http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...mes.censorship
Printable View
[align=center][/align]Personally I think it is a pretty crap article. The guy who wrote it seems to be frothing at the mouth and is going off on some rant. In fact, it is difficult to actually extract from his article that the issue is about censorship in games ie violence/sex/crime/etc.
I haven't been able to find Tanya Byron's report yet, not sure if it is publicly available, but I don't see why computer games will be treated any different than any other media censorship. Just because someone grew up playing pacman and pong they will now feel that it is ok to make games full of high quality realistic violence and sexual content available in mainstream shops to children?
The whole article sounds like some 10 year old rubbing the Tanya Byron report in the government's face and going, "Naaa, naaaa, naaam, naaa". Pretty childish and not really helping the cause at all.
EDIT: Seems like the Tanya Byron report can be found here.
The article was written by the creator of the first MUD. Basically the forerunners for MMO's. It is kind of a rant but the points do hit home. He is basically stating that all the old people that run the govt at the moment do not sympathise (sp) with gamers because they were not gamers themselves. The next upcoming generation of government elected officials are going to be of the age that they most likely grew up gaming. This leads them to realize that most of the banning and bad press about games floating around is purely misinformed babble.
That being said. I do not in any way support the selling of games including violent/mature content to younger audiences. I believe that the parents should be the ones making the informed decisions. This does not give anyone the right to say that the developers cannot make such games or that I (legally of age) should be prohibited from buying such games. Considering I can walk into the local best buy and pick up a Playboy video, I should also be able to purchase said video games.
-Kissell13
The threat of government censorship is generally more than enough to get an industry to regulate itself. If someone actually pushes the envelope with a game enough to get congress to do something about it, you'll see an industry wide backing away from the offender as they are ripped to shreds by government dogs.
For the record, I know what a MUD is, I played various MUDs, LPMUDs, TinyMUDs, MUSHes, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Kissell13',index.php?page=Thread&postID=59188#pos t59188
There is no mention in the article about any specific bannings or bad press. The article sets the tone that the gaming community as a whole is at odds with the decisions of the government and that the gamers win because the gaming generation is coming of age.Quote:
It is kind of a rant but the points do hit home. He is basically stating that all the old people that run the govt at the moment do not sympathise (sp) with gamers because they were not gamers themselves. The next upcoming generation of government elected officials are going to be of the age that they most likely grew up gaming. This leads them to realize that most of the banning and bad press about games floating around is purely misinformed babble.
1st of all, he makes the assumption all gamers share his point of view, whatever it is. He also assumes that the majority of people grew up playing games. Most of my friends/family don't play beyond the freecell/solitaire/minesweeper/tetris style games. I hardly think that playing tetris and pacman as a child changed your entire stance on censorship.
2nd, he uses the Tanya Byron report to somehow justify his views (whatever they are) while I don't think the report does anything of the kind.
The one issue I think he might be going on about is: Violence in games cause violent behaviour in children.
This is a heavily debated and researched topic and there is no significant proof either way. There is a big section on it inside the Tanya Byron report that is well worth reading. The US has that nutjob who has this crusade against games but anyone who takes him seriously need to lay off the drugs.
From his ranting it sounds like the government wanted to ban games and was looking for the Tanya Byron report to justify such a course of action, he does not give any details in his rant so as far as I can tell it is just rantings.
I didnt mean to imply that you didnt know what a MUD was only that the article/rant was written by the guy who created the first MUD.
Also didnt mean to start any craziness here, just thought it was an interesting read from a different viewpoint than people usually see.
-Kissell13
If people start voting for their government based on their stance towards computer games you have bigger problems than a few games getting banned.Quote:
Gamers vote. Gamers buy newspapers. They won't vote for you, or buy your newspapers, if you trash their entertainment with your ignorant ravings. Call them social inadequates if you like, but when they have more friends in World of Warcraft than you have in your entire sad little booze-oriented culture of a real life, the most you'll get from them is pity.
