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

Reader Comments (43)

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 2:07PM bxgt said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow, i have not seen you in months.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 5:40PM Foetoid said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Then open your eyes? I saw the legendary Fernando posting here a couple of days ago.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 2:02PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Why is it that when I read this letter I envision a Jack Thompson with his finger in the air going nya nya nya like a spoiled little 6 year old who got one over on his parents.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 2:07PM Mal F4cti0n said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
hey, Jackie boy.

in response to point 4.
You have to be 18 to purchase something on the internet. You have to be 18 to have a credit card. You have to be 18 to have a PayPal account. If a parent gives their child a credit card and that child lies online to say they are 18, I think buying videogames should be the least of your worries. That underage person could buy weapons and dildos if they so chose. Why aren't you going after the dildo industry to make them enforce something that, ONCE AGAIN, is up to the parents to monitor.

You really are crazy and have absolutely no common sense! Go pander your slander and crazy ideological rants in some other country. I hear Iran would love to have another crazy like you. Maybe you could stone young people who don't agree with you over there.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 2:38PM GWord said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
What's wrong with dildos? They don't seem to be very dangerous. They're certainly less dangerous than the real thing.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 2:39PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's what she said!
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 3:19PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@G$ I suppose you haven't looked at the higher (or, rather, larger) end of the dildo market, have you?
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 3:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
+24 Paragon
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 5:22PM Cal said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've had a debit card and have been buying online with it since I was 16 (and no I haven't used it to purchase dildos...)
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 6:09PM Mal F4cti0n said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Cal,

Your parents still have to be in charge (jointly) of your checking account.

I had a debit/credit card tied to my checking account when I was 14, but my parents had to go into the bank with me in order to sign off as my Parent/Guardian that they knew I had it.


Rant con'd:
It comes down to PARENTING, no matter how you cut it. It has nothing to do GOVERNMENTING. Any proposed 'law' is bullshit if a parent is not informed.

How many stupid parents just get their kids whatever they want? Lots! I had a father rent Boogie Nights for his 12 year old daughter and her friend at my parents video store. The father was pissed that he HAD TO COME IN AND RENT IT because it was rated NC-17 and I wouldn't rent it to a minor. He said, and I quote directly, "I don't care what they watch." Never followed up on it, but I wouldn't be surprised if those girls were on their backs with their legs in the air soon after.

My father-in-law routinely rents M rated games for my son. I don't let my son play them, he gets punished (no TV or videogames for b/n 1-3 weeks depending on the infraction) for renting it and it gets returned. This has happened over 10 times. It has happened with R rated movies even more than that. My father-in-law still doesn't get it no matter how many times i tell him my son is not allowed to watch R-rated movies and M-rated games.

When my son tells me a bout an M-rated game or an R-rated game he has played or seen at a friends house he gets punished too. It is a pain in the ass to constantly monitor and stay on top of your children, but that is what you do.

This law is completely worthless against the PARENT'S RESPONSIBILITIES. Get a clue Jackie boy! Go after the dead-beat parents not businesses.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 2:38PM Lamppost said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Jack, you are out of your mind. Stop before you get disba .... oh right.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 2:46PM Cena said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Lol Jack Thompson still thinks he's relevant.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 2:49PM Shmil said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Maybe Jacko being disbarred wasn't the best thing for gamers. He's got to have a lot more time on his hands to scheme.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 2:52PM NebsiNsaNe said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Jack Thompson made me do it.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 2:53PM SilverFireshot said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"As you know, there is absolutely no attempt whatsoever by your industry to enforce age ratings on video games sold directly to kids via the Internet."

