Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Hillary Clinton is on the GTA warpath

Last response: in Video Games
Share
March 30, 2005 2:28:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7660
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
March 30, 2005 2:28:08 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:11ij415t7du1jhtgb68nctcr8e2i04rn9k@4ax.com...
> http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7660
> --
> Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com

I was going to post about this the other day - my wife picked up on it and
started ranting about how games like this should be banned.

My wife has never played a computer game "doesn't see the point" and never
will. She would not be discuss where the line should be drawn (i.e.
graphical violence, killing, fighting etc), but felt that from what she had
read about GTAIII it portrayed women badly because you could kill
prostitutes.

"But you can kill anybody you like" I said, "in fact, you can choose NOT to
kill if you wish". This phased her for a minute, but she refused to be
budged. My contention was that the game should not be sold to children,
just as 18 rated DVDs are not. "It's different" she said, "because children
play these games".

/cue sound of Schrodinger beating head against the wall wishing he had a
baseball bat handy at that time.

Interestingly, later that day we drove past a bar with topless waitresses.
"This", I said, " is far more damaging to men's views of women than a GAME
in which you can kill anyone you choose".

Guess what - she didn't agree. My wife, like Hilary Clinton, is an ill
informed bigoted technophobe whom would rather point a moral finger than
actually have to make a moral choice. They want to ban what they don't
understand.

My PC-and-game illiterate friend had bought GTA:VC (PS2) for his 10 year old
son - I tried to gently explain what went on in the game.

Despite being what I would view as a responsible parent, he didn't get the
problem and figured it would be ok because "all the other kids have it". He
has since bought him GTA:SA.

"Our" problem is one of education of the masses about video games. "They"
still think they are the preserve of 13 year old boys and will not accept
that they can be as valid an "art form" as movies. "They" think children
should play them - even when rated 18 - and are either shocked when they
contain graphic violence or still perceive them as glorified Tom and Jerry
cartoons.

Games publishers have a vested interest in this perception - if they can
shift an extra 1 million copies to 13 - 18 year old kids then who are they
to argue?

THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR OR AGAINST GUN CONTROL, BUT I wonder what the
reaction in USA would be had Hilary C spoken out strongly in favour of the
banning of all guns?

I know which would save more lives - but then again it wouldn't key into the
moral panic of middle aged twits (did I spell that correctly?) and probably
lose the votes of most of USA South and West of Boston come her presidential
campaign.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 2:28:08 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:11ij415t7du1jhtgb68nctcr8e2i04rn9k@4ax.com...
> http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7660
> --
> Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
> Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
> please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
> Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

Yup. Blame the game. The parents or the players have no responsibilities I
guses. Kinda like taking Microsoft Flight Simulator off the store shelves
when 911 hit. People are clueless.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 3:33:00 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Schrodinger" <no@1way.com> wrote in
news:Q3k2e.6612588$f47.1219415@news.easynews.com:

>
> "Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
> news:11ij415t7du1jhtgb68nctcr8e2i04rn9k@4ax.com...
>> http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7660
>> --
>> Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
>
> I was going to post about this the other day - my wife picked up on it
> and started ranting about how games like this should be banned.
>
> My wife has never played a computer game "doesn't see the point" and
> never will. She would not be discuss where the line should be drawn
> (i.e. graphical violence, killing, fighting etc), but felt that from
> what she had read about GTAIII it portrayed women badly because you
> could kill prostitutes.
>
> "But you can kill anybody you like" I said, "in fact, you can choose
> NOT to kill if you wish". This phased her for a minute, but she
> refused to be budged. My contention was that the game should not be
> sold to children, just as 18 rated DVDs are not. "It's different" she
> said, "because children play these games".
>
> /cue sound of Schrodinger beating head against the wall wishing he had
> a baseball bat handy at that time.
>
> Interestingly, later that day we drove past a bar with topless
> waitresses. "This", I said, " is far more damaging to men's views of
> women than a GAME in which you can kill anyone you choose".
>
> Guess what - she didn't agree. My wife, like Hilary Clinton, is an
> ill informed bigoted technophobe whom would rather point a moral
> finger than actually have to make a moral choice. They want to ban
> what they don't understand.
>
> My PC-and-game illiterate friend had bought GTA:VC (PS2) for his 10
> year old son - I tried to gently explain what went on in the game.
>
> Despite being what I would view as a responsible parent, he didn't get
> the problem and figured it would be ok because "all the other kids
> have it". He has since bought him GTA:SA.
>
> "Our" problem is one of education of the masses about video games.
> "They" still think they are the preserve of 13 year old boys and will
> not accept that they can be as valid an "art form" as movies. "They"
> think children should play them - even when rated 18 - and are either
> shocked when they contain graphic violence or still perceive them as
> glorified Tom and Jerry cartoons.
>
> Games publishers have a vested interest in this perception - if they
> can shift an extra 1 million copies to 13 - 18 year old kids then who
> are they to argue?
>
> THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR OR AGAINST GUN CONTROL, BUT I wonder what
> the reaction in USA would be had Hilary C spoken out strongly in
> favour of the banning of all guns?
>
> I know which would save more lives - but then again it wouldn't key
> into the moral panic of middle aged twits (did I spell that
> correctly?) and probably lose the votes of most of USA South and West
> of Boston come her presidential campaign.
>
>
>
>

very well put, I'm really fed up of people only blaming tha games and
forgettin about the parents allowing them to play it and the stores
selling the games to them, the publishers cannot remain entirely
blameless either because of the way some of the games are marketed
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 3:33:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

cool! i hate GTA :-)

(i want to play like the man i am, not as a moron-scum-outlaw..., since ages
all games have a educational reason, and are not just to entertain, and far
less to do stupid role-playing as a moron-scum-outlaw... oh yeah, i'm
getting older and older :-)


"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> escribió en el mensaje
news:11ij415t7du1jhtgb68nctcr8e2i04rn9k@4ax.com...
> http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7660
> --
> Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
> Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
> please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
> Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
>
March 30, 2005 4:18:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:18:00 +0200, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Sad. I honestly thought she'd be smart enough to see through this kind
>of bullshit. Oh well.

She is on the trail of potential votes, common sense and facts go out
of the window for the sake of a good bit of public moralizing.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 4:18:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:18:00 +0200, Mean_Chlorine
<mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Thusly Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> Spake Unto All:
>
>>http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7660
>
>Sad. I honestly thought she'd be smart enough to see through this kind
>of bullshit. Oh well.

If she was smart enough to see through bullshit, she wouldn't have
married Bill.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 4:18:02 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Tim O wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:18:00 +0200, Mean_Chlorine
> <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>Thusly Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> Spake Unto All:
>>
>>
>>>http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7660
>>
>>Sad. I honestly thought she'd be smart enough to see through this kind
>>of bullshit. Oh well.
>
>
> If she was smart enough to see through bullshit, she wouldn't have
> married Bill.
>
>

Oh snap -the lovelife of political couples.


