Atkinson Says You Don't Need to Impale People

Greg Tito

PR for Dungeons & Dragons
Sep 29, 2005
12,070
0
0
Atkinson Says You Don't Need to Impale People



The Australian AG is at it again, claiming that only a very small percentage of rabid gamers in the country want an R rating.

ABC News in Australia ran a story covering the Aliens vs. Predator controversy. Quick recap: The Australian government has no rating for an adult game and has refused to classify AvP because of its violent content, effectively banning the title. Unlike offer game companies like Valve and Bethesda, Rebellion is refusing to edit their game in order for the game to be sold Down Under. A law which would add the R rating to the video game classifications was vetoed by one province's Attorney General. The ABC news segment supplies points of view from the industry and a typical gamer as well as Jack Thompson replacement, South Australia Attorney General Michael Atkinson.

"This is a question of a small number of very zealous gamers trying to impose their will on society. And I think harm society," he said. "It's the public interest versus the small vested interest."

Australian gamer, Gary Farrow, 42, brought up a good point, saying, "We're talking about just labeling content, so we have a fairly educated idea as to what to expect."

Ron Curry, CEO of the Interactive Games and Entertainment Association, concurred: "It doesn't seem democratic that a single attorney general should be able to dictate what the vast Australian population can interact with. The government trusts us to be adults with films, but they only want us to be children with games."

But the choicest soundbites were from Atkinson himself, including "I accept that 98%, 99% of gamers will tell the difference between fantasy and reality, but the 1% to 2% could go on to be motivated by these games to commit horrible acts of violence." He added, "You don't need to be playing a game in which you impale, decapitate and dismember people."

The answer to that is: yes, sometimes you do.

All in all, kudos to ABC News and reporter Adrian Raschella for delivering a decent story that doesn't try to vilify gamers. It's definitely worth a watch.

Source: Gamepolitics [http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/10/2768026.htm]

Permalink
 

AceDiamond

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,293
0
0
I suppose then we should ban books, music, movies and TV shows that have violent acts because of the 1 to 2% who could go on to be motivated by those to commit said horrible acts? You fail censorship forever, Atkinson.
 

Chipperz

New member
Apr 27, 2009
2,593
0
0
"This is a question of a small number of very zealous gamers trying to impose their will on society. And I think harm society," he said. "It's the public interest versus the small vested interest."
I find it interesting that the sentence makes the same ammount of sense if you remove the word "gamers" and replace it with "attourney-genrals". More so if you remember that it's not just a "small number of very zealous attourney-generals". It is, in fact, "one very zealous attourney-general trying to impose his will on society."

Huh. Interesting.

Also, yeah, sometimes you just gotta impale shit.
 

LoopyDood

New member
Dec 13, 2008
410
0
0
Somewhere between 1 in 50 and 1 in 100 gamers could be motivated to commit horrible acts of violence by violent games? That's like 5-10 school shooters in my high school alone! I have no idea how I have survived until now.
 

Doug

New member
Apr 23, 2008
5,205
0
0
AceDiamond said:
I suppose then we should ban books, music, movies and TV shows that have violent acts because of the 1 to 2% who could go on to be motivated by those to commit said horrible acts? You fail censorship forever, Atkinson.
Foxnews man says yes, yes we should. Burn all of the flith! And let us parade around the bonfire as the evil is destroyed, OH YEAH!
 

Amnestic

High Priest of Haruhi
Aug 22, 2008
8,946
0
0
Do I not get credit for that tip or did you already see it before I sent it in? *sadface*

Anyway:

Atkinson said:
"I accept that 98%, 99% of gamers will tell the difference between fantasy and reality, but the 1% to 2% could go on to be motivated by these games to commit horrible acts of violence."
First: We were recently informed that the number of gamers worldwide is broke the 1 Billion mark, meaning that he's effectively tarring a large number of the population as people who are susceptible to this.

Second: He's restricting policy on what 1% could maybe do and he has the audacity to say we're disconnected from reality?

Third:

Atkinson said:
"This is a question of a small number of very zealous gamers trying to impose their will on society. And I think harm society,"
Small number of zealots imposing their will on society? Perhaps Mr. Atkinson could do with looking in the mirror.
 

Trivun

Stabat mater dolorosa
Dec 13, 2008
9,831
0
0
First off, FINALLY! A reporter who doesn't have a strong anti-game bias and who doesn't blame video games for everything wrong with the world! Adrian Raschella, I love you. In a strictly non-gay, 'Guy Love' kind of way.

Anyway, Atkinson has always been a retard, but seriously, if films can have an R rating, or equivalent, why not games? He even said himself that about 99% of people won't turn into psychos through games, what does he think the equivalent percentage for films is? 200%? What an idiot...
 

Jekken6

New member
Aug 19, 2009
1,285
0
0
AceDiamond said:
I suppose then we should ban books, music, movies and TV shows that have violent acts because of the 1 to 2% who could go on to be motivated by those to commit said horrible acts? You fail censorship forever, Atkinson.
Yes, Atkinson, how many people have committed horrid acts in the name of religion? Should we ban that too?
 

feather240

New member
Jul 16, 2009
1,921
0
0
Chipperz said:
"This is a question of a small number of very zealous gamers trying to impose their will on society. And I think harm society," he said. "It's the public interest versus the small vested interest."
I find it interesting that the sentence makes the same ammount of sense if you remove the word "gamers" and replace it with "attourney-genrals". More so if you remember that it's not just a "small number of very zealous attourney-generals". It is, in fact, "one very zealous attourney-general trying to impose his will on society."

Huh. Interesting.

Also, yeah, sometimes you just gotta impale shit.
I was thinking that too. What a *flips through thesaurus* mook!

It's easier to see their view if you think of games as the equivalent of toys. That's obviously wrong, but still.

Love that picture of rabid Yathzee!
 

Lord Krunk

New member
Mar 3, 2008
4,809
0
0
Patrick_and_the_ricks said:
He is even worse than Jack Tompson....
That's because he's Jack Thompson, with actual power.

Somebody, please get rid of him. The election's coming soon, so we won't have to wait for long.
 

Doug

New member
Apr 23, 2008
5,205
0
0
Amnestic said:
First: We were recently informed that the number of gamers worldwide is broke the 1 Billion mark, meaning that he's effectively tarring a large number of the population as people who are susceptible to this.
Wait, what?!? A billion gamers?! Ok, 300-500 million I could accept, but this seems very high. Do you have a source?
 

Radelaide

New member
May 15, 2008
2,503
0
0
I've completely lost faith in this guy; not that I had much in him to begin with. But, it's just getting to the point where he's covering his ears going "lalalalala. I can't hear you and your logic."

The "small group of rabid gamers" that want the R18+ rating are the smartest people in this country.

And the stupid prat still hasn't sent me a reply to my fucking letter.
 

AndyFromMonday

New member
Feb 5, 2009
3,921
0
0
If people take video games seriously and actually go on a murder streak, then they have a mental condition. If they wouldn't take video games seriously, they would take a movie seriously and go on a rampage based on that movie. If you managed to ban every TV show, every movie, every game that those people with an underling mental condition could go on a rampage about, then he could just claim that someone looked at him funny and had to put him in his place.

Please, Atkinsons, explain to me. Why should an entire country suffer for something that will happen no matter if you ban all video games, all movies, all TV shows, all radio shows?


I can't even believe the shit he's making up. ""This is a question of a small number of very zealous gamers trying to impose their will on society". Want to impose? No, you asshole. Want to not be treated like little babies? Yes, you asshole!

Only a small part of the population of Australia is tired of being treated like little babies? Really? Did you do a study to confirm this or did you just reached to that dildo stuck so far up your ass it's affecting your brain and pulled that number out of there, Atkinsons?