Maybe I'm shopping at the wrong sites, but doesn't most online retailers require a credit card to purchase items? Or at least a Paypal account. As far as I know, you have to be 18 to use either. So exactly, how is the video game industry supposed to enforce it? The industry is only accountable for the ratings, the retail side are the enforcers. I know that is ultimately what the bill is about so this just seems inconsistent with everything else.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 8:31PM jccalhoun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Although having been told the facts a million times Jacko stil says that credit cards aren't proof that you are over 18
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 3:01PM butaneko said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
What a douchebucket
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 3:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Parents don't deserve rights if they don't have responsibility.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 3:16PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Also, he says that it affects all media but do retailers even try to prevent kids from buying R movies?
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 3:17PM SheppyReturns said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Movies have a back door, they label the NC-17 version as "unrated." Can't enforce Unrated, can you?
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 3:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So video games are already more responsible. It is practically impossible for a AO rated game to make it to retail. I didn't see you mention that, Jacky Boy.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 9:04PM Riley said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You need to be 18 to buy an unrated movie (I've actually been carded before)
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 3:10PM SheppyReturns said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
1. No, you and your morale majority idiots asked for that audit. The House itself never asked and barely gave the industry any time to address the concerns with this bill.

2. Hyup, Hyup, read the hearing and it WAS about Video Games. movies were BARELY mentioned. Even the testimonies from your buddies who celebrate you as some god fearing, homo hating messiah, deal in misinformation and focused 100% on video games.

3. And? Politician has no problem sponsoring a bill in a largely morale majority state in the guise of "protecting the children." Does he really care about this issue? Not really. He wants votes and in a state where strip clubs and porn shops are considered wholly against the fabric of the family unit and yet has the single highest pornography download rate of any state in the US, of course he wants to "protect the children" so people remember him come election time.

4. Credit Cards are considered by law enforcement a legally acceptable route of age verification.

5. Truth be told, at this point, I don't care about the parents because I worked retail, JACK. 99% of the parents don't give a damn and cave to excessive whining. Brandon Crisp shouldn't have had COD4 and yet who brought it home for him as a Christmas Gift? Wasn't Microsoft. You can give people the tools but that doesn't mean people will use them and parenting in this country has about as much cultural importance as where to eat for dinner.

So where does this leave the industry as a whole? Well, frankly, being the most responsible of the industries and still the most targetted. A french woman stabs her 10 year old and blames it on her kid using the "games made him do it" defense and THAT SHIT is all your fault Jackie-Boy. You have validated the shurking of responsibility for someone's own actions. And for what, to protect the children from a boogeyman.

But I'll make you a deal. The moment where the violence in video games is as sexually explicit and horrible as those found in the novel American Psycho, a book easily purchasable by any 8-12 year old, I'll start to back off some. But until that day, gaming is being unfairly targetted by nonsensical little luddites like yourself. And the worst thing about it is you, on your crusade, DEFENDED A FUCKING COP KILLER.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 3:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
He defended a cop killer? Before I merely disliked him but now I loathe him.

Beautiful post by the way, perfectly refutes all his points.

Lastly, what was your old avatar? i can't remember it.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 3:43PM SheppyReturns said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Devin Moore, when facing arrest, grabbed the gun from a policeman's holster, shot and killed 2 policeman and a dispatcher. And Jack Thompson tried to get him off in Alabama by using the "GTA made do it" defense.

Also, I think my LAST avatar was a fiddler on the roof logo with a chinese hat on it.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 8:42PM jccalhoun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Jacko not only defended a cop killer but he also helped the family of Cody Posey's father. Posey, who lived on news anchor Sam Donaldson's ranch, is the kid who killed his father, stepmother and step sister. During the trial Posey alleged that his father abused and molested him for years. So Jacko thinks that being abused and molested is less harmful than playing videogames... http://www.gamepolitics.com/category/topics/cody-posey
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 3:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"In the case of certain pornographic games featuring lap dances and sex in cars with prostitutes, who are then killed, these sales constitute criminal activity."

Actually, Jack, there has never been a game released on the market which shows explicit, penetrative sex with a prostitute who can be killed afterward. As long as genitals aren't shown, it doesn't constitute pornography, and it would even get an R rating. So it seems the ESRB isn't the only one who doesn't play the games that they make judgments on.