--
best regards, mat
np: [winamp not running]

www.pdxshows.net
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 4:30:06 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Vader des Vaderlands wrote:
> Tim O wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:18:00 +0200, Mean_Chlorine
>> <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Thusly Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> Spake Unto All:
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7660
>>>
>>>
>>> Sad. I honestly thought she'd be smart enough to see through this kind
>>> of bullshit. Oh well.
>>
>>
>>
>> If she was smart enough to see through bullshit, she wouldn't have
>> married Bill.
>>
>>
>
> Oh snap -the lovelife of political couples.
>

Whoops -oxymoron!


--
best regards, mat
np: [winamp not running]

www.pdxshows.net
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 4:43:01 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> Spake Unto All:

>>Sad. I honestly thought she'd be smart enough to see through this kind
>>of bullshit. Oh well.
>
>She is on the trail of potential votes, common sense and facts go out
>of the window for the sake of a good bit of public moralizing.

I suppose. It's still cheap, and definitely lowered my opinion of her
considerably.

Worse; this is probably a sign of what's to come. I'd interprete this
as that the dems have decided that their roots are tabloid-driven
moral panic rather than the ideals of the enlightenment.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 6:38:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

HockeyTownUSA wrote:

> Yup. Blame the game. The parents or the players have no
responsibilities I
> guses. Kinda like taking Microsoft Flight Simulator off the store
shelves
> when 911 hit. People are clueless.

There was another thread not so long ago about the rating system for
games. All they need do is enforce this, like it is for films and then
computer games are as safe as movies. I'm quite happy to see stuff like
"Contains mild fantasy violence and frequent nudity" on the back of a
game. It would help me determine whether it was suitable for a child.

Then all they have to do is apply the same restrictions to TV, radio,
books, art and any other medium that a child might see. Perhaps it
would be simpler to bring up our children in an airtight box?
March 30, 2005 3:49:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 30 Mar 2005 02:38:42 -0800, "Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>There was another thread not so long ago about the rating system for
>games. All they need do is enforce this, like it is for films and then
>computer games are as safe as movies. I'm quite happy to see stuff like
>"Contains mild fantasy violence and frequent nudity" on the back of a
>game. It would help me determine whether it was suitable for a child.
>
>Then all they have to do is apply the same restrictions to TV, radio,
>books, art and any other medium that a child might see. Perhaps it
>would be simpler to bring up our children in an airtight box?

I was listening to a phone in on the radio on this subject the other
day. A mature gamer phoned in to say that he was in a major games shop
and a mother was being pestered by her 10 year old boy to buy GTA:SA
because his friends play it, she was going to buy it and the gamer
tried to explain that it wouldn't be suitable, but the mother was only
interested in appeasing the little brat and bought it anyway.

Parents like that explain a lot about the problems in western society
today.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 4:23:56 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

This is classic politics. Get on-board with a lot of easy issues that
promote family values, do it for the children, etc. Bashing video
games as 'murder trainers' is always an easy mark, because most
politicians refuse to believe that the market for these games consists
primarily of non-children. So, they think there's only and upside,
because they really believe that only people who aren't old enough to
vote would miss the games. Let's hope for a rude awakening.


PBC

m.m.m.m.m.m.m....What was my e-mail address?
March 30, 2005 8:21:32 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Chadwick" wrote

> HockeyTownUSA wrote:

>> Yup. Blame the game. The parents or the players have no
> responsibilities I
>> guses. Kinda like taking Microsoft Flight Simulator off the store
> shelves
>> when 911 hit. People are clueless.

> There was another thread not so long ago about the rating system for
> games. All they need do is enforce this, like it is for films and then
> computer games are as safe as movies. I'm quite happy to see stuff like
> "Contains mild fantasy violence and frequent nudity" on the back of a
> game. It would help me determine whether it was suitable for a child.

The latest warning is "Contains mild peril". Only in the States....

> Then all they have to do is apply the same restrictions to TV, radio,
> books, art and any other medium that a child might see. Perhaps it
> would be simpler to bring up our children in an airtight box?

An airtight box wouldn't improve their lives much. Or for very long.
March 30, 2005 8:23:13 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Vader des Vaderlands" wrote
> Vader des Vaderlands wrote:
>> Oh snap -the lovelife of political couples.

> Whoops -oxymoron!

You typed an 'oxy' too many.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 9:27:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

My 2 cents...

Violence in video games (and on tv and in real life and in war) does have an
effect on the population which does increase the liklihood of violence being
comitted. I think you can say the same thing about racism, nationalism, or
acts of kindness. IMO, it's a pyschological fact of life.

If there was no rating system and no rules about selling to minors then
that's a problem. However, there is, and GTA and games like it have a M for
mature rating. Therefore only adults should be buying it, or "children"
should only be getting it with the permission of their parents. If you want
to live in a free country then freedom means the right to play violent video
games, watch violent movies, engage in violent sports, whatever. The point
is, an adult does and should have these rights.

BTW, the article portrays Clinton as attacking violent gaming but in
actuality she's only purposing that we do a study: "She wants a $90 million
investigation to be launched into the impact of games and other electronic
media on the "cognitive, social, emotional and physical development" of
children, according to a Sunday Times report." When she trys to pass a law
actually censoring freedom of expression in video games, then I'll be there
to shout foul. Until then, I don't see the big deal.

Anyway, if you don't think games lead to violent, what are you afraid of?
If you're right the study should support your arguement.

However, if you're like me and you acknowledge there's a cause effect going
on here, then have your cake and eat it. I say, so what.... violence seen
can lead to violent behavior, but it's a free country.

BTW, what's with this quote?
"American political analysts have noted that Clinton has taken on some
increasingly right wing stances on domestic issues in recent months, in an
effort to win support from traditionally Republican voters in the next
presidential race" What "american political analysts" and what other
"stances" in "recent months"? As a rule it's the democrats who support
freedom of speech in the arts, in hollywood, etc.. the gaming issue is the
exception to the rule and it's nothing new. Democrats going on the record
against video game violence is nothing new.


"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
news:11ij415t7du1jhtgb68nctcr8e2i04rn9k@4ax.com...
> http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7660
> --
> Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
> Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
> please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
> Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 9:31:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Mean_Chlorine" <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fokj41ptu5ucv9t5l3qt5fo50av7tm3d48@4ax.com...
> Thusly Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> Spake Unto All:
>
> >http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7660
>
> Sad. I honestly thought she'd be smart enough to see through this kind
> of bullshit. Oh well.
>

I'm sure there's politics behind the stance (as there always is) but at this
point she's only calling for a study. If there's no cause & effect to
violence in gaming and real violence, then the study should support that
conclusion, right?

