Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[slink]

That kind of legally enforced system is an insult to any thinking, mature child or teenager. Not to mention the parents who recognize them as such. The full 100% sum total of all censorship needs to rest on the parents and the parents only.

(Well, I put it in the Lounge since it wasn't really about entertainment, but hey...)

I totally agree with you. As I said, I am scared of legislation and what it could do to gaming, but I am with Pedro - we cannot trust parents to do this.
They've proved that, with the number of 12 year olds being able to go buy violent games.
Some shops can be very strict about video ratings here, but not many. And I haven't seen a single one being strict about the, so far, voluntary games ratings.
And I agree that chances are, no one is going to develop much more maturity between the ages of 16 and 18. Some kids may be mature enough, in terms of moral development to play 18 rated games at 14, but I think as far as that goes, it's better to let the parents get the game for the kid, bypassing the legislation and letting the parents decide themselves.
But, as Pedro kind of said, parents on the whole also need to teach their children about morals.
And, as always, the few will spoil it for the many. Which is better than the few killing lots of people.

[Pedro Picasso]

I refuse to believe I'd gained an appreciable measure of maturity and understanding in that one day.

Agreed.  What you did gain in that one day was legal responsibility for your actions.  Your parents can no longer be held accountable for the things you do, therefore they no longer have the final say on things like what you watch, where you drive, and how you smoke.  This all makes sense from a legal standpoint.

Try explaining the drinking age of 21.

[slink]

What you did gain in that one day was legal responsibility for your actions.  

You god! I am citing you in my current essay.

[AlohaDawg]

Laws exist to keep good boys good.

Legislation and even enforcement is expensive. Currently we can't keep people safe from other people. A new law is not the answer.

The problem is what Pedro referred as that thing you get in that one day:

Responsibility. Of the PERSONAL kind. As long as the 'adults' continue to abrogate the responsibility for the actions of their offspring, and as long as they continue to blame teachers, games, music. televison and society in general (all the surrogates they could give the kids to make up for their inability or lack of desire to be a parent) then these kids will ACT BADLY, regardless of what is in their environment.

[V-Adore]

But what about the CHILDREN!  Won't someone think of the CHILDREN???!!!!

A year and a half of parliamentary debate has made me want to punch everyone who ever says this. August, yer walking on thin ice -- you only get an exemption on sarcasm.

That said, I may have overstated my catharsis point. Certainly, we don't play violent games just for catharsis; often it has to do with the fact that they are, in scientific terms, totally freakin' awesome. Just that catharsis is a part of it.

As for actual age limits... honestly, if things are labelled correctly and fairly, I don't have a problem with enforcement. The problem only comes with situations like the MPAA rating systems, which tend to be bizarrely arbitrary and unfortunate in terms of what they allow children to see and what they don't.

[AlohaDawg]

But what about the CHILDREN!  Won't someone think of the CHILDREN???!!!!

A year and a half of parliamentary debate has made me want to punch everyone who ever says this. August, yer walking on thin ice -- you only get an exemption on sarcasm.

That said, I may have overstated my catharsis point. Certainly, we don't play violent games just for catharsis; often it has to do with the fact that they are, in scientific terms, totally freakin' awesome. Just that catharsis is a part of it.

As for actual age limits... honestly, if things are labelled correctly and fairly, I don't have a problem with enforcement. The problem only comes with situations like the MPAA rating systems, which tend to be bizarrely arbitrary and unfortunate in terms of what they allow children to see and what they don't.

Back in the Old Days, I remember we had these people that were much bigger and older than us (they lived with us, fed us, clothed us, disciplined us when we said bad words and strived to install values in us) and they made decisions like that. And the Community more-or-less kind of self-regulated, because no one wanted to be perceived as a "bad parent", or get a talking to from the school or the Pastor or whatever. Self Regulation is inherently more powerful than external imposition of 'standards', but self-regulation has decayed because the sense of 'community standards' has eroded to the point of being irrelevant.

[Pedro Picasso]

but self-regulation has decayed because the sense of 'community standards' has eroded to the point of being irrelevant.

And because people started lookin' down on the spankins.

[V-Adore]

Okay, how loud do I have to say it?

I AM NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULD TAKE REGULATION INSTEAD OF GOOD PARENTING. I AM GENERALLY IN FAVOR OF PARENTING, AND ADVOCATING ONE DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE YOU AGAINST THE OTHER HERE. I AM MERELY SUGGESTING THAT REGULATION, IF IMPLEMENTED WELL, IS A VALUABLE SUPPLEMENTAL TOOL.

Okay, there, I'm done. Time to have that Caps Lock key removed for the good of all mankind.

[AugustWest]

But what about the CHILDREN!  Won't someone think of the CHILDREN???!!!!

A year and a half of parliamentary debate has made me want to punch everyone who ever says this. August, yer walking on thin ice -- you only get an exemption on sarcasm.

Bring it on, Sista!

Personally, I find that a half-hour a day of DoomII keeps me suitably non-violent.

Sorry to keep being flip in the midst of this Serious Discussion.  It's just that I find the idea that violent imagery in movies, literature, video games, etc. would inspire someone to commit actual violence ludicrous.   However, I do think it possible that folks can learn new techniques from these sources.

