Has violent game regulation gone too far?

Remove all ads!

Exactly. Kind of like the absurd light bulb bill here in California. Grab ahold of some phony "crisis" and then pass some legislation.

No kidding. It's only a matter of time.

How many times to these morons have to try legislating morality before they see that it just doesn't work.

 

Who the what now? Explain! I don't live in The Land of The Free so I have no idea what you're on about here. Does sound worth a giggle from the get-go, though.

 

NYS is becoming the Germany of the US with their stupid legislation, and as a result the citizens will just go over the border to buy the games of their choice. Dumb for the gamers, dumb for the stores, dumb for liberty, dumb for everyone.

 

Firstly, the bill was introduced this January to ban sale (not use) of ILBs in California by 2012.

Strangely, Ontario followed suit with a nearly identical bill in April - same deadline...copycats.

But this sounds like an attempt to get people to wake up and break from the rut they're in - those compact fluorescent lamps that retrofit in a 120V socket are better in just about every way:

- Given a nearly comparable price/lifetime ratio (for my area $.50can/1000h for a 60W incandescent and $3.50/8000h for a 13W 'CFL' of similar light output) the fluorescent uses less than 1/4 of the energy of the incandescent.

- fluorescents give off MUCH less heat (which might be a problem if you try retrofitting little Susie's E-Z Bake oven, but would be a BIG selling point in California - less heat you've got to run air-conditioning to counteract )

- and c'mon, EIGHT TIMES the useful life! Who wouldn't jump at the chance to cut back on those occasions of minor annoyance of *changing*bulbs*? That's what hits ME as the best part.

...and yet, I look around and see only three fluorescent bulbs in my apartment (one is a 'tube' style fixture over the kitchenette, the other two are in standard light fixtures in hard-to-reach places) while there are ten old-fashioned filament 60W'ers, as well as three 40W 'candle lights' on a dimmer (dunno if I could get CFLs to fit those sockets/dimmer) and a reading lamp over the bed that's something like 20W (again, small socket)

Yes, even someone like ME who's extolling the virtues of the compact fluorescent lightbulb, hasn't really converted over to them. (Gotta remember to get some next shopping trip and keep 'em on hand to swap out when the oldies burn out)

So basically, what I tried to say above, is that people behave like sheep and will continue to do what they already do unless physically prevented.

Maybe that's what 'Light Bulb Bill' legislators have in mind by doing this - people continue to keep doing the same stupid things, even when you offer them better alternatives, so maybe you've got to FORCE them to change?


ANYWAY, back onto the topic - w.r.t. gamers getting older, I'm a peer of Aldeth in that respect; I cut my teeth on Pong and the 2600; I've been gaming...whoa, for more than twenty years. The biggest crime I've been charged with is "attempting to move a vehicle when unsafe to do so" (pulling out when a car was coming over the hill, and I was hawkishly looking for traffic in the other direction ) I do play violent games, but essentially I fire up GTA3 or the like so that I can vent my stress and aggression in-game and NOT IN REAL LIFE.

Ironically, it seems the legislators in this case are falling prey to the very same human fault I mentioned above - going back to the same tried-and-true habit of demagoguery without actually thinking about what they're doing...

Oh, and BTW - everyone seems to think that the 'Parental Control' bit will be refused by the console makers...read the LAST LINE in the quote from the OP...

 

I agree, Montresor.

 

@Montresor

It is posts like that, that make me wish we could "rec" posts here in the BOM. Well said.

 

Except that many people don't know how to behave. Seat belts illustrate this point quite clearly.

Cell phone use while driving also comes to mind.

Hell, let's think back to the good old days of the industrial revolution. Without regulation, we know people will work in unsafe environments that regularly kill or maim, will work insane hours for minimal compensation, will have their children work, etc. We know this because they've done it.

We know people will endanger their safety for no apparent reason, because they do it.

There are many more examples of such things. I suppose we could shrug our shoulders, but I don't think indifference toward preventable death and suffering is a laudable trait.

 

Both AMaster and Montresor have valid points.

However, in regards to the Industrial Revolution people worked long hours, with unsafe condition and low pay primarily because they had no choice and were used to working that way. Blame the guys in charge not the workers. That is why Unions were started.

I don't think games, movies, books containing adult material should be sold to children. I do think people are getting a bit carried away with this "video games turn people into criminals" idea.

However, I am a natural born rebel. I hate being told what to do. I do not want to be molly coddled, wrapped in cotton and protected from life. Gee, I guess I shouldn't have been allowed to ride horses or climb trees when I was a child. Those are dangerous activities. Sports, aha, easy to get injured playing sports.

Seat Belts are a particular item used in a high powered vehicle which if it hits something can kill you.

 

That's part of the point. If people are 'left alone to get along', who benefits? The powerful.

The difference between having government dictate things like seatbelt wearing and incandescent bulbs and having the market dictate such things is that government is, at least in theory, accountable to the weak. The market is not.

The whole point of the government, from an extreme liberal perspective (in the classic sense) is to deal with externalities resulting from transactions which would not otherwise be dealt with. That is, to uphold the public good.

Illegalizing asbestos, or incandescent bulbs, or mandating seatbelts, or whatever, is simply the government serving its role.

Sure, it could go too far.

 

Various entertainment media should be regulated in some form, movies have ratings, TV shows have ratings, videos have ratings, reading materials have ratings. There are stiff fines and other penalties for the proprietor of such entertainment to sell/admit individuals below the appropriate age (which, by the way, are regulated by each of the listed industries).

In all the above cases, a parent can override the rating and get it for their child -- and some irresponsible parents do just that. But the business in question cannot decide which children to make exceptions for (given the people I've seen behind the counters at movie theatres and game stores this is a good thing).