>
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 9:46:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112179122.268725.55920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> HockeyTownUSA wrote:
>
> > Yup. Blame the game. The parents or the players have no
> responsibilities I
> > guses. Kinda like taking Microsoft Flight Simulator off the store
> shelves
> > when 911 hit. People are clueless.
>
> There was another thread not so long ago about the rating system for
> games. All they need do is enforce this, like it is for films and then
> computer games are as safe as movies. I'm quite happy to see stuff like
> "Contains mild fantasy violence and frequent nudity" on the back of a
> game. It would help me determine whether it was suitable for a child.

Good point. I'd be open to stricter or more explicit warnings.

>
> Then all they have to do is apply the same restrictions to TV, radio,
> books, art and any other medium that a child might see. Perhaps it
> would be simpler to bring up our children in an airtight box?

Part of the problem is that video games have historically been things that
"children" play with and the perception is still widely held that video
games are synonomous with children's toys. I don't think most people get it
that video games are for adults too. As a result, you have a lot of parents
assuming that video games, by their very nature, are all made for children.
That's the mentality we gamers are dealing with and it's at the heart of the
problem. If there's an extremely violent movie about.. say... a man getting
nailed to a cross... people don't start shouting that we should ban violence
in movies in order to protect children. Now, if Woody from toy story goes
Hannibal on his fellow toys, that's going to get a reaction. The point is,
some games are made for adult and some are for children. Same is true for
games. Once that sinks into the minds of the public and our politicians, I
doubt you'll hear as much about this issue.
Anonymous
March 30, 2005 11:41:01 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:gmA2e.204$r47.40@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

> "Chadwick" wrote
>
>> HockeyTownUSA wrote:
>
>>> Yup. Blame the game. The parents or the players have no
>> responsibilities I
>>> guses. Kinda like taking Microsoft Flight Simulator off the store
>> shelves
>>> when 911 hit. People are clueless.
>
>> There was another thread not so long ago about the rating system for
>> games. All they need do is enforce this, like it is for films and
>> then computer games are as safe as movies. I'm quite happy to see
>> stuff like "Contains mild fantasy violence and frequent nudity" on
>> the back of a game. It would help me determine whether it was
>> suitable for a child.
>
> The latest warning is "Contains mild peril". Only in the States....
>
>> Then all they have to do is apply the same restrictions to TV, radio,
>> books, art and any other medium that a child might see. Perhaps it
>> would be simpler to bring up our children in an airtight box?
>
> An airtight box wouldn't improve their lives much. Or for very long.
>
>

the best one I've seen on on tv in the UK was for a film and it said "
contains scenes of extended peril"
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 4:47:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Thusly "JoeSmooth" <f@ke.70053> Spake Unto All:

>> Sad. I honestly thought she'd be smart enough to see through this kind
>> of bullshit. Oh well.
>
>I'm sure there's politics behind the stance (as there always is) but at this
>point she's only calling for a study. If there's no cause & effect to
>violence in gaming and real violence, then the study should support that
>conclusion, right?

The problem is that you can't demonstrate non-existence. I.e., no
study will *ever* be able to conclude there is no causal link between
fictional and real violence.
You can only show that the link isn't strong, and that's already been
done - there's hundreds of studies on this.

I don't fear impartial studies with good methodology - but those can't
find results beyond 'inconclusive'. I feel I can say this after
there's been so many studies already.
I do fear partial, politicizeds, studies with tendentious methodology
- because those find correlation. And the only reason anyone would
call for another study is because they are dissatisified with present
studies and *want* to find correlation.
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 3:10:17 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

>>>>> "js" == JoeSmooth <f@ke.70053> writes:

js> Part of the problem is that video games have historically been
js> things that "children" play with and the perception is still widely
js> held that video games are synonomous with children's toys. I don't
js> think most people get it that video games are for adults too. As a
js> result, you have a lot of parents assuming that video games, by
js> their very nature, are all made for children.

It appears to me that this is not only a perception but an economical
reality. I believe that this is one of the reasons that a rating system has
until now not gone pass the "voluntary labeling" stage. Although a game is
rated "M for mature" and the recommended age is 17+ or something, a
majority of the de facto buyers and users are kids of a younger age. You
can argue all you want that the rating system is there, it just needs to be
enforced; there is an overwhelming economical pressure against it. Game
publishers stand to lose substantial portions of their sales and they can't
agree to that.

js> If there's an extremely violent movie about.. say... a man getting
js> nailed to a cross... people don't start shouting that we should ban
js> violence in movies in order to protect children. Now, if Woody
js> from toy story goes Hannibal on his fellow toys, that's going to
js> get a reaction. The point is, some games are made for adult and
js> some are for children. Same is true for games. Once that sinks
js> into the minds of the public and our politicians, I doubt you'll
js> hear as much about this issue.

Fair enough. But if 70% of the audience for the Nailing Movie (tm) are
kids, then you will have a hell of a time to enforce a rating system if it
isn't already there. What you say above, that games have started as kid's
toys and are still perceived as such, holds for the industry as much as for
the consumer. If film would have developped from kiddie cartoons, I believe
we might have had a much harder time to introduce and enforce a system as
we have it now. As it stands, films were historically considered to be for
adults, and back in the 30s many parents did not want their kids to watch a
western.

Anyhow, there is a resistance from the side of the industry to enforcable
labeling, and that increases the pressure on the other side, from social
liberals (let's not spoil the kids for the sake of profit) and
conservatives (is this what we call family values these days?) alike, to
force a regulation.

Regards, Hartmut "how about porn then?" Schmider

--
Hartmut Schmider, Queen's University

We are capable of sacrificing ourselves for sentiment.
Sentimentality exacts the sacrifice of others.
Yoritomo-Tashi
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 5:21:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"JoeSmooth" <f@ke.70053> escribió en el mensaje
news:424b1cbe$0$3459$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
> My 2 cents...
Brilliant man!!!! Thats exactlly what is needed. A study.

And OF COURSE all media have an effect on people.... Parental and school
education aside, human being (specially youth) DO imitate behaviour of
others, be it movies, books, gangs, clubs, political parties, churches,
friends and family...
Freedom can never be absolute or it will be freeDOOM. Lets fight tiranny,
but not common sense limitations.
This is like the stupidity of harley bikers that want to be free to NOT use
a helmet.... i rather want to be relatively free from diying in a stupid
slowspeed accident while doing my biggest hobby, riding my CBR....
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 6:14:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Mean_Chlorine" <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41bm41dbba0r8l1rkf9hb1cd1smd28t3do@4ax.com...
> Thusly "JoeSmooth" <f@ke.70053> Spake Unto All:
>
> >> Sad. I honestly thought she'd be smart enough to see through this kind
> >> of bullshit. Oh well.
> >
> >I'm sure there's politics behind the stance (as there always is) but at
this
> >point she's only calling for a study. If there's no cause & effect to
> >violence in gaming and real violence, then the study should support that
> >conclusion, right?
>
> The problem is that you can't demonstrate non-existence. I.e., no
> study will *ever* be able to conclude there is no causal link between
> fictional and real violence.
> You can only show that the link isn't strong, and that's already been
> done - there's hundreds of studies on this.

Hundreds? Not so sure about that. The studies I've seen seem to have
mixed conclusion, although I've only seen or heard of a few. I think it's
just as likely you'd be unable to *ever* prove there IS a concrete causal
link between fictional and real violence. There's always some way to cast
doubt. I myself have spent hundreds of hours playing violent games but I
never wanted to go kill someone, so on a personal individual level, it's
easy and naturally to assume there is no link. On the other hand, home with
domestic violence breed children who then go on to create home with domestic
violence. Granted, that's REAL violence rather than onscreen, but it's
still monkey see monkey do.

>
> I don't fear impartial studies with good methodology - but those can't
> find results beyond 'inconclusive'. I feel I can say this after
> there's been so many studies already.

I'm not sure it's fair to categorically say that impartiial studies can't
find results beyond inconclusive.

> I do fear partial, politicizeds, studies with tendentious methodology
> - because those find correlation.

As opposed to privately funded studies that are created by groups with their
own private biases? The US if full of "studies" by groups with fancy names
that are really represented and paid for by one industry or another. Take
for example the pharmasuitcal (sp!) companies or the studies that show
global warming isn't real. That said, I agree that political studies can be
biased too, but generally if you look to see who's footing the bill you can
determine the bias if any.

> And the only reason anyone would
> call for another study is because they are dissatisified with present
> studies and *want* to find correlation.

In Clinton's case, that's true, but if the study is fair then and there is
no connection between violence & gaming then the results will backfire.


>
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 6:36:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Hartmut Schmider" <hs7@post.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:86fyybpziu.fsf@post.queensu.ca...
> >>>>> "js" == JoeSmooth <f@ke.70053> writes:
>
> js> Part of the problem is that video games have historically been
> js> things that "children" play with and the perception is still
widely
> js> held that video games are synonomous with children's toys. I
don't
> js> think most people get it that video games are for adults too. As
a
> js> result, you have a lot of parents assuming that video games, by
> js> their very nature, are all made for children.
>
> It appears to me that this is not only a perception but an economical
> reality. I believe that this is one of the reasons that a rating system
has
> until now not gone pass the "voluntary labeling" stage. Although a game is
> rated "M for mature" and the recommended age is 17+ or something, a
> majority of the de facto buyers and users are kids of a younger age. You
> can argue all you want that the rating system is there, it just needs to
be
> enforced; there is an overwhelming economical pressure against it. Game
> publishers stand to lose substantial portions of their sales and they
can't
> agree to that.

True, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right path to take. I don't know
the specific politics but I would assume that with the game companies
getting richer and richer their lobbiests are getting stronger too, and so
that means you can buy a few politicians. But, the publishers aren't
selling the games, it's the retailers and those are the ones who
tradtionally bear the burden of the regulations. If a gas station clerk
sells a pack of Marlboros to a 14 year old, the cops don't fine Phillip
Morris. There are plenty of laws that restrict minors but give adults
freedom. They are as good as they are enforced. The crackdown on
cigarettes is much harser now that it was 20 year ago because society moved
in that direction. I don't see why a they can't make it work for video
games too.

>
> js> If there's an extremely violent movie about.. say... a man getting
> js> nailed to a cross... people don't start shouting that we should
ban
> js> violence in movies in order to protect children. Now, if Woody
> js> from toy story goes Hannibal on his fellow toys, that's going to
> js> get a reaction. The point is, some games are made for adult and
> js> some are for children. Same is true for games. Once that sinks
> js> into the minds of the public and our politicians, I doubt you'll
> js> hear as much about this issue.
>
> Fair enough. But if 70% of the audience for the Nailing Movie (tm) are
> kids, then you will have a hell of a time to enforce a rating system if it
> isn't already there.

But I thought we agreed there is a rating system there and you correctly
assumed I'm in favor of better enforcement of it while keeping censorship
out of the games so we adults can enjoy them.

> What you say above, that games have started as kid's
> toys and are still perceived as such, holds for the industry as much as
for
> the consumer.

I'm not so sure about that. We are talking about a million if not billion
dollar industry. They know the demographics of their customer base and they
know which demographics have the cash to make the purchases. Although I
don't have a lot of studies to site, it's my understanding that many if not
most gamers playing M rated games are older. Even so, you don't see Joe
Camel around anymore. The public cracked down on it and the marketing to
children was largely eliminated (at least in the US). Take away the
consumer (children) by regulating the product (violent games) and you will
take away the motivation (profits on said games) for the game industry to
market towards children.


> If film would have developped from kiddie cartoons, I believe
> we might have had a much harder time to introduce and enforce a system as
> we have it now. As it stands, films were historically considered to be for
> adults, and back in the 30s many parents did not want their kids to watch
a
> western.

True, and I think the idea of graphic novels or "adult annimation" has been
hard for the US public to absorb for the same reasons.

>
> Anyhow, there is a resistance from the side of the industry to enforcable
> labeling, and that increases the pressure on the other side, from social
> liberals (let's not spoil the kids for the sake of profit) and
> conservatives (is this what we call family values these days?) alike, to
> force a regulation.

True. But as social liberal myself, if it turns out there is a real link
between violence seen (or played) and violence commited, then I think
violent games should be banned from children... and well, that's why we have
the rating system we do however weakly enforced it might be. But again, as
a social liberal, I think adult should be free to do what the want as much
as possible even if that means playing violent video games which I
personally enjoy doing. Does that mean that the gaming industry will decide
to product less violent games in hopes of reaching a broader audience? Very
possibly, but that's capitalism. Hollywood is still making it's fair share
of violent films... more than enough for me personally (and I'm totally okay
with that, BTW... 1st ammendment).


>
> Regards, Hartmut "how about porn then?" Schmider
>
> --
> Hartmut Schmider, Queen's University
>
> We are capable of sacrificing ourselves for sentiment.
> Sentimentality exacts the sacrifice of others.
> Yoritomo-Tashi
>
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 7:20:21 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"F r e e" <free@spam.nothanx> wrote in message
news:3b24ntF6e461kU1@individual.net...
>
> "JoeSmooth" <f@ke.70053> escribió en el mensaje
> news:424b1cbe$0$3459$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
> > My 2 cents...
> Brilliant man!!!! Thats exactlly what is needed. A study.

