| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (38)

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 12:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
that would be my major choice is if he or she hates Video games then that person is just going to screw up this country more then anyone. Because that person would be none other then Jack Thompson. Could you imagine him running in 2008? OMG this world would be banned and sued by him because he wants his 60mins of fame.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 12:12PM Lone Starr said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
C'mon now. If proposing these laws would hurt their careers, would they do it? Of course not, they're politicians!

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 12:12PM s1ckn1c said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I tend to lean away from those that are suggesting video game legislation. If they are talking up videogames and children right now, then their priorities aren't where they're supposed to be. I don't need to listen to politicians bable on about how videogames are bad, when my buddies are over in Iraq, and you can't turn on the TV without hearing about soldiers dying over there.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 12:24PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It wouldn't really affect my vote if a politician were to demonstrate an opinion on, or policy for, videogames (whether "pro-", "anti-", or anywhere in between).

It would, however, lose them my vote if:

(1) They show ignorance and are not willing to learn more about games, talking to gamers and developers rather than just going on about the "need for dialogue" (quite a lot of politicians seem to fall into this category), or
(2) They push the issue constantly or prioritise it above more relevant policies.

Relevance and diligence are all I ask.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 12:26PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, you'd have to look at what's happening in this country right now to understand why there's this anathema to games in the legislature.

1) You got Democrats who support big government (I'm looking at you Hillary) that want the government to regulate our precious video game industry and even impose restrictions on what can be played and even fines and such on retailers who sell games to underagers.

2) You got Republicans who are being told by their base, the Conservatives, to watch out for the children and keep them safe from ill, such as violent videogames. So Republicans are gonna start supporting legislation that keeps kids safe, but at the same time goes against the Republican ideal of less government, so it's like selling their soul to the devil.

Really what it should come down to in our culture of putting blame on someone/something that doesn't deserve it is the parents. The Parents of these kids should be more proactive in their lives and say No to games they find objectionable and such.

I'm sick of this blame-game, irresponsible nonsense that is happening in the good ol' USA. We finally need to actually put blame where it rests instead of legislating it. We got bigger things to worry about.

By the way, Lieberman must win re-election this November for you Connecticut residents. This is because, although he wants to regulate gaming, he's far less strict than Ned Lamont who happens to be a Stalinist Left-wing kook, which means insanely large government and insanely ludicrous game legislation. God help the state of Connecticut!

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 12:33PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, it matters and it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter in the specific sense, that is, video games are an entertainment form and as such don't rank as high among my priorities as, say, eminent domain legislation or a balanced budget. But it does matter generally, because the politicians who are taking up arms against the video game industry show a rather alarming character trait: they are all willing to try to bring under government control something that...doesn't really matter. If the government wishes to control something, it seems far more reasonable that they try to control their spending. Video game legislation is a convenient way for legislators, governors and so on to feel comfortable in their office, having made an "important" decision that isn't very important. Looks nice when you're trying to pad your re-election campaign, though.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 12:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The problem I've seen with such legislation is from a parent's point of view. The fact is, such legislation is designed to violate Parental Rights. It's designed to dictate what is or is not appropriate for any particular individual's child.

The end result of such legislation is never more prevelant than in the case now before the court in Florida regarding the yet-to-be-released video game Bully. How so? After all, the case isn't brought due to video game legislation.

HOWEVER, such cases are, in effect, how enforcement would be dealt if such legislation WERE in place.

If there is a violation of the legislation, then a case very similar to this, whether a jury trial or not, would be brought into existance to determine if the game involved in the violation was, in fact, "inappropriate". But who is making that decision in the specifc case? The parent of the child who knows the child better than any individual on the planet? No. A jury and/or a judge who are unfamiliar with the child who attempts to buy any particular game.

It's the same as the case in Florida right now. A judge is being required to pass judgment on a specific game to determine if this game is or is not appropriate for, at the least, every child in Florida, regardless of whether any specific parent disagrees with that opinion. In effect, the judge is saying that any parent who disagrees with his opinion is therefore a bad parent. The same is true the legislations being drafted. Basically, it is, in effect, creating a dictatorship over every parent by saying they, themselves, do not have the right to make decisions for their own children.

The fact is, just because one parent doesn't make the same decision that another parent makes, doesn't mean that one is a "good" parent while the other must be "bad" by default. Each parent makes decisions that they believe is right for their OWN child.

You may say what about the ESRB (or any rating system) and a store who makes policy to sell based on the rating system.