Yeah, I am overreacting :) I just think people who write articles like that are part of the problem. If I don't stop now I will be quoting his entire article and dismantling it piece by piece.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Kissell13',index.php?page=Thread&postID=59197#pos t59197
quick comment on the article before i post my 2cs. It was immaturely written but the statement it true nonetheless. Games are here to stay.
Now down to what's troubling me..
I'm sure some of you have heard it before. the whole maniac or nigh cult fanatic who goes on and on about how "Videogames, this modern Music, and all these films are EVIL!" etc etc etc and most of us carry on and *sigh*..
Generally I ignore these ppl because they are often so engrossed in their own world and beliefs that they have no consideration for anyone else (oh snap.. did I just do it there? fudgecakes.. must.. erm.. think.. ... ... they are wrong ok! not me)
But worryingly there are more countries around the world, where this belief IS affecting the countries policies.
I'll take Germany as an example (not because this is a stab at Germany, but because it's been in the news recently)
Whilst understandably, due to the history of said country, many feel that in order to avoid aggression, violence etc one has to be shielded from it at all costs.
Whilst there is some sense in this, it does not work in this way. Everyone needs a release for their frustrations, anger etc and what better way to do so then by venting those emotions on some fictional character, whereby the only damage is to the wear and tear of a keyboard and using up a few minutes/hours of your CPUs fan, drawing the eventual exploding PC ever closer.
Unfortunately the powers that be in Germany are at present seriously considering introducing legislation to charge people with committing virtual offences within a game, "cruel violence on humans or human-looking characters" inside games. And although this may sound absurd to some (including myself), it is happening more and more often.
The arguments of violence in games/films etc promoting more violence in real life is to date (to my own knowledge) scientifically unfounded and incorrect.
Whilst I disagree with that argument in principle, I do think that in certain people, susceptible to irrational behaviour influenced by any source, videogames can be an added factor in progressing this mentality into action. But placing that into perspective for a second.. so far there have been only 16.. 16!!! reported events of violence that has been blamed on videogames. I take the point it is 16 too many, however to this date they have not been proven to be the sole catalyst for these events. What many non-gamers tend not to consider is that video games are likely to have been the only thing from preventing these things from happening sooner.
----
For a final point I would like to highlight something I believe to have remained un-addressed for a long time.
It is about the medium of news reports. Whilst I believe strongly in that information should remain uncensored, there is a worrying aspect to having information about (in this case violent) events.
For this case I will highlight something that appears to be more common in the US then other 1st world countries.
The US unfortunately seems to have suffered by a rise in school shootings since the first reported case in 1966. Whilst the increase was slow to begin with (10 before the 1990s), the last decade has seen this number rocket, so much so that in February of this year alone there have already been 5 reported cases.
So why this rise? It is primarily down to something called social proof. whenever you see or hear about something, that someone else in a very similar situation to your own has done, it subconsciously becomes more acceptable. Whilst the conditions for this to happen are very particular, with a population of 6billion around the world you will find people similar minded to yourself somewhere.
To highlight my point, many of these killings for instance seem to have been teen or university aged students in remote/rural areas. News reports usually gave statements describing these students as relative social outcasts, prone to liking certain things/hobbies etc etc.. without realising that by them reporting this across the US, people in similar situations were likely to listen and think.. "Sounds like me".. as soon as that tie is crated, it becomes social proof of and more acceptable behaviour to that person.
This can be applied to absolutely everything!
take for instance helping someone in the street. If you see someone lying on the pavement, curled up against the wall.
there are two things that you can do.
one is walk on past, the other is help the person.
what you do is not actually all up to you.
if you are in a big crowd and everyone seems to be walking past, you are far more likely to do the same. If however you see someone in front of you stop and try to help that person, you are far more likely to at least show some interest and might help.
I'll stop here because once again I'm blathering on like a loony.
My point is don't let things influence you! ever! Persuasion by sound argumentation and reasoning, sure.. but not influence!