What we need a consenses on what the real deal is about violence and gaming
and if there's a big enough link to be concerned about. If a study helps
the issue to fall to one side of the fence or the other so be it. Until
then, I'm open to better solutions.

> And OF COURSE all media have an effect on people.... Parental and school
> education aside, human being (specially youth) DO imitate behaviour of
> others, be it movies, books, gangs, clubs, political parties, churches,
> friends and family...
> Freedom can never be absolute or it will be freeDOOM. Lets fight tiranny,
> but not common sense limitations.

Everyone agrees with that, but the devil is in the details. What you call
common sense limitation another person might call oppression. History is a
good source to look at for that... things we don't censor today were, in the
past, considered common sense limitations.

> This is like the stupidity of harley bikers that want to be free to NOT
use
> a helmet.... i rather want to be relatively free from diying in a stupid
> slowspeed accident while doing my biggest hobby, riding my CBR....

Well, I'll go on record right now saying I see no reason why an adult should
be forced to do something by government for which the consequences of same
only effect him. My freedom of expression should only be limited to the
extent that it effects yours. There are a lot of issues where this line
becomes blurry but IMO the helmet law is not one of them. If an adult wants
to not wear his helmet or a seatbelt then, IMO, it's wrong for government to
force him to do otherwise. And that's the problem with your POV and gaming.
Say that society comes to the conclusion that, as a matter of fact, gaming
violence leads to real violence... I would still argue that it's wrong for
adults to be prohibited from playing violent games for the same reason a man
on his hog should have the right to feel the wind in his hair.
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 8:15:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

JoeSmooth wrote:
>
> Good points. But remember there are different societies in the US. If you
> grow up in the ghetto where 1 in 5 black males don't live to see their 21st
> birthday, then it may only take a few extra straws to break the camels
> back... if you grow up in a family where you have no father, a bad mother,
> bad schooling, etc... you get where I'm going here? Of course this is all
> just speculation on my part as I don't have any studies at my fingertips. I
> don't take away from anything you say, but I would say there's lot of add to
> it and a lot more to speculate about. These kinds of details and
> considerations are what make it so hard for these studies to come to any
> hard and fast conclusions. Anytime you're dealing with sociology this is
> what happens. It sometimes takes a long time to prove to people the truth
> of something even though the experts and the studies are out there saying
> it's so. I'm not saying violence and gaming is one in which the connection
> or lack of connection is obvious to eveyone, but maybe some day in the
> future it will be to persons more objective than ourselves.

Yeah, but there are ways of correcting for such factors-- noting, for
example, correlations between reactions to violence and having had a
friend or near relative die violently. After all, we are trying to
characterize the relationship between media violence and personal
attitudes, and these are the factors one would track for.

> Don't get me wrong, I think she's trying to score political points. That's
> what politicians do. However, I think there's been a very intentional
> campaign to put her in a bad light and it's been going on for years and
> years. Now that there's even a possibility she might run in '08, the
> campaign steps up. Politics. Gotta love it.

The campaign against Hillary Clinton is very real, and it is _extreme_.

> Leiberman, who campaigned against video violence just a few years back and
> who the democrats thought was mainstream enough to have him run with Gore in
> 2000. I'm not sure I'd classifying him as one of the more conservative
> member of congress, but of the democratic party, yes, I'd agree.

Frankly, I think the choice of Lieberman as a running mate hurt Gore at
least as much as any other factor. He's known for three things; being a
shill for the pharmaceutical companies, a supporter of censorship (on
recordings as well as in academia), and for running against Lowell
Weicker from the right. (Weicker was one of the last independent
Republicans.)

Next to someone like Tom DeLay, _anyone_ would look like Franklin
Roosevelt. But Leiberman's clearly on the conservative side in the Senate.

>>But Sen. Clinton is, as I said, pretty conventional-- and she comes out
>>of the Democratic Leadership Council, the conservative end of the
>>Democrats, whose tactics have generally been to act like Republicans.
>
> I don't know the details of all of her politics, but it's hard for me to
> believe she's conservative relative to the very conservative government we
> now have in power. Wasn't it hillary who was the force behind trying to
> socialise healthcare? That's a very liberal stance to take in modern
> amerian politics. I think most true liberalism in US politics is considered
> radical these days. It's almost a dirty word.

The Clintons' health-care initiative was actually a severe compromise
from what patients' rights _and_ the AMA had been supporting. They'd
contracted the five leading insurance companies to develop the plan;
those "Harry and Louise" ads were paid for by the smaller companies
which were left out of the planing. One could make a good case that the
Clintons had damaged the prospects of national health care. Generally,
the Clintons are conservative Democrats, and Preident Clinton managed to
push through several initiatives that conservatives had failed to
accomplish-- the "welfare reform" debacle, NAFTA and GATT, to name a few
such items.

Okay, granted, these days anyone who even _thinks_ that we should have
government-supported health care is considered a radical leftist. But
that's a fairly recent phenomenon: what passes for "liberal" today would
be regarded as conservative, even reactionary, in 1975.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 1:32:49 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:10:17 -0500, Hartmut Schmider
<hs7@post.queensu.ca> wrote:
>It appears to me that this is not only a perception but an economical
>reality. I believe that this is one of the reasons that a rating system has
>until now not gone pass the "voluntary labeling" stage. Although a game is
>rated "M for mature" and the recommended age is 17+ or something, a
>majority of the de facto buyers and users are kids of a younger age. You
>can argue all you want that the rating system is there, it just needs to be
>enforced; there is an overwhelming economical pressure against it. Game
>publishers stand to lose substantial portions of their sales and they can't
>agree to that.

But a significant group tried and were denied by the 'authorities'.
Apparently a group of game developers who subscribe to the ELSPA rating
system tried to have various European governments back it as an official
rating system but were turned down by all on the grounds that it was an
industry self-regulation system (and by implication, not to be trusted),
did not conform to existing European guidelines and was voluntary. I
suspect that there was other lobbying behind this as to what would be
allowed in any deal over ELSPA ratings (there were exemption clauses for
certain types of media for instance), which is why PEGI was put forward
as an independant rating system and is now being adopted by Europe for
all types of multi-media.

More info at http://www.videostandards.org.uk/games.htm

PEGI is supported by more games developers than the ELSPA system, and
for a good reason. A multi-government backed system absolves them from
responsibility, so if little Johhny (age 13 1/2) gets hold of a copy of
GTA: kill cops, and a gun, then proceeds to shoot up his local law
enforcement Rockstar aren't in the picture, they'd start with the
retailer who sold it, and the parent who bought it for little Johhny.