That is, DeathKillersIII may not incite you to go out and hurt somebody, but it could show you some interesting new ways to do it, were you so inclined.

[St_Zartan]

Sorry to keep being flip in the midst of this Serious Discussion.  It's just that I find the idea that violent imagery in movies, literature, video games, etc. would inspire someone to commit actual violence ludicrous.   However, I do think it possible that folks can learn new techniques from these sources.

This is why I haven't piped in on this discussion so far, despite the fact that I have intense and virulent opinions on the subject - I don't particularly have anything new to add, and I'd most likely just end up making with the Jerk.

Perhaps, though, you have heard of this "National Institute on Media and the Family" that has made the news lately what with their lazy-mouthed new word for the Video Nasties: killographic. (I mean, come on, people - let's go all or nothing with the use and abuse of Classical Language Roots here.) They coughed up a list of their Top Ten Games To Watch Out For (first article, December 8; no direct link available) and this game called Manhunt is Number One With A Bullet, HAR HAR HAR OH MY GOODNESS ETC.

Everything I've read about the game suggests:

It is an excuse to display an overlong and unrealistic Parade of Interesting Killing Methods. The amazon.com page shilling this title uses the progressively less creative "explore(s) the depths of human depravity" phrase no less than three times.

When I was entering adolescence, there was a feature in the back of selected Punisher annuals called The Punisher's Fighting Techniques. I thought these fuck*ng ruled. That said, neither I nor the kids who are going to be playing Manhunt have the strength, agility, or pure bile to pull any of this shit off. It will put ideas into their heads and their little girlfriends' fathers will die a hundred ugly stealth-based deaths. In their dreams

Interestingly, Number Four on their list is Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball, above frankly ridiculous shit like (again with the!) Backyard Wrestling. This means that giving girls presents and maybe getting a boner is more of a threat to the American psyche and way of life than putting on clown makeup and beating on the neighborhood fat kid with Mom's rake. Explain that one to me.

[AugustWest]

This means that giving girls presents and maybe getting a boner is more of a threat to the American psyche and way of life than putting on clown makeup and beating on the neighborhood fat kid with Mom's rake. Explain that one to me.

Your explanation:

In America, sex is evil.  Violence puts the butts in the seats.

[V-Adore]

Interestingly, Number Four on their list is Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball, above frankly ridiculous shit like (again with the!) Backyard Wrestling. This means that giving girls presents and maybe getting a boner is more of a threat to the American psyche and way of life than putting on clown makeup and beating on the neighborhood fat kid with Mom's rake. Explain that one to me.

Well, quite clearly DoA XVB promotes some sort of "xtreme" dating mold, clearly a dangerous one for American society! Why, "xtreme" dating might well involve heavy petting.

On the other hand, thrashing those weaker than you is a suburban tradition.

[CortJstr]

In America, sex is evil.  Violence puts the butts in the seats.

I find it funny that while we're very prissy about nudity and sexuality in the media (the TV show Topless Darts wouldn't even run on HBO here) we're very open about  sex when you get down to it.

At least from what I understand in England they can show breasts on regular tv (after 11) but they can't sell an American issue of Hustler because of the penetration.

Apparently as a country we don't have any settings between "Off" and "HyperMax"

[slink]

At least from what I understand in England they can show breasts on regular tv (after 11) but they can't sell an American issue of Hustler because of the penetration.

They can show everything but actual female genitals, or an erect member after 9pm. Though 'good taste' on the part of the channel tends to push it back to 11 or so. Same goes for saying fuck on terrestrial, although shit's can sneak in as early as 8.
As for penetration, it cannot be sold in conventional newsagents. You can only buy softcore there. You would have to go to a sex shop for hardcore. Well, or this internet thing I keep hearing about.
But then apparently it is illegal to say on UK TV that Santa does not exist. Fact.

But, overall, I'm with V on it so far. It should be a parental thing, but since that doesn't work nowadays, we should have wise and fair legislation in the meantime.

And as for DOA... well... I'll not go there.

[AlohaDawg]

But, overall, I'm with V on it so far. It should be a parental thing, but since that doesn't work nowadays, we should have wise and fair legislation in the meantime.

And as for DOA... well... I'll not go there.

Parenting and community standards is where it's at. Legislation will probably keep those 'on the edge" from violating the law.... But, like Porno and Weed, and anal sex in the Southern US States, there are those who will break the law because they like it and playing such a game is, really, a victimless crime.  Frankly, for the most part, this will NOT be a law much worth enforcing... Like Cigarettes and Penthouse, one need only have an 18 year old cousin/brother/friend and voila'! Shocking Imagery! And, to take the VRWC's word, blood running in the streets soon after.

I mean, are there no guns in the hands of criminals in the UK? Have strict drug laws resulted in crack disappearing in Americas inner cities? Have people stopped killing each other yet? A law can do little to prevent a behavior if someone is predisposed to the behavior or if their need for whatever they get from the behavior outweighs their need to conform. And the desire to play a cool game or listen to music (especially with/among peers) surely outweighs the small chance a retailer will keep the game out of a kid's hands or a 18-20 year old won't supply a 14 year old with it.