Although, come to think of it, Waltz With Bashir received an R rating and features a scene of animated explicit, penetrative sex, and has never been considered "pornography" by anyone; just about every video game features no live-action and all animation, so CAN games be porn?
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 4:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hate to say that I agree with Jack Thompson, but does nobody else have a problem with the fact that ESRB raters do not actually play the games they rate? Instead, they just view prepared videos by the developers and/or publishers. In a world where increasing numbers of parents grew up on video games and consider themselves "gamers", can't we have a system where ratings are determined by parents who play games?

c1pher
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 4:43PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Now think about this for a second.. If the ESRB were to play the games it would take not only months but years to get some games out, this would push back release dates plus they would have to get a copy with a dev kit/Debug mode in it so they can see cheats, easter eggs, and other things. Now I've said to my friends yes some retailers should stop little kids from buying M rated games but it wont help as the parent will just buy them anyway.Laws to stop things wont work, what needs to be done if for the retard parents to stop buying everything their hell spawn want and look at the game maybe learn what your kid is doing. stop passing the blame on the game industry and take some responsiblity.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 5:20PM SheppyReturns said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Taking the ratings of gamers and putting it solely into the hands of those holding the controller would be a mistake. The ESRB uses a video of the "worst content in the game" and shows it to a group without prior knowledge of the game and they, in turn, fill out surveys describing what they saw that was the most offensive.

What this means is that the ESRB ratings are inconsistant from game to game because it's entirely different groups doing the ratings. However, what we, as gamers, see as "no big deal" would be a HUGE problem for some individuals. Like how the Ratchet & Clank series uses guns, for example.

In the end, requiring people play the games at the ESRB would narrow the view of what is appropriate and what isn't. It would also lend credence to the arguement that we, as an industry, have far too much insider perception. Gamers policing gamers would be just the arguement California needs....
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 6:18PM Mal F4cti0n said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The developers show all scenes of violence, sex, adult content, etc. Once you see Master Chief shoot and kill every alien in every conceivable way, you get it.

If a developer/producer does not submit something and it comes out (hot coffee mod) somehow that it is in the game, the ESRB can take legal action against the developer/producer of the game in violation of full disclosure.

Does the USDA check every piece of meat produced? No, they can't. They take samples and test those. If a meat packer ships out bad meat, they have a problem with the government, the public and risk going out of business due to lawsuits. Same thing in the videogame industry. Makes perfect sense.

It takes 150 hours to play Far Cry 2. 75 hours for Oblivion, ? hours for Fallout 3. Whatever. Not only that, some games have multiple endings. No way they are going to play those games over again. The developer shows everything that can be considered "adult" and they will see more things than if they did play the games themselves.

Jack and everyone else who does not realize this is a complete idiot. Be careful on which side of the fence you find yourself c1pher..... = )
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 10:23PM Rooshma said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"can't we have a system where ratings are determined by parents who play games?

c1pher"

Yes we can, and I completely agree with you. In fact, we have already reached this plateau, though Jack tends to disagree. This system is called responsible parenting. It's the reason that I played Halo for the first time when I was sixteen, with my parents watching and making sure of the content. It's also the reason that I would never have been allowed (nor would I have wanted) to play Manhunt, nor will my future children be allowed to play games like that when they are thirteen.

The problem with this legislation is the complete subjectivity of it all. Don't get me wrong, I agree that the ESRB should give tip-offs to parents, and I applaud them for this (though I don't think law enforcement is their job; believe it or not Jack, that's the policeman's job).

Take the issue of homosexuality for instance (though don't start debating it... c1pher doesn't need that many emails). Seeing as how Jack Thompson is an unreasonable bigot, and seems to have about the same capability of tolerance as the Pythagoreans had for irrational numbers, he would likely find depictions of homosexuality offensive. Say what you want about this, but he should be allowed to make that judgment. Someone else may find other specific things to be offensive, and that is their right too. However, it is also their responsibility.

