was my point about pills and TV and internet and all of the toys we have today - it's easy to simply ignore that you feel bad, solve no problems, and not feel better. Not feel horrible, but not feel better either.
Well to be fair "mental instability" should exist before anti-depressants are prescribed and just because some people use the drug incorrectly (abrupt cessation) doesn't mean the drug itself is flawed.
Well anti-depressants, if prescribed properly, do the exact opposite. They enable people to change their environment and break the vicious cycle of depression.
Oh, bullshit.
Fair nuff.
I'll give you the example of someone who, due to their depressive state, is incapable of leaving the house. Without going in to much detail, this will make their depression worse.
Yeah, and a shrink is going to make housecalls? Not likely.
I didn't think it needed to be said, but depressed people can actually leave their house... But some might choose to avoid social situations because, for example, they don't want to ruin everyone else's fun with their depression.
Give that same person some anti-depressants and they might feel good enough to leave the house, make new friends and create a positive reinforcing cycle.
They might have the energy to leave the house. But if they couldn't make friends before they became depressed, your happy pill won't have given them the ability to. So more likely, the pill will simply let them become content with staying in the house, or leaving it but having no friends.
Maybe they did have friends, and can make friends, but they lose them all due to a relationship that ended badly. Anti-depressants aren't for everyone but they are amazing effective for specific circumstances.
By the time the wean off the drugs, their environment might have changed such that they remain happy.
People don't "wean off" of mood-altering drugs. Either they're on them all their life, or they stop taking them against medical advice (because they don't like the side effects, or they cost too much, or something).
You're an idiot; People do wean of anti-depressants all the time, and almost always with their doctor's advice and/or consent. Stop spreading FUD.
Of course your point was that the "benefit" of depression, namely the problem solving capability, might not be so great in a modern environment. I actually agree with you but for different reasons: I think modern problems are possibly more complex due to our materialistic and vain existence. In that sense the act of problem solving might be more futile.
I'm not sure that depression is a modern disease -- it may well be that savages got depressed and killed themselves too. I further think that distractions such as TV can actually be beneficial when dealing with depression as it can take your mind off your problems (I don't alcohol beneficial as it often intensifies negative thoughts). I do agree, of course, that a hunter-gatherer lifestyle would leave a lot less time for those pesky negative thoughts to control your life.
Well it's not just ignorance, it's being able to trivialize negative thoughts: "Innocent people are dying in Iraq but at least my family is ok" or "That girl doesn't love me but there are other girls I like". Of course, "ignorance is bliss" is also a major factor;)
They even take antidepressants, which make them feel they don't have to change anything at all..
Well anti-depressants, if prescribed properly, do the exact opposite. They enable people to change their environment and break the vicious cycle of depression.
I'll give you the example of someone who, due to their depressive state, is incapable of leaving the house. Without going in to much detail, this will make their depression worse. Give that same person some anti-depressants and they might feel good enough to leave the house, make new friends and create a positive reinforcing cycle. By the time the wean off the drugs, their environment might have changed such that they remain happy.
Don't believe all the negative publicity; Drugs can be very helpful.
As matter of fact, I completely agree with you. It's being able to ignore the trivial problems, look on the bright side of bad situations and the Just-world phenomenon that enable happy people to stay happy. I think I was just being cynical...
Slashdot Mirror
Evidence, please.
The empirical evidence from the current regime is that where a game is refused classification, the publisher will almost always make the necessary alterations (toning down certain amounts of gore etc) in order to achieve an MA15+ rating. The current system has thus been reasonably effective -- ensuring that games are made suitable for a 15+ audience, and given that anyone in the 15-18 category is unlikely to be prevented from accessing a title simply by its having a higher rating that is a defensible approach (by which I mean "there is an argument for it" not "it is the correct approach").
To respond to your specific comments -
Children in Australia are very easily able to afford to purchase computer games -- at current prices, a game is likely to be around one to two months' pocket money (not counting additional money from a part-time job, which many 15-18 year olds have).
Regarding BitTorrent, the speed with which a title can be downloaded (ie, the number of active downloaders) isn't actually relevant to availability. There's no part of classification law that says "it's better if you have to leave the download going overnight". The speed of the download isn't difficulty-to-obtain, it's just latency-to-obtain, and I doubt anyone would consider a few extra hours of waiting significant.
In reality, the vast majority of items made illegally available to minors are purchased from shops in defiance of 18+ ratings: cigarettes and alcohol. The number of 16 year-olds who can get a PS3 to play an illegally downloaded game, while large, is much fewer than the number who can get cigarettes illegally from the local store. From an evidence-based perspective, if you want to prevent illegal access by minors, it really is physical availability from shops that should be targeted.
Unfortunately you're spot on: The current system has stopped the most people I know obtaining the types of games that jerk Michael Atkinson doesn't approve of. In terms of his objectives, his policy is completely effective.
The problem is that it's also stopped me playing many games (Left 4 Dead 2 comes to mind -- There's no way I'm spending my money on a second rate version). Why should I, as an adult, be told what I can and cannot do with my free time?
