Supreme Court to Judge on Gaming

[rourkchris]

Not a favorite person of mine but one of my favorite quotes:

 

"Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build bridges even when there are no rivers." -Nikita Krushchev

 

This is a manufactured problem to focus your attention on and to gain votes.

[xly15]

I have to agree rourkchris. There is no real problem here.

[Deathmineral]

Not a favorite person of mine but one of my favorite quotes:

 

"Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build bridges even when there are no rivers." -Nikita Krushchev

 

This is a manufactured problem to focus your attention on and to gain votes.

You mean they're trying to gain votes by taking away our video games? I doubt this is really grabbing the attention of too many non-gamers, they can't possibly be gaining much from doing this as far popularity goes. This definitely isn't anything new either, politicians have brought this up plenty in the past ever since Doom. Now if this was during the days of GTA:SA then I'd probably have to agree with you because I do recall there being a large number of adults that were against . in video games. However this was about 5 years ago, a lot more younger voters are around now than there were then as far as video games are concerned, I can't imagine the number of people voting for the idea far outways the amount of people voting against it, no sane gamer would want this.

[molotovdaskwerl]

video games are used by parents as a scapegoat for their own poor parenting, etc for the lawyers, because they need something to blame on because what they originally had didn't work

the only thing that may need to be done is a stronger attempt to say keep mature games out of immature players hands, but that's just me

violence in video games has never caused any real life violence, infact it probably prevents violence

[rourkchris]

You mean they're trying to gain votes by taking away our video games? I doubt this is really grabbing the attention of too many non-gamers, they can't possibly be gaining much from doing this as far popularity goes. This definitely isn't anything new either, politicians have brought this up plenty in the past ever since Doom. Now if this was during the days of GTA:SA then I'd probably have to agree with you because I do recall there being a large number of adults that were against . in video games. However this was about 5 years ago, a lot more younger voters are around now than there were then as far as video games are concerned, I can't imagine the number of people voting for the idea far outways the amount of people voting against it, no sane gamer would want this.

Yes that's exactly what I mean. They gained votes by passing the Patriot Act not once but twice and all that it did was take away your civil rights. While it may not seem logical to you it's really a bit naive and narrow to not see it. John McCain has championed a couple of worthless causes that come to mind in the last few years to get his name in the spotlight, gain familiarity, and thus votes. Remember steroids in baseball? 2 weeks of live Congressional hearings on steroids in baseball. Was this meaningful to the majority of people out there? Not likely. It also cost you and I millions to put on this show. Building a bridge where there is no river. Remember John McCain's rant against ultimate fighting when he called it, "human cockfighting"? Got his name in the news, gained familiarity and thus votes. Did this concern the majority or people out there? Likely not. Building a bridge where there is no river.

 

Remember George W. Bush's campaign against gay marriage(while the "war on terror" and the Patriot Act were all happening)? Was this really a problem that effected the majority of people? No. He made it an issue(family morals) and people bought into it. Building a bridge where there is no river while ignoring the two raging rivers he created.

 

Tell everyone that video games are causing violence(make it an issue-tell everyone there is a dangerous uncrossable river here), debate the issue and pass legislation(build the bridge), gain attention, popularity, a sense that you've done something, and gain votes for the next election. See a pattern?

 

"It's for the children" is where I see a lot of knee-jerk reaction and stupidity is hidden behind. I don't think politicians are really concerned with a politically active gamer crowd. While we may buy lots of games are we a large enough block of people to really worry about? Who exactly spends money and lobbies for us?

[Miek]

Do you believe video games are the cause of video game violence?

- No.

 

Do you think the government should have the right to regulate video games?

- No. For the love of all that is good, NO.

 

Do you think video games are a form of art?

- Yes, I do.

[Deathmineral]

Yes that's exactly what I mean. They gained votes by passing the Patriot Act not once but twice and all that it did was take away your civil rights. While it may not seem logical to you it's really a bit naive and narrow to not see it. John McCain has championed a couple of worthless causes that come to mind in the last few years to get his name in the spotlight, gain familiarity, and thus votes. Remember steroids in baseball? 2 weeks of live Congressional hearings on steroids in baseball. Was this meaningful to the majority of people out there? Not likely. It also cost you and I millions to put on this show. Building a bridge where there is no river. Remember John McCain's rant against ultimate fighting when he called it, "human cockfighting"? Got his name in the news, gained familiarity and thus votes. Did this concern the majority or people out there? Likely not. Building a bridge where there is no river.

 

Remember George W. Bush's campaign against gay marriage(while the "war on terror" and the Patriot Act were all happening)? Was this really a problem that effected the majority of people? No. He made it an issue(family morals) and people bought into it. Building a bridge where there is no river while ignoring the two raging rivers he created.

 

Tell everyone that video games are causing violence(make it an issue-tell everyone there is a dangerous uncrossable river here), debate the issue and pass legislation(build the bridge), gain attention, popularity, a sense that you've done something, and gain votes for the next election. See a pattern?

 

"It's for the children" is where I see a lot of knee-jerk reaction and stupidity is hidden behind. I don't think politicians are really concerned with a politically active gamer crowd. While we may buy lots of games are we a large enough block of people to really worry about? Who exactly spends money and lobbies for us?

Okay, I think I see what you mean now. Also, I agree that the amount of people posting in this thread is really too insignificant to matter but it never hurts to have something to talk about, even though we all probably expected everyone to answer "no, no, yes".

[Dariuas]

So here's a few more questions to get your brains moving on this issue.

 

Regardless of what we all say, the Supreme Court hearing this case, means it is a problem, the fact that they would take the time to listen, concerns me. We know those who sit in the house and on the bench are

baby boomers who look for every excuse in the book to blame the world being so different than it was when they were young (present company excluded).

 

So here we go

 

Who is ultimately responsible for the actions of youth

 

If the parents are to blame, what should be done to the parents

if a child becomes violent

 

If you had to pick the most violent video game on the market; what would it be and why?

[rourkchris]

 

 

Who is ultimately responsible for the actions of youth <18

 

If the parents are to blame, what should be done to the parents

if a child becomes violent

 

 

This is the hard issue. I've worked with behavior disorder children before and I can tell you that no matter what the parents do there often isn't much they really can do. It's a weakened system where parents can't spank or the child is removed from the home-or at least investigated by Child Services-so the adults are effectively held prisoner. Shamed by friends if they can't handle their own kids or having them removed when they really try. It's nearly a losing situation for parents of "bad" children, one they literally cannot win. Ultimately we've removed the "stick" from the parents arsenal and only left them with the "carrot" as an incentive to behave. When this doesn't work what is the parent to do? Seek counseling? Often behavior disorder children are put into special seperate classes or seperate schools just to remove them from the other students of both their violence and their disruptive outbursts that teachers can't deal with and that hold back the other behaved students from learning. Sadly for most of these kids it's just a temporary stop until prison. Most are already in the legal system before 18 and they know what awaits their future.

 

Unfortunately I don't know what the answers or solutions are but I don't feel like video games are the cause. It was music with my parents generation blamed for social problems with youth(that evil Elvis and his sinful hipshaking and those damned Beatles). It was violent movies and music with my generation(PMRC putting warning labels on music) getting the blame. Now that all of those things haven't panned out to be the cause it's video games that are to blame. Just a never ending cycle of blame for societal woes. We'll never be problem-free and utopic. There will always be some bad with the good.

[Deathmineral]

So here's a few more questions to get your brains moving on this issue.

 

Regardless of what we all say, the Supreme Court hearing this case, means it is a problem, the fact that they would take the time to listen, concerns me. We know those who sit in the house and on the bench are

baby boomers who look for every excuse in the book to blame the world being so different than it was when they were young (present company excluded).

 

So here we go

 

Who is ultimately responsible for the actions of youth <18

 

If the parents are to blame, what should be done to the parents

if a child becomes violent

 

If you had to pick the most violent video game on the market; what would it be and why?

I'm not too sure how to respond to those first two questions but I think rourkchris had a pretty good answer about it. I think ultimately the responsibility is the parents but it's not always easy to be the parent if you've got a kid that calls the police for being slapped, and it's not that parents aren't allowed to do that but the way the government tries to protect kids from physical abuse leads a lot of children to believe that parents aren't allowed to do it and so they'd call the police, which most police will just tell the kid that their parents have that right if it means keeping the kid under control as long as it's not going overboard at least.

 

As for most violent video game on the market, it's hard to say since I haven't played all the video games out there but when I think of a violent video game the first one that comes to mind is the yakuza series. The yakuza games have a fighting style not unlike mortal combat, though I'm not so sure I'd call it violent as much as I would brutal. I think it's kind of hard because there's really nothing clear about the word violence, for me it's to what degree, how violent is it, someone else might think of it as to how much though. I mean everyone agrees the GTA games are violent but the blood effects and the way you actually kill people feels so inconsequential when compared to a game like left 4 dead where you can literally paint the walls with blood.

[rourkchris]

There is a rating system on games already. I have been asked to show my ID before at my local Wal-Mart, which at 37 made me laugh. I don't know how this is handled through digital distributers like Steam or Direct2Drive though. I'm not really sure what the Supreme Court could really do other than advocate stronger warning labels and age restrictions.

[Deathmineral]

There is a rating system on games already. I have been asked to show my ID before at my local Wal-Mart, which at 37 made me laugh. I don't know how this is handled through digital distributers like Steam or Direct2Drive though. I'm not really sure what the Supreme Court could really do other than advocate stronger warning labels and age restrictions.

Well steam requires a credit card and most kids don't have one themselves so they'd need their parents permission most likely. Stores do it the same way, if you're underage then you just need your parent to agree to buy the game for you, but of course they didn't do it until recently.