WALL OF TEXT CRIT ME FOR 9000Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Ðeceased',index.php?page=Thread&postID=59297#post 59297
sorry ppl
EDIT: learn to proof read
I was under the impression that school shootings haven't gone up, but news coverage of them has. I'll have to go look that up. Whatever the case, the news doesn't report things to inform the public. They report what will get them ratings, which is generally scare tactics and sensationalism.
Edit: Well, apparently incidences of shootings are up, but number of deaths is pretty constant. I would attribute part of the increase in occurences to excessive media coverage promoting the idea.
I love how you make the point of wall of text, but proceed to quote the entire thing in a second post ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Ðeceased',index.php?page=Thread&postID=59298#post 59298
Not hatin, just irony :)
To these crusty old farts the night elf dance is just as evil as Elvis' corruptive hips. It's a different generation and probably always will be; and unfortunately in the US as far as politicians go it's usually a case of voting for the lesser of two evils, not because you actually like anyone unless you're already a biased supporter of one side(the ass/donkey) or the other(the fat retard/elephant); or completely apathetic in the first place.
Far as our current presidential bs goes...personally I see more Charisma from Obama than Hilary...(Bill Clinton was awesome btw so no bias against her, and not because of his controversy ;p); the problem is noone really ever fulfills half their promises, it's all about sounding good and making the other sound bad. It's like a flamewar except the retards don't end up banned. :P
I just wait for the day the gaming generation grows up and starts to take positions of power...should be interesting to see if their l33t micromanagement/resource management/minmaxing skillz pay off in those situations :p
I can see paper headlines now..."President l33t Wang Johnson declares War on North Korea! Expecting a zerg rush, President Wang has constructed additional pylons along both coasts, and has posted sentry turrets and siege tanks at the borders to Mexico and Canada. When asked for his comment, North Korea's dictator Hyug Zerg Ling responded "WE REQUIRE MORE VESPENE GAS AND ARE SPAWNING ADDITIONAL OVERLORDS; SOON WE WILL BE IN UR BASE, KILLIN UR DOODZ." - Sources say America's current major Ally, Japan, has begun warping in Stargates for a Carrier Pincer assault. Attempts to confirm this were met by anti-Press Probes whose only response was a sort of robotic "Meow"."
That was awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Eteocles',index.php?page=Thread&postID=59526#post 59526
Seems my creativity only kicks in between 4 and 5pm on Fridays then...lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Eteocles',index.php?page=Thread&postID=59526#post 59526
hehe :pinch:Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Khazrael',index.php?page=Thread&postID=59521#post 59521
twas for the double wall effect :P
--
on another note, as someone did bring up the whole Obama vs Clinton thing, I just can't bite my tongue and have to ask something as a naive and somewhat ignorant foreigner..
Why do they fight each other, distort and harm the other's image, badmouth, accuse etcetcetc..? Just like the republicans.. I just don't get it..
Surely it would make more sense to accuse republicans of something or vice versa.. so instead of infighting.. make it Republicans vs Democrats.. I just don't see the point of destroying someone’s reputation if it means your party might not get elected at all..
I realise in the US it's more about the candidates. But wouldn't it make more sense to secure the Democrat or Republican side first, before campaigning to see which of the party's representatives wins the actual election?
I mean, if for instance Obama and Clinton managed to destroy each others reputation so much, that most democrats wouldn't even vote for them, doesn't it defeat the point of having political parties at all? as the democrats wouldn't be elected even if the policies the republicans set out were ludicrous and immensely damaging to the US as a whole.
Same thing applies in reverse (but it seems to me McCain has the republican vote already, no?)
Not trying to offend anyone, I just don't get it entirely :S
Eteocles wrote: I can see paper headlines now..."President l33t Wang Johnson declares War on North Korea! Expecting a zerg rush, President Wang has constructed additional pylons along both coasts, and has posted sentry turrets and siege tanks at the borders to Mexico and Canada.
:thumbsup: That is RL TA "Total Annihilation RTS" if I ever heard it!!!
Fursphere wrote: I'll probably write in Chuck Norris on my ballot instead.
lmao/bump