Basically we have to decide:
a) Whether we believe the rating system works & if it doesn't, why we have it at all?
b) What makes games different than any other type of media, such as movies.
c) Whether we accept having our rights restricted for the sake of someone else's kids
(notwithstanding the fact that it's hardly proven that these games create social problems).
I hate to come off as a jerk but I couldn't give a rat's ass about nannying someone else's child. If parents don't want their children to have access to a game I'm playing then they can watch their own children. Furthermore, even if games are detrimental to children, the damage done by games is substantially less than by alcohol or cigarettes so comparisons between the two are mostly nonsense.
I would avoid making any ultimatums. The problem with ultimatums is that you have to follow through, and that puts the other party in charge of your actions.
It's not very often that I read something which, as simple and obvious as it may be, makes me feel wiser for having read it. Thank you.
And most matters should -not- be confidential. If we are going to waste our tax dollars on a court case all records kept from it should be public. Don't take it to court if it is confidential, otherwise we have press manipulating facts that should be public.
So the only alternative would be vigilante justice? How pragmatic of you!
Frankly, I find it amazing that Usenet is still on anyone's radar. Even the alt.binaries groups. It's been a long time since I've found an ISP that includes a free usenet server. The reliable ones are the ones that you have to pay for, and honestly, if you're going to pay to pirate things, you're probably doing it wrong.
Here in Australia most of the major ISPs provide a free Usenet account. My current ISP has a link straight to Giganews with 300+ days retention. TBH I'm surprised people still use torrents when Usenet is so much faster, easier and safer.
Yes -- particularly annoying on my netbook when it forces me stop everything while it slowly renders the update manager.
...because every time I accept a counterfeit coin it's comparable to being raped.
That's like saying it is ok for me to shit in my roommates bed because he hardly ever cleans.
hahaha insightful, informative and funny! :)
And yet, the rather flamebait-ish response is completely valid and correct. A lack of incentive will lead to a lack of success - so you need to address that before you can address the actual problem (and once you do, traditional approaches will probably work fine).
Nevertheless, in this case the incentive *is* the problem that the OP is trying to address through the use of computer games. The OP is asking how to address this problem, and instead of answering directly, Freeman basically responded "you shouldn't solve this problem" or asserted that the problem is inherently unsolvable. Both of those answers are very much unproductive.
If they have no incentive then don't bother with them. If someone isn't willing to work at something then there's no point helping them, they're still going to fail. If they have trouble getting employment, then that's an incentive right there. You don't need to create incentives for someone who doesn't want to try..
It's clear the OP doesn't give a toss about why the clients "have no incentive", he just wants to solve the problem regardless of your feelings about people needing to motivate themselves. I respect his position much more than using emotions or jealousy as an excuse not to solve the problem.
While I mostly agree with you on those points, there was a touch of Socratic irony there.
I happen to agree that we should question the intelligence of anyone who's a member of the Facebook group "petition for Obama to show his birth certificate"...
So, what's the average libertarian view on Google Street Maps? Do the individual rights to privacy usurp the freedoms of the public?
I'm sorry but you're way off base. I don't see how you can equate libertarianism with a high (and possibly misguided) expectation of privacy. If anything, in theory, it'd be the exact opposite.
Why is there a trade off between "implementation" and "interface"? You can't have a slick interface with a simple internal implementation? wtf?
Well in Australia it's your responsibility that whomever you outsource your telemarketing to, whether they are located inside or outside Australia, do not call people on the DNC. It has to be in your contract with them or *you* will get hit with massive fines.
I have several friends who are working in the field, as psychiatrists, psychologists, and counselors, and they all say that most people who start on antidepressants will in fact never get off of them.
Well unfortunately I couldn't find a study to indicate one way or the other, and both of our evidence just just anecdotal, but I personally know numerous people who have started and weaned off anti-depressants. It most definitely can be done.
Some won't because they will always truly need them, and some because of inertia. The medical establishment that prescribes seems not to have the ethical problem continuing to prescribe medication that could be eliminated
That's unfortunately true. I also think that (through no fault of their own) many GP's don't have to time to ensure that anti-depressants are followed up by cognitive therapy or lifestyle changes, which would often result on a dependence on the drug.
, and the patients who could go off of them probably just never find the time (it's got to be a process, and perhaps a fairly intimidating one if the drugs have made a noticeable difference in their life).
Well it can be intimidating, that's true, but that's why it's done slowly. Furthermore, the side effects of SSRIs (memory loss, loss of libido, unable to be 'happy', etc.) means many people will themselves decide when its appropriate to stop.
But I do agree, for some people this might be a problem that will need to be addressed by their practitioner.
me: Because using pills as a crutch, instead of fixing the underlying problems, doesn't allow the brain to get back to normal.Keep in mind, we have no idea how depression gets cured.
I disagree, we have many "cures" for depression (medication and cognitive therapy come to mind). I suppose it's more a problem of identifying the right solution for that person's specific circumstances. Of course, there's a few things that will almost always prove beneficial, such as exercise.
If it were a simple chemical imbalance then restoring the balance would restore normal function. But once prozac came out we stopped the research. If it were an imbalance, you wouldn't have a waiting period of several months for it to kick in, it would work immediately.