I've always felt the rating systems were "flash cards". They weren't designed to pass judgment on a product. Merely inform people as to content. Even the age ranges are recommendations based on the general content, not on the specific game. If this content descriptor and that one are attributed to the game, it falls under this age rating, while the addition of this content descriptor may make it this other rating. Same for movies and TV. It isn't a sign of judgment, but merely an information resource. And there are many other resources to obtain information from. Stores that have policies that follow the ratings are merely recognizing that some, not all, but some parents may buy games for their children based on the information and the retailer shows parents respect by letting the parent make their own decision as to what is or is not appropriate for their child. Again, not a judgment, just an adherance to possible parental decisions.

It's the same with parental controls (like the V chip). The TV doesn't ask "how old is your child?" and if you put in one age, it says "Oh, ok, these ratings are inappropriate for your child" and blocks the shows. Parental Control allows the PARENT to pick and choose based on ratings/content as to what the individual parent believes is or is not appropriate for their own child.

So I continue to maintain that such legislation is merely designed to violate Parental Rights and dictate to parents what is or is not appropriate for their own children.

nightwng2000
NW2K Software

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 12:38PM Nmaster64 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"So would you vote for or against a candidate strictly on the basis of where he or she stands on video game legislation?

Me neither."

Don't speak for others, I didn't agree to that. I hate all the candidates, might as well go for the one that's not going to take away the thing that distracts me from how screwed up politics are...

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 1:27PM FredFredrickson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Whoever has been doing your pictures here, Joystiq, needs to lay off the perspective distortion in Photoshop, until they gain an eye for it... the last couple images that use it (like the vote button) have been pretty sorry looking.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 12:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I say this every time an election rolls around, but where the hell are the sensible, intelligent moderates? I'd rather not have a (incoming exaggeration) psychotic conservative-nazi or a wacko treehugging-communist in charge of the government, but someone who can deal with things realistically and make a reasonable choice that would work. Then again they're politicians, so that's probably asking too much.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 12:49PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I voted against Joe Lieberman in CT because of his policy on video games, and he didn't get the democratic nomination, forcing him to run as an independent this year.

If we, as gamers, banded together and all went out and voted we could vote out people who have nonsensical views on video games. Unfortunately it's pretty hard to get lots of people to vote.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 1:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Videogame legislation is far from being an issue in a campaign that will affect the decision of voters outside of the small, small interest group of the "core gamer." Even then, economic policies, tax plans, policy regarding domestic and international relations surely trump something as petty as videogames.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 1:02PM sqlrob said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Damn straight I would vote based on video game stance.

It gives a good indication of what their view of the First Amendment is. If you're willing to break the Constitution, I don't want you in office.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 1:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As to Julia Boseman, her lesbian status is of absolutely no interest in the voting arena as far as I'm concerned.

I am glad that she brought the lottery to NC. There are still pockets of controversy that pop up in regards to it, but I think in the end it's a good decision.

But I am rather displeased with her association with John Bruce and their attempt to violate my Parental Rights by creating such legislation, even if it didn't make it to be voted on.

Here ads talk about the money she's had put towards protecting our children. Yet such a legislation would put unnecessary financial burden on NC.

If it passed and a lawsuit ensued and they failed in court, NC would loose money paying the legal fees to the Game Industry.

If the bill passed, one way or the other, funds would have to be available to enforce the law. Not much use in creating a law if you don't enforce it.

Some have, in the past, likened video game legislation and enforcement to the laws regarding tobacco and alcohol. Let's ignore the difference between one being a chemical substance and the other not and focus on the factor of the law as an "age limit" law.

The money spent making certain that retailers do not sell tobacco/alcohol to minors might seem oh so feel good.

Problem: If a minor wants these things, how do they get them?

(1) Fake ID. Doesn't always work, but on occassion, it does.
(2) Have a very "open minded" parent buy the items for the minor. So much for the age limit law.
(3) Steal from parent's stash. So much for the age limit law.
(4) Have an older friend/relative (sibling for example) buy it for them. So much for the age limit law.

There are others I'm sure. But the point is, all the money spent on enforcement might make it SEEM like a success. But when you look closer, minors are still getting and using such products.

Would the effects be the same if retailers merely set their own age limit policy and followed them versus the state spending the money and personnel time to verify that age limits are maintained? I really don't see a drastic difference in the number of minors obtaining such products. And without such laws, NC would have more money in its coffers and more personnel could be devoted to other tasks of importance. Should the laws be dropped now? Bit late. It probably would save money, but I think people have gotten used to it by now. So, it would be better simply not to waste the money/manpower on the video game legislation since it's not in place yet. After all, the same problems with "age limiting" exist for the proposed video game legislation.

Some might argue about pornography. The problem with that word is that a great many individuals have, or at least tried to, expand just what is or is not pornographic. Even if you're just talking about "adult media" (such as Playboy/Playgirl, Hustler, and adult videos), there are a few parents who may actually think their teenage children may be mature enough for such material. Again, their opinion may differ from mine but that doesn't absolutely make them "bad" parents.

But it's also true that there are many individuals who have tried to get certain works of art (from paintings to books) labeled as "pornography" simply because they believe their ideals are superior to everyone else's and that such items are, therefore, inappropriate for EVERYONE.

While such material may have been seen as "cut and dry" issues, these days, it isn't always so clear. And the prospect of an individual, organization, and/or government body attempting to dictate what is or is not appropriate for other people's children is still a very large concern.

nightwng2000
NW2K Software

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 1:08PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is why 2 party politics doesn't work. I want to be able to vote people in who are specifically focused on a topic, not someone who represents some of my issues and some that are less important that I don't agree with. Coalitional governments are where it's at.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 1:18PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've made the argument of voting against an anti-gaming legislator in the past. I still stand by it...from The Escapist: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/39/2

[Re: "A Huge Disconnect" by Shannon Drake] "We ran a poll on GamePolitics; 45% who responded said they would decide their vote based solely on a candidate's views on videogame legislation. With issues like Iraq, Iran, globalization, energy policy and abortion on the table, that's actually a little scary."

Think about it this way.

Any politician devoting time on such an important issue as video game censorship during the time when there're much more pressing issues to concentrate on is not fit to represent us.

Furthermore, a large percentage of these bills are based on such shoddy, incomplete or downright dishonest research that anyone basing legislative efforts on them should be kicked out of office immediately. Just imagine what sort of other laws they're drafting based on equally bad research.

Not only that, but many of these bills are known to be unconstitutional even before they're formally introduced. Some of the people sponsoring them have even admitted to it while still pressing on. These legislators are wasting my money introducing bills that they know are going to get shut down by an expensive legal process. Why should I ever vote for these people? In fact, I should be suing them to recoup some of the tax payers' money wasted by them.

Finally, as Dennis even mentioned, some of the bills are so clearly motivated by baby-kissing type of election campaigning that there's no question as to where that person's priorities are: getting re-elected no matter what. These sort of people should not get a single vote either.

So in essence, I don't think it's such a bad idea to base your decisions on who to (not) vote on the candidates' views on video game legislation.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 1:22PM ProfKOS said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The problem here is that it is the perfect issue for politicos to flaunt. If a politician comes out strongly against games it endears them to the CNN/FOX news frightened parent who thinks the next door neighbour is a serial rapist. They are uneducated about games (or any media's) effect on youth. They may not vote just because of this issue, but it is part of a whole.

On the flip side, those that are offended, or harmed, by this type of posturing are usually in one of four groups;

- those who are too young to vote
- those who are too apathetic to vote or just don't
- part of a very small voting group that vote based on this issue
- or those who aren't very concerned about this issue (don't care)

The only thing that can change in regards to this is the education of the parents in regards to the real effects of violent media. And the correct answer is: There is none. At some point we have to realize that violent people are more likely to be drawn to more violent forms of entertainment. The medium doesn't make them, if anything the medium gives them a better outlet than just beating someone to death. It's the same reason that someon who is a big sprts fan will play sports games and watch sports on TV. It doesn't necessarily mean that he's going to get off the couch at some point and play a pick up game, but he just might.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 1:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Maybe that's the politicians problem with Bully, they think there's a "The" in the title, so maybe that's why regardless of what anyone says they think you play as the bully.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 1:37PM cppcrusader said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It may not be the sole factor in my voting this year, but it certainly will be a large one. The problem with using the video game issue as a deciding factor is that virtually no politician will say, if specifically asked, that they're against game legislation. They think it will make them look bad if they say so.

What I will be doing is not voting for anyone who has sponsored any game legislation, or has been very pro game legislation in the public eye. The ones who are left will then judged according to their stance on the more important issues, because to me that means they actually care about what they do.

