Campaign Creations

aiurz wrote:It's not "you can't have violent video games"- it's "We should keep violent and sexually perverse material away from impressionable young people."

Read: ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY BIG NANNY! SUBMIT, FOUL PARENTS AND FREE SPEECH PRACTITIONERS! SUBMIT OR BE DESTROYED! ...or fined.

The problem arises when interpreting the "we" and "should" in that statement.

By "should", does it mean a recommendation (which already exists) or a demand required by force of law?
By "we", does it mean parents and guardians and individuals in general, or a monolithic bureau that claims to represent us?

The collectivized version of the "we have to do X" premise is constantly used as an excuse for government expansion.

aiurz wrote: I don't see what's censorship about saying "This material is inappropriate for minors".

It's not "you can't have violent video games"- it's "We should keep violent and sexually perverse material away from impressionable young people."

Because if and when they tag them like that, its going to be having to go to the back room to buy those games because they won't want them out on public displays and alot of stores wouldn't even bother carrying them.

It's the same slippery slope argument applied to other censorship. For the longest time, the rule on what was obscene content (extending to movies, books, comic books, radio, etc.) was "community standards" which took quite a while to get overturned in a court as hopelessly relative and not proper legal grounds to censor material from the public at large.

Yes but we're alsot talking about the same government going apeshit over a user created nudity/porn mod.

It's bad enough with all the retards running around spouting that Rape sims are being sold on this continent, because they aren't.

Hunter_Killers wrote:

aiurz wrote: I don't see what's censorship about saying "This material is inappropriate for minors".

It's not "you can't have violent video games"- it's "We should keep violent and sexually perverse material away from impressionable young people."

Because if and when they tag them like that, its going to be having to go to the back room to buy those games because they won't want them out on public displays and alot of stores wouldn't even bother carrying them.

The way I understand is that the law is that you aren't allowed to sell these violent or sexually perverse games to minors, ie that you have to card them the same way you do for alcohol and tobacco.

There's plenty of other things that have this kind of regulation that haven't been relegated to back rooms and out of existence.

The problem arises when interpreting the "we" and "should" in that statement.

By "should", does it mean a recommendation (which already exists) or a demand required by force of law?
By "we", does it mean parents and guardians and individuals in general, or a monolithic bureau that claims to represent us?

The collectivized version of the "we have to do X" premise is constantly used as an excuse for government expansion.

You have to draw the line somewhere. If it were simply a recommendation, it would do absolutely nothing because there is no enforcing of it and therefore it falls completely onto the parents of the minor to be regulating this. While in theory this is a great idea, and it would be great if everyone could do the right thing and use their discretion to make good decisions and make the world a happy place, most people are shitty and stupid.

You aren't restricting anyone's right to free speech by telling them that they need to be over 18 or get their parents to buy them their stupid little game. The only kind of censorship that occurs is by the video game industry itself when it realizes that it can no longer exploit sex and violence to sell their games, and that the greater responsibility of the parents, needing to actively buy the game for their child, will result in a loss of sales.

You know what's cool? The ESRB already has an AO rating that means that major BM stores won't carry those products branded as such. Also Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo all won't put AO releases on their consoles. Really this law is just silly in light of what they're trying to regulate when it's pretty much been taken care of the last 15 years.

aiurz wrote:

Hunter_Killers wrote:

aiurz wrote: I don't see what's censorship about saying "This material is inappropriate for minors".

It's not "you can't have violent video games"- it's "We should keep violent and sexually perverse material away from impressionable young people."

Because if and when they tag them like that, its going to be having to go to the back room to buy those games because they won't want them out on public displays and alot of stores wouldn't even bother carrying them.

The way I understand is that the law is that you aren't allowed to sell these violent or sexually perverse games to minors, ie that you have to card them the same way you do for alcohol and tobacco.

There's plenty of other things that have this kind of regulation that haven't been relegated to back rooms and out of existence.

I don't know what it's like in the US but I already get asked for my ID buying certain games in-store, if they already do that then what's the next step that the current ways aren't handling properly?

it's a good thing I look like the kind of guy that'd rape you up and down if you looked at me funny, so no one ever asks me for my id when I buy hoardes of delightfully violent games

What the fuck is this nanny-statism bullshit?

"You have to draw the line somewhere."