The big problem is that the gaming industry is not policing itself. So lawmakers believe they are being forced to lower the boom themselves. And until the gaming industry steps up and actually forces stores to abide by the standards we are going to continue having knee jerk reactions from politicians.

The easiest way to police the industry is to find out which stores are selling to inappropriate ages. The major stores (Walmart, Target, etc.) are easy, just identify the employee violating the rules and have that employee fired. The smaller stores are straight forward but painful to the gaming industry -- put a freeze on their purchases for a period of time (people can't buy the latest and greatest game from them).

As far as violent games leading to violence... get over it, this a real phenomon. It certainly doesn't happen to everyone (so such disclaimers as proof are useless) but everyone knows SOMEONE who has taken a game just a little too far -- perhaps even a lot too far. The issue is the same for violent shows (such as RAW), but it occurs. In every case these people have serious issues which the games certainly did not cause, but quite possibly acted as a trigger. Everytime some nutcase goes off and an FPS or other violent game is found enshrined in the psycho's bedroom, we will get legislation trying to tighten the restrictions... that is, until the gaming industry cleans up it's own act.

 

Probably shouldnt say this, but I have a game thats banned in New Zealand, and I play it quite a lot, and its incredibly violent, and its crude and tasteless and you can urinate on pretty much anything...

But...there is no way that Id ever behave the way I do in this game in real life, I can tell the difference between fact and fiction, and despite the crude and tasteless humour in this particular game, I see past it for the point its making...like taking the piss out of Lieberman.

It was easy for me to get this banned game, I got it from a friend who had downloaded it. Playing the game doesnt make me any less of a responsible adult, in fact, I think that by playing it and remaining a responsible and rational adult I am proving the regulators wrong. Simulated violence doesnt lead to real violence, personal issues that are internal to the person in question lead to real violence. People who play violent games and then go an do something violent in real life have issues inside them, its nothing to do with the entertainment you find appealing. Like I wouldnt go drive a real car the way I would in a driving game, theres a clear boundry between acceptable in real life and acceptable in simulation.

 

Hokay, Grandma is going to make some grandmotherly noises here.

Back in the dark ages when I was a teen there was a big stink in newspapers, magazines, books (all those things printed on paper) about how teenagers were going to hades and fast. Marijuana was coming into vogue, teenagers were joining gangs, we were disrespectful. I don't remember what was blamed for this terrible decline in morality but the 'authorities insisted it was fact'. Nothing new in this the older generation has a tendency to see the younger generation in this negative way. For some reason adults simply don't understand that it is natural for teenagers to be rebellious.

TV was just beginning to become popular. We didn't have a TV (black & white) until I was 18. Korea was a war, oops police action, we read about or heard about on the radio. Violence was mostly something that was over there someplace for most of us.

I think there is a big difference between then and now; communications. We see things live. Vietnam was a live war. A few brave souls actually filmed the war as it happened. I saw the planes fly into the World Trade Center live at the moment it was happening. Violence has come right into our peaceful homes.

Fictional TV? Ha, lots of violence there. "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best" are things we smile about or even laugh at. I do think this has an affect on people and if someone is inclined towards violence it probably encourages it.

What can we do about it? I don't have the answer. We could do away with all the technology of the last 50 years but personally I am NOT giving up my computer with Internet connection. I'll eat beans first.

I agree Game Publishers have to take responsibility but what about the Internet? We are an International Community. Who makes the rules? Who enforces them? Maybe it is time for each individual to grow up and start taking responsibility. Stop assuming that Joe Whosis or Grace Whitchit will take of everything. Let there be caring in the world and let it begin with me. Especially in the Countries that are primarily industrial and technological.

[ June 05, 2007, 07:52: Message edited by: Nakia ]

 

i've always thought this noise about video game violence is ridiculous.i grew up in los angeles.i can take you to places........no,scratch that.i'll send you there.i'm not going.........where,if you live to come back,you'll know what violence really is.what good does it do to protect little johnnie from the violence in a video game when he goes to school and finds billy in his math class died of a drug overdoes,tommie in his english class was killed in a gang fight,then he goes to his locker and gets shot in the crossfire because a crack deal went bad in the science hall.i have a better idea for these damn poloticians.trust parents to teach their children to seperate fantasy from reality while they go to work keeping gangs,drugs,and guns out of our schools

 

These sorts of restrictions are utterly worthless in the age of high speed internet anyway. If you can't buy it over the counter, you can download it and it's no big deal. Why even bother making a law that's impossible to enforce?

Government censorship is ineffective due to the internet. They can make all the irrelevant laws they like, it's not going to change anything.

 

Even if it wasn't available for download, the law would still be ineffective and unenforcable. If, for example, you live in NYC, and this law comes into effect, you take a drive across the river and buy it in New Jersey instead.

 

I don't know why I didn't get that earlier, but how does one violently regulate games? Now that sounds scary.

 

This reasoning ignores the historical record, and for good cause; the historical record destroys it. See, as I've mentioned in this thread already, the abuses that came with the Industrial Revolution, and the reason those abuses stopped.

I can only conclude you missed the bit about 'upholding the public good', since you ignore it in its entirety.

Buying inefficient bulbs has costs borne by society as a whole, not just ye olde consumer.

Not wearing seatbelts results in more injuries, which cost society more money to treat (though I suppose you're for 'letting' people pay for their own healthcare, and if they can't...well, no care. Correct me if I am mistaken). For that matter, it also results in more explosives being added to airbags, which make airbags more dangerous.

Doing drugs...well, I'm on your side there.

Are politicians more or less accountable to the general public than businessmen?

Yes, that's a rhetorical question.

Note that I'm not arguing for game regulation. Yet, at any rate.

I'm curious. Are you in favor of regulatory agencies like the EPA and regulations such as the Clean Air Act?