And should I be faced with nothing but pro game legislation candidates on my ballot, then, well I guess I'll just have to figure which is the lesser of two evils then.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 1:57PM EJ A said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's a mistake on politicians' part to put their big ugly hand into the video game industry because they're discouraging the 18-35 male demographic (the majority of gamers) to vote for them and/or even vote at all.

The Feds need to focus on our national debt, the war in Iraq, outsourcing regulations, domestic subsidies, tax reform that's killing the middle class (the poor get poorer and the rich get richer) and a million other things than video games.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 1:59PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I am a left leaning person. There are two issues I care about more than anything else. Freedom of speech (which translates to video games) and Right to privacy (which translates to a pro-legalization of marijuana/ whatever you else you want to do in your own space).

It the candidates are more for my views than against them, I will vote for them (which usually means Democrat - but not exclusively)... if they are not for my views, I abstain.

-Hundo

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 2:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Am I the only one who finds Sidus' comment laughable? Lamont hasn't said a damned thing about video gaming - and yet he's certain that he'd be more strict on the industry than Lieberman ever would be. That entire comment reads like a paid wingnut trying for Joe Lieberman's re-election.

Here's a good question - I think the article does a fairly good job of proving that video game-based legislation really doesn't hurt candidates. But does it really help them, either? I don't think I've ever seen anyone support a candidate because they didn't like GTA. I suspect it doesn't help, which begs the question of why they'd even bother wasting time on bills they know will be struck down as unconstitutional if the bills won't help their standing at all.

I wonder if it's just generational disconnect, or if it's some fear of the industry on some other level.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 2:21PM Sloar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@22 Hundo-

Sorry dude, there is no Constitutional right to privacy.

@ about 1/2 of you-

Don't you think that you're being a little hypocritical? You're spouting off that there are more important issues and so you would vote against someone just because of their stance on video games. If you are voting against someone based on their particular views in one area, then that is obviously an important area.

The youth of today are the laziest group when it comes to civic activities. Do you want to know why all these politicians are talking about how video games pollute the minds of our children? It's because it's the children's parents who are out voting.

As someone who works in an appointed position for a government official, if you guys who are complaining get out and vote and rally enough of your peers to vote as well, things might be VERY different. However, if you are going to stay at home and play WoW instead of voting, you deserve what's coming to you--video game legislation and all.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 2:23PM Sloar said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
(correction) @21 Hundo-

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 3:00PM Ness12 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would totally vote against a politician because of an anti-video game slant. Obviously as others have commented every single anti-video game politician is ignoring things that are of much greater importance. Furthermore, I work in the video game industry which means that any politician that is against video games is against the way that I earn my living so voting for them would certainly be in my WORST interests.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 4:57PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm keeping games in mind.
I know what you mean. I like Hillary Clinton's idea of having the min-wage go up the same percentage as congress' self appointed pay raises but she seems more dedicated to setting a video game tax as if games cause cancer.
I'm probably the wrong person to ask anyway. I hate all mainstream politicians (perhaps not equally, the right wing, from what I've seen, is more racist, unfair, and sometimes just plain mean to the average American than the left) so I hardly ever vote for anyone who could win.
To give you an idea, the first time I voted it was for Al Lewis (yea "Grandpa Munster") who was running for NYC mayor under the Marijuana Reform Party.
Don't do drugs kids.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 3:10PM Lamppost said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think that, while I won't vote for anyone based on their stance toward video game legislation, I see it as something that tells me a lot about a candidate. I think lawmakers who propose video game legislation are the same lawmakers who use entertainment and the media in general as a convenient scapegoat for their failure to address real issues like the drug trade, crime and gun control. I know if someone boasts video game legislation as part of their platform, they're lazy and won't fight for anything in office. This is why, despite being an avowed liberal, I will not vote for Hillary in my home state of NY.