For companies like Rockstar it makes perfect financial sense to support
and be rated by PEGI/ELSPA as they can get away from all the BS claims
in US courts that their game makes people kill police officers.

The US is refusing to consider an enforced rating system, but keep
coming up with half-assed methods of dealing with it, none of which to
date have stopped sales of such games. Choosing to adopt an existing
system, such as Europe have, means they don't have to do a lot, don't
have to spend any money, and can put the onus back on parents for
looking out for what their kids are up to, but it seems that they don't
trust parents to be responsible.

--
Alfie
<http://www.delphia.co.uk/&gt;
Steinbach's Guideline for Systems Programming: Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 2:56:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Brian Siano" <siano@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:D 2hp8o$4hln$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
> JoeSmooth wrote:
> >
> > Good points. But remember there are different societies in the US. If
you
> > grow up in the ghetto where 1 in 5 black males don't live to see their
21st
> > birthday, then it may only take a few extra straws to break the camels
> > back... if you grow up in a family where you have no father, a bad
mother,
> > bad schooling, etc... you get where I'm going here? Of course this is
all
> > just speculation on my part as I don't have any studies at my
fingertips. I
> > don't take away from anything you say, but I would say there's lot of
add to
> > it and a lot more to speculate about. These kinds of details and
> > considerations are what make it so hard for these studies to come to any
> > hard and fast conclusions. Anytime you're dealing with sociology this
is
> > what happens. It sometimes takes a long time to prove to people the
truth
> > of something even though the experts and the studies are out there
saying
> > it's so. I'm not saying violence and gaming is one in which the
connection
> > or lack of connection is obvious to eveyone, but maybe some day in the
> > future it will be to persons more objective than ourselves.
>
> Yeah, but there are ways of correcting for such factors-- noting, for
> example, correlations between reactions to violence and having had a
> friend or near relative die violently. After all, we are trying to
> characterize the relationship between media violence and personal
> attitudes, and these are the factors one would track for.
>
> > Don't get me wrong, I think she's trying to score political points.
That's
> > what politicians do. However, I think there's been a very intentional
> > campaign to put her in a bad light and it's been going on for years and
> > years. Now that there's even a possibility she might run in '08, the
> > campaign steps up. Politics. Gotta love it.
>
> The campaign against Hillary Clinton is very real, and it is _extreme_.
>
> > Leiberman, who campaigned against video violence just a few years back
and
> > who the democrats thought was mainstream enough to have him run with
Gore in
> > 2000. I'm not sure I'd classifying him as one of the more conservative
> > member of congress, but of the democratic party, yes, I'd agree.
>
> Frankly, I think the choice of Lieberman as a running mate hurt Gore at
> least as much as any other factor. He's known for three things; being a
> shill for the pharmaceutical companies, a supporter of censorship (on
> recordings as well as in academia), and for running against Lowell
> Weicker from the right. (Weicker was one of the last independent
> Republicans.)
>
> Next to someone like Tom DeLay, _anyone_ would look like Franklin
> Roosevelt. But Leiberman's clearly on the conservative side in the Senate.
>
> >>But Sen. Clinton is, as I said, pretty conventional-- and she comes out
> >>of the Democratic Leadership Council, the conservative end of the
> >>Democrats, whose tactics have generally been to act like Republicans.
> >
> > I don't know the details of all of her politics, but it's hard for me to
> > believe she's conservative relative to the very conservative government
we
> > now have in power. Wasn't it hillary who was the force behind trying to
> > socialise healthcare? That's a very liberal stance to take in modern
> > amerian politics. I think most true liberalism in US politics is
considered
> > radical these days. It's almost a dirty word.
>
> The Clintons' health-care initiative was actually a severe compromise
> from what patients' rights _and_ the AMA had been supporting. They'd
> contracted the five leading insurance companies to develop the plan;
> those "Harry and Louise" ads were paid for by the smaller companies
> which were left out of the planing. One could make a good case that the
> Clintons had damaged the prospects of national health care. Generally,
> the Clintons are conservative Democrats, and Preident Clinton managed to
> push through several initiatives that conservatives had failed to
> accomplish-- the "welfare reform" debacle, NAFTA and GATT, to name a few
> such items.
>
> Okay, granted, these days anyone who even _thinks_ that we should have
> government-supported health care is considered a radical leftist. But
> that's a fairly recent phenomenon: what passes for "liberal" today would
> be regarded as conservative, even reactionary, in 1975.
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 3:18:41 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

OOPs... accidently hit send like some kind of noob dumbass. Please ignore
the prior entirely blank response.


"Brian Siano" <siano@mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:D 2hp8o$4hln$1@netnews.upenn.edu...
> JoeSmooth wrote:
> >
> > Good points. But remember there are different societies in the US. If
you
> > grow up in the ghetto where 1 in 5 black males don't live to see their
21st
> > birthday, then it may only take a few extra straws to break the camels
> > back... if you grow up in a family where you have no father, a bad
mother,
> > bad schooling, etc... you get where I'm going here? Of course this is
all
> > just speculation on my part as I don't have any studies at my
fingertips. I
> > don't take away from anything you say, but I would say there's lot of
add to
> > it and a lot more to speculate about. These kinds of details and
> > considerations are what make it so hard for these studies to come to any
> > hard and fast conclusions. Anytime you're dealing with sociology this
is
> > what happens. It sometimes takes a long time to prove to people the
truth
> > of something even though the experts and the studies are out there
saying
> > it's so. I'm not saying violence and gaming is one in which the
connection
> > or lack of connection is obvious to eveyone, but maybe some day in the
> > future it will be to persons more objective than ourselves.
>
> Yeah, but there are ways of correcting for such factors-- noting, for
> example, correlations between reactions to violence and having had a
> friend or near relative die violently.

I agree about the correlations you speak of, but if such corrections can be
made I'm not sure they have been, certainly not to everyone's satisfaction.
Maybe that's something to strive for.

> After all, we are trying to
> characterize the relationship between media violence and personal
> attitudes, and these are the factors one would track for.

Well, I'm not sure personal attitudes is quite the right term, but we are on
the same page. The one study that comes to my mind (which I've mentioned
here before and don't actually have a footnote for) is the effect televsion
had on the Marshall Islands. The Marshall islands are a tiny chain of
island in the middle of the ocean. After they got western satelite tv
beamed in, violence levels rose. The effect of the violence might be more
subtle than you record in a personality or expressed belief. McDonalds does
a LOT of advertising and they sell a lot of burgers, but few people are
walking around expressing a personal attitude that loves McDonalds. The way
the mind works, it might be a more subtle correlation, even slightly
subconscious.