Parents, guardians, older siblings, all have a responsibility to guide their juniors through life. Parents reasonably talk to their children about sex, along with other more benign issues like bullying. They should also talk to their children about video games, sitting with them and discussing issues raised, at least until a reasonable age, at which the child can decipher and, with a mature world view, react to content (an age which in Jack's opinion seems never to be met... at least until you are a hyper-conservative, make-the-rest-of-us-Christians-look-bad lunatic).

Quite a few people reacted negatively to a father's making his son learn the Geneva convention prior to playing CoD: WaW. This actually strikes me as exactly what parents need to do: take a responsible, active role in their children's gaming, and using it as yet another tool for raising discussion and fueling education (as well as being a fun... um... 'murder simulator,' to quote Jack.

And just to preempt other comments, I'll to it for you: "tl;dr" (which should probably be a full colon, just to be nitpicky).
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 4:08PM GWord said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I just want to say the American Psycho is an amazing novel. Very dark and grim... (spoiler alert)



It doesn't deal with an actual killer. If you think it does, you missed the point.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 5:06PM F1 Basu Gasu Bakuhatsu said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why are people still listening to this idiot? He's already shot his credibility in the foot and has proven time and time again that he is unstable. Someone should show this letter to the Utah legislate complete with the actual facts to counter point his rambling. At least then we can get some politicians to see what he really is.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 5:53PM ChaosCon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Riddle me this: since when does Jacko play the games he apparently desires to rate?

Oh I'm sure he's "played" some of them, but I bet he "plays" far fewer of them than the ESRB "plays"
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 6:32PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's ok, Utah will be paying some money to the ESA soon enough I'm sure.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 7:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's the scary part - the ESA doesn't have any footing regarding this bill - there's nothing in it that violates the 1st amendment. It's simply broadening a law that already exists.

The very real danger here, is that this could undermine the ENTIRE entertainment industry's attempts to self regulate itself. To get out of accidently incurring a $2k fine, retailers can simply NOT claim that they card minors, paving the way for them to sell objectionable material to any kid with cash burning a hole in their pocket.

Reply

Posted: Mar 10th 2009 2:55AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm sure the courts will see that this is attempting to undermine current standards and act accordingly. Shouldn't be the first time that's happened.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 8:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why do we even care what this guy is doing? Yes he is an anti-gaming douche-bag. Yes he should probably go die in a fire. But has anyone else realized he went all the way from Florida to Utah? Its not hard to get the country bumpkins enraged about something when all they do is create religious cults that enslave women and stockpile weapons for the end of the world. The next time I see a post on Joystiq about this idiot I want It to be about how much he just cost the state after their new law was declared "unconstitutional"
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 11:15PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Hate to say that I agree with Jack Thompson, but does nobody else have a problem with the fact that ESRB raters do not actually play the games they rate? (...)

c1pher"

This is not only unrealistic and unreasonable (as mentioned earlier, games are getting increasingly vast and open-ended), but also totally inefficient and unnecessary. This is the system that's been used for the past 15 years and what few issues there has been with it, wouldn't have been prevented by letting people play the game. To my knowledge, there has only ever been two games that required a re-rating after release, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Both cases for content inaccessible through normal gameplay, ie requiring the game to be modified via hacking/modding. A thousand people playing for a thousand hours would not have found the "problematic" content.

This is a solution for a complete non-issue.
Reply

Posted: Mar 9th 2009 11:58PM drun said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
the law should be "any parents allowing their kids to own a M-rated game should go to jail", not the retailers, come on.
Reply

Posted: Mar 12th 2009 10:03PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That's obviously idiotically extreme, and I hope that you're not serious.
Are you?
If you are, then stop talking, you're crazy.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW