I NEED to impale people in video games at least once a day or I blackout and wake up on the floor with red stuff all over my clothes. It's so peculiar.
Atkinson Says You Don't Need to Impale People
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
the dumb ass has actually said that he doesn't think R ratings work AT ALL, that they can't be enforced, not in movies or anything. Of course he is too lazy to do anything about there being an R rating in movies. so rather than trying to fix the problem, he just vetos this R rating, he is as lazy as he is arrogant.
I'm almost under the impression that the ratings board is taking it to him now, they have always been in favour of an R rating, so maybe they have started banning more stuff to push the issue. in my opinion, worth the short term sacrifice if its the case.
is a shame about AvP tho, but good on them for not moding it to get through. what Valve did to l4d2 was as laughable as it was insulting. A ZOMBIE GAME WITH NO GORE!?!? WHAT'S THE POINT?!?!?
maybe if the game which on which it was based wasn't so similar and MORE GORY! honestly, L4D2 becomes: "like L4D, but without violence..." PASS!!
I'm almost under the impression that the ratings board is taking it to him now, they have always been in favour of an R rating, so maybe they have started banning more stuff to push the issue. in my opinion, worth the short term sacrifice if its the case.
is a shame about AvP tho, but good on them for not moding it to get through. what Valve did to l4d2 was as laughable as it was insulting. A ZOMBIE GAME WITH NO GORE!?!? WHAT'S THE POINT?!?!?
maybe if the game which on which it was based wasn't so similar and MORE GORY! honestly, L4D2 becomes: "like L4D, but without violence..." PASS!!
When is this ****** just going to keel over and die! >_< Violence in game is a GOOD thing. It can make it more interesting. Especially with you can kill people in various, gory, disturbing or otherwise humiliating ways. If you can not feel good about yourself after decapitating an alien or disembowling a gangster, then you sir, have problems.
This guy has hit the nail on the head. I'm sure it will change soon, though. This level of asshattery can't go on in an ostensibly civilized and developed nation.
I think what he needs to understand is that some people (I don't know about all of you, but I certainly apply) aren't people who enjoy violence because they play violent video games. Rather, they play violent video games because they are people who enjoy violence.
That sounds really confusing when typed out.
That sounds really confusing when typed out.
After following that link, reading his profile, its hard to understand how this guy is still in any form of power.TechNoFear said:
While he trys to enfore such actions, they have not been effective at all, police are useless bully's, repeat offenders get off easier, weapons still get into nightclubs, hoons laws have yet to work, DNA testing isn't effective when policing is the lowest qualified job around outside McDonalds.
Time to vote Liberal.
The massive opposition this guy is facing from just about everybody, including other politicians, just goes to show that the bizarre "games are teh Debil!" mindset is on the way out. Good news, to say the least.
Emphasis on technically. =P There's a seat in parliament reserved for the Queen, constitutionally, she's still in charge. And technically the GG can dissolve parliament without reasons, he's got a pretty wide set of powers, he can just be replaced by the Queen if she thinks he's being a jerk. lolDoug said:Cyberjester said:lol yea. Most of the population is in 3 states, other 3 or so are practically empty.Doug said:Well, technically, that could be true. It depends on how your population is spread over the country. If one county has 80% of the population, it could be a majority everywhere else and still failCyberjester said:
And no, you aren't. The Queen is the figurehead of your state. Sadly, Michael Atkinson and the rest of the old crouchity man government is your government.
No really, the Governor General has to sign a law for it to be passed and he can dissolve parliament, and he's just the stand in for the Queen. If she wanted to, she could do whatever she liked. The government is basically just a figurehead, a sub-in for the Queen while she's in England.
Technically speaking.
Well, the same is true of our government; but the monarchy is bound by law too. And the de-facto state of things is that the Queen isn't allowed to refuse to dissolve parliament if requested too, nor is she really allowed to refuse to sign declarations of war.
I believe the only circumstances where she (or the Governor General in Australia) is allowed to exercise their judgement is in the event of a hung parliament or, theorically, if a government refused to have elections when their time was up. I recall there was alot of fuss in Canada over a decision by the GG following there elections not so long ago...?
So, really, Australia rules itself for all real intends and purposes, same as we have a democratic system even though we are technically a constituational monarchy.
Edit: I said replaced by the Queen, not sure how it works actually. He's recommended by the PM of Aus, and O.K.'d by the Queen. If the GG dissolved parliament, then the PM would technically no longer be the PM so he couldn't get rid of him, which would only leave the Queen..
Well, apparently, the GG is Queen appointed, but Atkinson is an elected Attontery General, not the GG. Sorry dude.Cyberjester said:Emphasis on technically. =P There's a seat in parliament reserved for the Queen, constitutionally, she's still in charge. And technically the GG can dissolve parliament without reasons, he's got a pretty wide set of powers, he can just be replaced by the Queen if she thinks he's being a jerk. lolDoug said:Cyberjester said:lol yea. Most of the population is in 3 states, other 3 or so are practically empty.Doug said:Well, technically, that could be true. It depends on how your population is spread over the country. If one county has 80% of the population, it could be a majority everywhere else and still failCyberjester said:
And no, you aren't. The Queen is the figurehead of your state. Sadly, Michael Atkinson and the rest of the old crouchity man government is your government.
No really, the Governor General has to sign a law for it to be passed and he can dissolve parliament, and he's just the stand in for the Queen. If she wanted to, she could do whatever she liked. The government is basically just a figurehead, a sub-in for the Queen while she's in England.
Technically speaking.
Well, the same is true of our government; but the monarchy is bound by law too. And the de-facto state of things is that the Queen isn't allowed to refuse to dissolve parliament if requested too, nor is she really allowed to refuse to sign declarations of war.
I believe the only circumstances where she (or the Governor General in Australia) is allowed to exercise their judgement is in the event of a hung parliament or, theorically, if a government refused to have elections when their time was up. I recall there was alot of fuss in Canada over a decision by the GG following there elections not so long ago...?
So, really, Australia rules itself for all real intends and purposes, same as we have a democratic system even though we are technically a constituational monarchy.
Edit: I said replaced by the Queen, not sure how it works actually. He's recommended by the PM of Aus, and O.K.'d by the Queen. If the GG dissolved parliament, then the PM would technically no longer be the PM so he couldn't get rid of him, which would only leave the Queen..