There's nothing simple about a "chemical imbalance". I also don't follow as to why anti-depressants should work immediately -- it takes time, even with anti-depressants, to build up serotonin levels in your brain. Google SSRI (the most common anti-depressant) which specifically targets serotonin -- the chemical that makes you feel happy (and if you don't believe that, go have some ecstasy). Also I certainly don't believe that research has stopped in the area of depression -- the markets worth way too much for that.
The latest research I found before this report suggests the brain actually gets damaged, and restoring the chemical imbalance allows it to heal, which takes time. Once it's healed you can function normally again.
However this new research/theory suggests that using medications simply buys you enough energy as you suggested to fix the problems, letting the brain return to its normal state and then probably physically healing. In short, pills are good but you have to address the cause as well.
-
I completely agree and would in fact suggest a combination of SSRIs to get people to a stage where they are open to cognitive therapy, then cognitive therapy, in combination with exercise, to address the cause. I strongly believe that anti-depressants without cognitive therapy will rarely produce lasting changes, but that not everyone will be receptive to cognitive therapy alone. I think of anti-depressants as a tool to increase the effectiveness of other treatments.
-
According to this new research, depression is not a modern disease. And according to this new theory, distractions which take your mind off your problems are the opposite of helpful. They don't let you solve your problem and get past it - they just prolong the problem while making you feel better. Like a pain reliever that masks the symptoms.
Entirely untrue: This study says nothing as to how distractions affect depression. The only thing this study says is that depressed people are better problem solvers. You might want to read a little more in to it and infer that depression is a tool to solve difficult life situations.
To understand why distractions can be beneficial to your state of mind, you need to have some understanding of the underlying biology. Depressing thoughts lead to more depressing thoughts and each comes with a cost. Simply put, those negative thoughts decrease the levels of serotonin in your brain & overtime, without the stimuli, the serotonin receptors begin to die off. This makes it physically impossible (almost) for you to be happy (any depressed person can tell you how this feels and how shocking it was at first to even find out you could feel this way). If not for the constant barrage of negative thoughts, this might not be a problem (of course its a lot more complicated than that, but at 2:16AM I have not the motivation).
That was my point about pills and TV and internet and all of the toys we have today - it's easy to simply ignore that you feel bad, solve no problems, and not feel better. Not feel horrible, but not feel better either.
Well to be fair "mental instability" should exist before anti-depressants are prescribed and just because some people use the drug incorrectly (abrupt cessation) doesn't mean the drug itself is flawed.
Oh, bullshit.
Fair nuff.
Yeah, and a shrink is going to make housecalls? Not likely.
I didn't think it needed to be said, but depressed people can actually leave their house... But some might choose to avoid social situations because, for example, they don't want to ruin everyone else's fun with their depression.
They might have the energy to leave the house. But if they couldn't make friends before they became depressed, your happy pill won't have given them the ability to. So more likely, the pill will simply let them become content with staying in the house, or leaving it but having no friends.
Maybe they did have friends, and can make friends, but they lose them all due to a relationship that ended badly. Anti-depressants aren't for everyone but they are amazing effective for specific circumstances.
People don't "wean off" of mood-altering drugs. Either they're on them all their life, or they stop taking them against medical advice (because they don't like the side effects, or they cost too much, or something).
You're an idiot; People do wean of anti-depressants all the time, and almost always with their doctor's advice and/or consent. Stop spreading FUD.
Of course your point was that the "benefit" of depression, namely the problem solving capability, might not be so great in a modern environment. I actually agree with you but for different reasons: I think modern problems are possibly more complex due to our materialistic and vain existence. In that sense the act of problem solving might be more futile.
I'm not sure that depression is a modern disease -- it may well be that savages got depressed and killed themselves too. I further think that distractions such as TV can actually be beneficial when dealing with depression as it can take your mind off your problems (I don't alcohol beneficial as it often intensifies negative thoughts). I do agree, of course, that a hunter-gatherer lifestyle would leave a lot less time for those pesky negative thoughts to control your life.
Well it's not just ignorance, it's being able to trivialize negative thoughts: "Innocent people are dying in Iraq but at least my family is ok" or "That girl doesn't love me but there are other girls I like". Of course, "ignorance is bliss" is also a major factor ;)
They even take antidepressants, which make them feel they don't have to change anything at all..
Well anti-depressants, if prescribed properly, do the exact opposite. They enable people to change their environment and break the vicious cycle of depression.
I'll give you the example of someone who, due to their depressive state, is incapable of leaving the house. Without going in to much detail, this will make their depression worse. Give that same person some anti-depressants and they might feel good enough to leave the house, make new friends and create a positive reinforcing cycle. By the time the wean off the drugs, their environment might have changed such that they remain happy.
Don't believe all the negative publicity; Drugs can be very helpful.
As matter of fact, I completely agree with you. It's being able to ignore the trivial problems, look on the bright side of bad situations and the Just-world phenomenon that enable happy people to stay happy.
I think I was just being cynical...
Maybe the "real-world reality" was interpreted by a depressed person. Just saying...