>
> > Don't get me wrong, I think she's trying to score political points.
That's
> > what politicians do. However, I think there's been a very intentional
> > campaign to put her in a bad light and it's been going on for years and
> > years. Now that there's even a possibility she might run in '08, the
> > campaign steps up. Politics. Gotta love it.
>
> The campaign against Hillary Clinton is very real, and it is _extreme_.
>
> > Leiberman, who campaigned against video violence just a few years back
and
> > who the democrats thought was mainstream enough to have him run with
Gore in
> > 2000. I'm not sure I'd classifying him as one of the more conservative
> > member of congress, but of the democratic party, yes, I'd agree.
>
> Frankly, I think the choice of Lieberman as a running mate hurt Gore at
> least as much as any other factor. He's known for three things; being a
> shill for the pharmaceutical companies, a supporter of censorship (on
> recordings as well as in academia), and for running against Lowell
> Weicker from the right. (Weicker was one of the last independent
> Republicans.)

I don't know if or how much Lieberman hurt Gore (but I guess it depends on
who the alternative is), but personally, I certainly didn't want him in the
VP seat waiting his turn for pres. To add to your list, he seemed overly
pro-corporation to me.

>
> Next to someone like Tom DeLay, _anyone_ would look like Franklin
> Roosevelt. But Leiberman's clearly on the conservative side in the Senate.

Okay, I'll take your word for it and look into it some more. Despite an
effort to keep informed it wouldn't be the first time I was ignorant about
politics in one way or another.

>
> >>But Sen. Clinton is, as I said, pretty conventional-- and she comes out
> >>of the Democratic Leadership Council, the conservative end of the
> >>Democrats, whose tactics have generally been to act like Republicans.
> >
> > I don't know the details of all of her politics, but it's hard for me to
> > believe she's conservative relative to the very conservative government
we
> > now have in power. Wasn't it hillary who was the force behind trying to
> > socialise healthcare? That's a very liberal stance to take in modern
> > amerian politics. I think most true liberalism in US politics is
considered
> > radical these days. It's almost a dirty word.
>
> The Clintons' health-care initiative was actually a severe compromise
> from what patients' rights _and_ the AMA had been supporting. They'd
> contracted the five leading insurance companies to develop the plan;
> those "Harry and Louise" ads were paid for by the smaller companies
> which were left out of the planing. One could make a good case that the
> Clintons had damaged the prospects of national health care. Generally,
> the Clintons are conservative Democrats, and Preident Clinton managed to
> push through several initiatives that conservatives had failed to
> accomplish-- the "welfare reform" debacle, NAFTA and GATT, to name a few
> such items.
>
> Okay, granted, these days anyone who even _thinks_ that we should have
> government-supported health care is considered a radical leftist. But
> that's a fairly recent phenomenon: what passes for "liberal" today would
> be regarded as conservative, even reactionary, in 1975.

Again it depends on your perspective relative to the climate at the time. I
don't dispute your facts, but as conservative as the healthcare plan was, I
think it would be considered liberal simply because it is and remains a
socialist concept (as opposed to a capitalisitic one). Of cousre I'm
speaking about american politics in america. Outside the States it's a
different world. Anyway, the mainstream perception as to why the healthcare
plan failed (as I understood it) was that the plan tried to do too much...
was too ambitious. I'm not saying that's true, but that's my impression of
the mainstream impression (which of course is regularly flawed).

Let's face it, liberal has become a dirty word. Many liberals are now
calling themselves progressive instead. In the last couple decades there's
been a very active very well funded very effective campaign to slander and
misrepresent liberalism. It's only getting worse, but there is a pendelum
effect to politics. "Conservative" was once a dirty word in america and
maybe someday it will be again. *shrug*
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 10:02:58 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"F r e e" <free@spam.nothanx> looked up from reading the entrails of the
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>
>"JoeSmooth" <f@ke.70053> escribió en el mensaje
>news:424b1cbe$0$3459$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
>> My 2 cents...
>Brilliant man!!!! Thats exactlly what is needed. A study.
>
>And OF COURSE all media have an effect on people.... Parental and school
>education aside, human being (specially youth) DO imitate behaviour of
>others, be it movies, books, gangs, clubs, political parties, churches,
>friends and family...
>Freedom can never be absolute or it will be freeDOOM. Lets fight tiranny,
>but not common sense limitations.

The problem is not the freedoms - it's the total unwillingness to accept
the responsibilities that go with them.
No a game did not FORCE someone to go on a shooting spree, they CHOSE
to. It might possibly have had an influence, but the responsibility for
DOING it lies 100% on the perpetrator.
If only the US legal system would stop accepting modern "the devil made
me do it" pleas, there wouldn't BE a problem.

If GTA made people kill, the USA would be a Warzone so bad Iraq would
look like Pacifist central.

>This is like the stupidity of harley bikers that want to be free to NOT use
>a helmet.... i rather want to be relatively free from diying in a stupid
>slowspeed accident while doing my biggest hobby, riding my CBR....

The thing is, how does the Harley rider not wanting to wear a helmet
affect you and your desire to wear one?

It's not like they're campaigning to make helmets illegal, just not
mandatory.

He doesn't want to be forced to wear one, but he's not going to force
you NOT to wear one, you're free to make your own choice.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 1:32:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

>>>>> "auk" == Alfie <[UK]"

auk> [...thanks of that story, didn't know that...]

auk> More info at http://www.videostandards.org.uk/games.htm

auk> PEGI is supported by more games developers than the ELSPA system,
auk> and for a good reason. A multi-government backed system absolves
auk> them from responsibility, so if little Johhny (age 13 1/2) gets
auk> hold of a copy of GTA: kill cops, and a gun, then proceeds to
auk> shoot up his local law enforcement Rockstar aren't in the picture,
auk> they'd start with the retailer who sold it, and the parent who
auk> bought it for little Johhny.

Perfectly reasonable, as long as the rating system is binding to the
retailer, there is no more reason to blame the producer, than there is to
go after Jack Daniels (is this guy real?) after a 15-yr old takes out a
7/11 in a drunken rampage.

Violent content (and most other content for that matter) may or may not
have a direct relationship with violent acts. Even if it does, this is
a price we pay for our liberties. But the recognition that young people
need a certain degree of protection from this stuff for their own sake,
independently of resulting actions, can be expected from a society that
values freedom enough to understand its limitations.

auk> [...pretty much agree with the rest...]

Regards, Hartmut "did I mention porn in this context?" Schmider
--
Hartmut Schmider, Queen's University

We are capable of sacrificing ourselves for sentiment.
Sentimentality exacts the sacrifice of others.
Yoritomo-Tashi
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 2:41:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Hartmut Schmider" <hs7@post.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:86d5teva7u.fsf@post.queensu.ca...
> >>>>> "auk" == Alfie <[UK]"
>
> auk> [...thanks of that story, didn't know that...]
>
> auk> More info at http://www.videostandards.org.uk/games.htm
>
> auk> PEGI is supported by more games developers than the ELSPA system,
> auk> and for a good reason. A multi-government backed system absolves
> auk> them from responsibility, so if little Johhny (age 13 1/2) gets
> auk> hold of a copy of GTA: kill cops, and a gun, then proceeds to
> auk> shoot up his local law enforcement Rockstar aren't in the
picture,
> auk> they'd start with the retailer who sold it, and the parent who
> auk> bought it for little Johhny.
>
> Perfectly reasonable, as long as the rating system is binding to the
> retailer, there is no more reason to blame the producer, than there is to
> go after Jack Daniels (is this guy real?) after a 15-yr old takes out a
> 7/11 in a drunken rampage.
>
> Violent content (and most other content for that matter) may or may not
> have a direct relationship with violent acts. Even if it does, this is
> a price we pay for our liberties. But the recognition that young people
> need a certain degree of protection from this stuff for their own sake,
> independently of resulting actions, can be expected from a society that
> values freedom enough to understand its limitations.

well said.


For fun, I'd add that society recognizes that young people do not
necessarily have a fully developed moral understanding of the world. That's
why we give criminals a clean slate at 18 and why (just recently) we (USA)
decided to catch up to the rest of the world and stop executing those who
commit capital offenses while minors.

>
> auk> [...pretty much agree with the rest...]
>
> Regards, Hartmut "did I mention porn in this context?" Schmider
> --
> Hartmut Schmider, Queen's University
>
> We are capable of sacrificing ourselves for sentiment.
> Sentimentality exacts the sacrifice of others.
> Yoritomo-Tashi
>
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 5:32:46 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

In article <b1aq411mopig57aia6d8u4jftj6rrlt16l@4ax.com>,
Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote:
>
>The thing is, how does the Harley rider not wanting to wear a helmet
>affect you and your desire to wear one?

The only way I can see this being a problem is if the govt is paying
his medical bills. In this case, the biker is increasing health
expenditure by not wearing a helmet since if he crashes, he'll likely
require more expensive treatment than if he wore one.

So such a society might have financial grounds for mandating helmet
use.

I can also see medical insurers include this in their policy
requirements for similar reasons.

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
Anonymous
April 1, 2005 5:32:47 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Bent C Dalager" <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:D 2jihu$ldr$1@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...
> In article <b1aq411mopig57aia6d8u4jftj6rrlt16l@4ax.com>,
> Xocyll <Xocyll@kingston.net> wrote:
> >
> >The thing is, how does the Harley rider not wanting to wear a helmet
> >affect you and your desire to wear one?
>
> The only way I can see this being a problem is if the govt is paying
> his medical bills. In this case, the biker is increasing health
> expenditure by not wearing a helmet since if he crashes, he'll likely
> require more expensive treatment than if he wore one.

That's a rational point, (and one I've heard before along with private
insurance rates going up), but you have to stop and think about it a bit.
It's true that there are times when you have to limit liberty in the name of
the good of the general public. Thus, it's illegal to yell "FIRE" in a
burning theater despite our constitutional right to freedom of speech.

But here's the thing. Using that kind of reasoning, where do you draw the
line? Maybe we should make it illegal to drive a car without a helmet.
Afterall, statistically speaking, if you are wearing a helmet in a car you
will have a better chance of avoiding injury and thus you will avoid raising
the costs for the tax payers and those who pay for insurance. Maybe that
wouldn't effect healthcare enough to be significant in the way that helmet
wearing does (allegedly). Okay, how about obesity? How much does medicare
or health insurance cost us collectively when someone get diabeties, heart
disease or any number of things because of their weight problem? This is a
far more costly problem for us than is riding without a helmet. Does that
mean we should outlaw sugar? Fast Food? Maybe just fine people who weigh
more than they should? Of course, you'd have to outlaw skydiving and maybe
football or any other activity that increases your risk for injury. While
we're at it why not make condom use mandatory and . Do you realize how
much STDs and the AIDs virus is costing us?

See where I'm going here?

>
> So such a society might have financial grounds for mandating helmet
> use.
>
> I can also see medical insurers include this in their policy
> requirements for similar reasons.
>
> Cheers
> Bent D
> --
> Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
> powered by emacs
April 2, 2005 6:55:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"JoeSmooth" wrote

> For fun, I'd add that society recognizes that young people do not
> necessarily have a fully developed moral understanding of the world.
> That's
> why we give criminals a clean slate at 18 and why (just recently) we (USA)
> decided to catch up to the rest of the world and stop executing those who
> commit capital offenses while minors.

There's just one more step in your 'catching up'.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 6:11:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Vince" <vmelia@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eny3e.17728$Nr5.17321@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> "JoeSmooth" wrote
>
> > For fun, I'd add that society recognizes that young people do not
> > necessarily have a fully developed moral understanding of the world.
> > That's
> > why we give criminals a clean slate at 18 and why (just recently) we
(USA)
> > decided to catch up to the rest of the world and stop executing those
who
> > commit capital offenses while minors.
>
> There's just one more step in your 'catching up'.

? Abolish Capital punishment? We'll see.... I'd be fairly neutral on the
issue myself were it not for the uncomfortably high chance of someone going
to the chair while being innocent and were it not for the great imbalances
in our legal system and the influence money has on it.

But even in many nations where capital punishment is still practiced,
killing minors has been outlawed for quite some time so that one really
sticks out.

>
>
April 4, 2005 9:39:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Tim O <timo56@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:n9oj41dkbetct9gdqqrse7dhhpeoia18fp@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 00:18:00 +0200, Mean_Chlorine
> <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Thusly Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> Spake Unto All:
>>
>>>http://gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=7660
>>
>>Sad. I honestly thought she'd be smart enough to see through this kind
>>of bullshit. Oh well.
>
> If she was smart enough to see through bullshit, she wouldn't have
> married Bill.

She knew exactly what she was doing when she married Bill. He was her
foot-in-the-door.


stePH
--
If it cannot break the egg's shell, a chick will die without being born.
We are the chick. The world is our egg.
If we cannot break the world's shell, we will die without being born.
Smash the world's shell! For the revolution of the world!
April 4, 2005 9:41:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Chadwick" <chadwick110@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1112179122.268725.55920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> Perhaps it would be simpler to bring up our children in an airtight
> box?

I'd support that.


stePH
--
If it cannot break the egg's shell, a chick will die without being born.
We are the chick. The world is our egg.
If we cannot break the world's shell, we will die without being born.
Smash the world's shell! For the revolution of the world!
!