Fuck you. I don't have to draw shit. I grew up with Mortal combat and Resident Evil and turned out just fine. It's not the goddamned games that turn children into uncontrollable monsters. It's years of parental neglect. The children were ALREADY killers. Trial lawyers just found a scapegoat and apparently it's working on a couple of people aruond here.

Fuck that noise.

It's a fucking GAME. It is FANTASY.

But you know what? That's the chemicals talking. And my parents raised me right and I caught myself and stopped long enough to pop Unreal Tournament into my PC, load up Facing Worlds with 20 bots and go apeshit to my emotions. I can't count the headshots I got from that rush on twenty five hands. But at the end of the bloody massacre, I was vented out and calm as a lakehouse in Autumn.

Violent video games offered me a venue to my stresses that would have otherwise been turned upon an unsuspecting (and possibly innocent) public.

And some of you, and some of the nanny-state lawmakers of this Earth of ours want to stigmatize those video games because your dicks have shriveled up into 70 year-old vaginas. Go fuck a goat on an island a billion miles from here. Humanity doesn't need your intrusive-ass dictatorialness.

dune coon is now one of my new favorite words

What the fuck is this nanny-statism bullshit?

"You have to draw the line somewhere."

Fuck you. I don't have to draw shit. I grew up with Mortal combat and Resident Evil and turned out just fine. It's not the goddamned games that turn children into uncontrollable monsters. It's years of parental neglect. The children were ALREADY killers. Trial lawyers just found a scapegoat and apparently it's working on a couple of people aruond here.

Consider for a moment that all this law does is say that in order to purchase the game, you have to be over 18 or have your guardian buy it for you.

Now consider your own point, that these games are simply fantasies.

While there is no conclusive evidence that violent video games will promote violence, and I'm sure you can post a million things about how they keep kids less violent because it provides to them an avenue in which that can dump their violent stress without actually hurting anyone, but I feel a bit wary giving these neglected children, these children who are "already killers" any tool that promotes the fantasizing of violence for them. This is only a tiny tiny facet of the whole problem though. If a parent doesn't want their children playing violent games because they feel they are a bad influence, without this then parents would have to monitor their children all the time because they could have bought a game without their knowing. If you require the parents to buy it, it ensures that the parents know that they are buying something for their child that may or may not be inappropriate for their age.

What this law is doing is not saying "you can't make more violent video games". If it were, I would understand your point. This law makes retailers card customers who are buying games that are rated M or whatever. Are you outraged about movie theaters carding minors for R rated movies? How about porn shops asking to see ID when you come in? Liquor stores?

You can go on and on about how you played violent video games and you turned out fine, and that's fine and dandy but that isn't proof of shit. That doesn't count for shit because I can just come up and say that I played violent video games when I was a child, and I moved on and started to kill stray cats and now it takes all of my willpower not to kill someone. On top of that, I'm not even trying to make the point that violent video games turn kids into killers- I'm simply saying that requiring their parents to buy their stupid little game isn't censoring anyone and, in my opinion, a step in the right direction because I think most people are shitty and shitty parents too.

aiurz wrote: Consider for a moment that all this law does is say that in order to purchase the game, you have to be over 18 or have your guardian buy it for you.

Consider for a moment that it's none of your fucking business what innocent games someone else buys to entertain themselves.

aiurz wrote: but I feel a bit wary giving these neglected children, these children who are "already killers" any tool that promotes the fantasizing of violence for them.

Here's a great solution - very easy - for you to get over yourself, here. It's a quick two-parter. Ready?

1) If YOU don't want to give it to them, then don't. That's the totally awesome thing about living in a free country.
2) Mind your own fucking business. Are YOU giving it to them? No? Great. That's all. Move along. Get your hand off everyone else's dick.

aiurz wrote:parents would have to monitor their children all the time because they could have bought a game without their knowing. If you require the parents to buy it, it ensures that the parents know that they are buying something for their child that may or may not be inappropriate for their age.

WhaaaaaAAAT?! Parents actually having to BE PARENTS?! That's unheard of! You're absolutely right! We should totally pass intrusive legislation on the entire country so that the lazy parents may continue to be lazy! What an astounding idea!

I love how, not to long ago, being in your child's business all the time wasn't even a though-about. It was so part of the job of being a parent that it never crossed anybody's mind. Now all of a sudden people like you and your nanny-feds DECLARE it to be an abhorent weight that nobody should have to live with. Look, if you're not ready to be a parent, don't have kids. In the mean time, fuck off about legislating the rest of the world how you think they should be raised.

aiurz wrote:This law makes retailers card customers who are buying games that are rated M or whatever.

Well THANK GOD! Because the absolute best thing I look forward to when I go to buy things is getting carded for them!

aiurz wrote:Are you outraged about movie theaters carding minors for R rated movies? How about porn shops asking to see ID when you come in? Liquor stores?

First of all, don't be a goddamned moron. Science backs Liquor as a chemical poison. Superstition backs the idea that porn and games have direct negative effects on the viewer. (science disagrees with you here, too btw). And HELL YES I hate the fact that I get carded to see a movie at the theaters (being 9 years over the age doesn't help). So what you're saying it "Well shit, we already shot off one of our feet. Might as well keep going." Yeah. That's what we need in this country. Self-defeatists like you stomping on what's left of our inalienable rights.

aiurz wrote:This law makes retailers card customers who are buying games that are rated M or whatever.

Well THANK GOD! Because the absolute best thing I look forward to when I go to buy things is getting carded for them!

aiurz wrote:You can go on and on about how you played violent video games and you turned out fine, and that's fine and dandy but that isn't proof of shit.

This is the beauty of the rule of law, you stupid idiot. Our country's law DICTATES that the subject in question is INNOCENT until proven guilty. Not the other way around. It doesn't matter that what I said doesn't prove shit. I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING. YOU DO.

You want to take violent video games off the front shelf, you intrusive motherfucking shitmonkey? Fine. PROVE to the rest of us that they're actually dangerous. PROVE IT. Then we'll have an acceptable case. Until then, you're just a shitsucking bitch living next door with a telescope aimed at your neighbors windows.

aiurz wrote:That doesn't count for shit because I can just come up and say that I played violent video games when I was a child, and I moved on and started to kill stray cats and now it takes all of my willpower not to kill someone.

To which I would point to my original statement that you were already fucked up and it's not the game's fault, not the game developers fault and not the NORMAL KIDS WHO WANT TO BUY THE INNOCENT GAMES fault that you can't control yourself and should be institutionalized until you're safe for the rest of us. Seriously. You're not helping your case, here.

aiurz wrote:On top of that, I'm not even trying to make the point that violent video games turn kids into killers- I'm simply saying that requiring their parents to buy their stupid little game isn't censoring anyone

Because you have no fucking clue how the world works, apparently. You clearly haven't been paying attention to how EVERY OTHER FORM OF CENSORSHIP STARTED EXACTLY LIKE THIS ONE AND WAS BACKED BY USEFUL TOOLS EXACTLY LIKE YOURSELF AND NOW THEY ABSOLUTELY ARE CENSORING INDIVIDUALS.

Go watch "This Film is not Yet Rated" and then come crawling back to the rest of us. We might just forgive how dangerous your naivete is to the rest of the country.

Fucking study your shit before you open your mouth.

Turn your argument around: Who really gives a fuck if future video games wont allow the player to engage in hideously violent (or generally 'obscene') acts? It's not like video games have any artistic merit, or like they're culturally significant enough that no longer being able to shoot the heads off imaginary characters will matter to anyone. Oh, no, you say, YOU care. Why? Because it's OH GOD CENSORSHIP GET IT AWAY? Censorship is bad because it stifles artistic creativity. Video games are a business, not an artistic medium. (and the ones that do try to push the GAMES ARE ART thing aren't the ones under fire, anyway) BUT THE CENSORSHIP JUST STARTS THERE FOOT IN THE DOOR shut the fuck up. Think about how many people would REALLY care about video game censorship, compared to like, film or TV or media censorship. There is no way in hell that the government would be able to use censoring video games as a staging point for other forms of censorship.

Obscenity in literature (Ulysses, Beat authors, and the like) has historically been a way to push the medium beyond what the last generation did with it, a way to express emotions that they felt the old methods of prose just couldn't handle properly. Video games are made strictly for profit. There's nothing wrong with that, and I think that companies should have the right to produce a product if the public will buy it. If video games are censored, people will still buy them.

I know I'm not going to sway your position on this, but try to understand that the majority of the people who aren't with you on this aren't against you, they just don't fucking care.

This thread is amazing and needs more rage.