As an aside, Sidus: Your statement on Lamont displays your complete lack of education. Say whatever you want about Lamont, he wasn't responsible for killing millions of Russians like Stalin was.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 4:06PM Apreche said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This sucks. Spitzer is so awesome in every way except for his anti-game stance.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 5:51PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
My opinion... I'm not going to vote against somebody just because their anti-game. However, it will set off a lot of flags. If somebody is involved in anti-game legislation, it means that they're might be:
1) Working on faulty or flawed information. Whether this is deliberate on their part or not is almost inconsequential. Do you prefer your politicians corrupt or incompetent.
2) Willing to focus on little things at the expense of more important issues.
3) Grandstanding just to get elected.
The word "might" is important here (although one could argue just about every politician is guilty of all 3 to some extent). It's a warning flag. You see it, and you investigate further to see if, aside from his stance on gaming, does he represent your interests better than his opposition.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 6:30PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
A little correction to your post, here, Mr. McCauley---though Lieberman used to be (D-CT), he's now loudly (I-CT), for Independent. I dunno if Lamont is, as Sidus claims, a Stalinist (anyone asked him about collective farming?), but Lieberman really isn't a Democrat at this time.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 7:30PM Keithustus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
When facing a decision between a pro-censorship candidate and someone whose other issues I really detest (read: your favorite Dem/Rep here), I must choose....a third party.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 7:40PM ZeroCorpse said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm a Democrat, and although I am NOT HAPPY with my Governor (Granholm) or several members of the Democratic party for their stance on video games legislation, it is not enough to lost my vote (except in the case of Lieberman, who is a Republican in all but name).

Most of these attempts at video game legislation are "save the children" type pleas, and they pander to the middle and the whole "family friendly" voting demographics. I'm an adult- Anybody who can vote is an adult- and the laws DO NOT affect me. They stop people under 18 from getting games, but this is not censorship; It's regulation and tighter control of the industry.

Having sold videogames at the retail level I've seen the way parents are, and they pretty much ignore the game ratings. What these lazy f#@ks want is for the government to take over some of their parenting responsibilities for them. Making it illegal for those under 18 to get M-rated games is fine with me, but I'm not fond of the idea of punishing the cashiers or salespeople. If the government want to punish anyone, they should also punish the parents for RELYING on the law to control what their kids see.

`But the Governor will get my vote this year, despite her stance on videogames. I think their are bigger, more important issues in the world, and although I'm a gamer through and through, I'm not stupid enough to vote for the other guys, as they will do far more than restrict game sales-- They'll eventually (if they get their way) try to ban or censor them, along with many other bad things that are contrary to my personal world view.

Given a choice, I'll take restrictions and regulations that target minors over someone else's morality being forced on me as an adult.

Ideally, the video game industry would have a powerful voice that exists to counter Jack Thompson's constant Chicken Little act. Someone needs to show that games are a positive art form, and that the "bad things" people complain about in games are no worse than what we see on television or in most good books. The biggest problem seems to be that the older adults (people over 45, it seems) have this backwards, erroneous idea that video games are "for kids" and have never been told (or shown) that the average game is 30 years old now. They're remember the "kids" from the dawn of gaming, and the Nintendo era, and not comprehending that these kids are all grown up now, and still playing games.

The M-rated games are NOT aimed at kids. Games are NOT "for kids". Someone needs to be the anti Jack Thompson and make this CLEAR to everyone. When we have the lame-ass "pro gamers" and the chick-clique clans full of youngish girls as our representatives, we just perpetuate the myth that all gamers are young, innocent lambs that need protecting.

Cartoons and comic books went through the same thing in their time. Now, of course, we all realize that they- like ALL art- are for people of all ages.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 7:45PM ZeroCorpse said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Erg... The average GAMER is 30 years old.

TYpo DemOns BEGONE!!!

Argh.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 7:45PM Keithustus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Actually, I find that comic books from before regulation are much better. You don't see the same level of detail on mutilated body parts and whatnot. Quite disappointing.

Posted: Oct 13th 2006 10:18PM sqlrob said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Sloar:

4 and 9

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 3:11AM Don Jose said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'll never vote for Hillary or Lieberman, and I usually vote 100% Democrat.

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 3:15AM Don Jose said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oops, forgot Lieberman's not Democrat anymore. I keep forgetting that ignorance isn't just isolated to the Dems/Repubs.

Posted: Oct 14th 2006 8:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Oh, Lieberman's still a Democrat. He just changed to Independent in name solely to get his name on the ballot after the Net-Root Kooks had the Democrats vote against him just cuz he supports the Iraq Peace Keeping Effort (Its not a war anymore cuz it ended after 3 weeks in 2003, hence the "Mission Accomplished" Banner. Look it up.

And as an affront to the flamer calling into question what I said. Hello! You don't have to kill millions of people like Stalin did to be a Stalinst. All you got to do is want the federal government to run everything, from local to national issues. And Lamont's platform runs on Government Intervention citing Katrina as a need for big Government. Look it up. That's what a Stalinist is and as for Lamont, his father and such have ties to the Worker's Party, a front for the Communist Party.

There! I'm tired of Political Noobs on Message Boards. You just got your weak point attacked for massive damage. How's it feel?

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW