Australians Overwhelmingly Support R18+ Rating

[bladeofdarkness]

didn't they just pass a law that says MOVIES are also subject to some kind of censorship ?
if so, then it may not be only gamers responding
its possible that people are actually taking THIS as a first step in telling the government to stop being such a bunch of censor happy pricks

 

[Sephiwind]

Well looks like Atkinson called it. Gee what a shock. The people who actually buy the products are the ones that responded. Obviously the people Atkinson is "protecting" really couldn't give a damn one way or another if they couldn't be bothered to spend 30 seconds of their day to shoot off an e-mail with their answer.

Personally I doubt this will have any impact since it will just get spun by Atkinson to make it look like the survey was a waste of time and has no real meaning.

 

[IckleMissMayhem]

But before we all rejoice - and I hate to be a Debbie Downer here - I think we need to face a sobering reality: As much as we might dislike the guy, Michael Atkinson may have a point [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/97581-Atkinson-Dismisses-Game-Consultation-as-Unfair]. The Attorney General of South Australia predicted that the response would show overwhelming support because the only people who would care enough to get involved would be gamers - and that the rest of the public couldn't give a damn one way or the other.

That's an irrelevant argument. Even if it could be proven that every single favourable response in support of an 18+ rating was a gamer, it still shows that the over-the-top-nannying-mentality of Mr Atkinson and his cronies is completely unjustified. If the only people who care about the consultation to bother expressing their views are in favour of an adult rating, surely they should be allowed one?

I'd like to know who the 11 non-favourable responses were from... Wouldn't it be freaking hilarious if two of them were from Mr and Mrs Atkinson of Croyden, South Australia?

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I can't help but think Atkinson will see the results, realise 99% of people who actually have an opinion consider him to be wrong, and then go 'well what do they know, I'll carry on doing what I think is right!'.

Sadly, getting him removed is the only way, and then you need someone to step in with less rigid views.

Umm...when I say 'get him removed' I don't mean in a JFK way, as that would be a sure fire way to prove him right. It won't be about guns, it'll be about video games, even if it turns out an Amish guy took him out with a pitchfork launcher, they'll still pin it on GTA.

 

[Mojojuxxy]

I don't really understand the point about gamers being the only ones who care enough to have a say... what about Michael Atkinson and Co.? Their numerous press releases suggest that they do care enough to put their views forward and if they are doing so and still being outweighed 99:1 then Atkinson really has no excuse. If people don't care enough about the issue to have a say then either a. they don't care or b. it won't affect them. So the whole thing about only particular people having a say is a completely bogus argument.

 

[MezzoDragon]

I wish them luck with receiving mature games instead of heavily censored versions of them.

 

[Irridium]

wow, so 1,073 out of 1,084 support the rating? I don't care who you are, thats damn impressive.

In your face, Atkinson! His only point is that he finds this stuff distasteful, and given he's hardly free of blame [http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-103696902.html], I think the basis of democracy should have him retract his dangerous ideals.

Strangely enough, said accusations of Michael Atkinson have been removed from his Wikipedia page. Well, we wouldn't want people having an idea that 6 million Australian dollars from the Treasury was hidden in his bank account.

Of course, he'll kick off his usual paranoia trip to blame the corruption of youth, but as soon as he's out of office, who'll care?

It was the youth playing those damnded video games!

 

[Therumancer]

If the majority of people either approve of the 18+ rating, or don't care enough to respond, that IS overwhelmingly in support of the rating (I believe I said so in another article on the same subject). I notice that Michael Atkinson doesn't try and claim there is some kind of silent majority that directly agree with him.

 

[Nevyrmoore]

Unless Michael Atkinson decides "Okay, fine, have your 18+ rating!", then nothing will change until someone else takes his place.

Isn't the whole idea of democracy that if the votes are in favour of R18+, Atkinson can't do a damn thing about it?

See, here's the thing - the public do NOT actually vote on this matter. The way the system currently works is that in order for major changes such as this to go through, there needs to be a unanimous vote from all the Attorney Generals. To date, the only Attorney General voting no is Atkinson.

As such, the only way this will go through is if (and that's a big if) Mr. Atkinson changes his mind, or if the next person to take his place does not share his thoughts on the matter. Until then, nothing will change.

 

[GameGoddess101]

This is ridiculous... I'm going to be doing my internship in South Australia!! If this R18+ doesn't get passed, Imma gonna be PIIISSSEDD!!!!

But go Aussies!! I mean, it's clear that they want an R18+ rating, but who exactly are they protecting by not having one?? That's my question.

 

[oppp7]

Pfft. Democracy doesn't mean anything. Rule 11 of the internet: All your carefully picked arguments can be ignored.
OT: I doubt the R18 rating will fail to pass. Too many people are for it.

 

[DC1]

Just give the people a R18 Rating! There are bigger issues in the world that their government should be dealing with!

 

[Marcu5]

We have an 18+ rating here in Germany (and if i'm not mistakin you can't even openly sell those games), but still those games need to be censored in some cases to get that rating (AvP won't be available here at all).
The worst thing that comes with that policy is that some publishers decide to only offer the German dubbed version so the rating doesn't get refused for mere understanding issues. And even tho those aren't as bad as they used to be, some do still blow.

So even if change should be on the way in Aussieland, mind that politicians have a way of EFFIN things up...

 

[Abedeus]

Wait, if only people who care about it are gamers, and the only people it will affect is gamers, and it's only to their interest... Then why the hell is it still a problem?

 

[Geoffrey42]

But before we all rejoice - and I hate to be a Debbie Downer here - I think we need to face a sobering reality: As much as we might dislike the guy, Michael Atkinson may have a point [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/97581-Atkinson-Dismisses-Game-Consultation-as-Unfair]

The sobering reality such as it may be is that people we disagree with can make factual statements, or even, occasionally, blatantly obvious predictions. The truth of Atkinson's prediction in no way makes it a "point". Truth makes something worth evaluating. On evaluation, this particular piece of truth is still irrelevant and worthless. As others have pointed out, surveys of this nature are inherently self-selecting in terms of populations. Typically, the population consists of people who care, one way or the other. So, of the population who cares, 99% are in favor, and 1% are against.

The equivalent argument applied to non-presidential elections is that we can't actually elect that dude the mayor: only 15% of the population voted! What about the 85% that are out there, that want ME to be the mayor, and they just didn't bother voting today? It's not fair!! I claim the silent majority for myself!

 

[brewbeard]

If the majority of people either approve of the 18+ rating, or don't care enough to respond, that IS overwhelmingly in support of the rating (I believe I said so in another article on the same subject). I notice that Michael Atkinson doesn't try and claim there is some kind of silent majority that directly agree with him.

I agree. If a law only affects a limited group of people, only the people affected by the law are going to care unless there's some extenuating moral circumstance. If the majority of the people don't care, the decision should go to the minority who are affected, and their opinion should be taken at face value.

It's like saying that an election is invalid because most people don't vote. The very idea is reprehensible, and coming from an elected official it's even worse.

 

[Crimsane]

But before we all rejoice - and I hate to be a Debbie Downer here - I think we need to face a sobering reality: As much as we might dislike the guy, Michael Atkinson may have a point. The Attorney General of South Australia predicted that the response would show overwhelming support because the only people who would care enough to get involved would be gamers - and that the rest of the public couldn't give a damn one way or the other.

Well, considering only gamers would be affected by this rating, it seems quite fitting to me that only they'd bother participating. I mean, if you don't game, why would you care whether or not gaming gets R18+ games? It'd be like me voting about new biking regulations, when I don't bike and couldn't care less about biking.

 

[tkioz]

The Attorney General of South Australia predicted that the response would show overwhelming support because the only people who would care enough to get involved would be gamers - and that the rest of the public couldn't give a damn one way or the other.

If people don't care enough to voice their opinion on the matter then their "vote" as it where should be taken as an abstention not a negative or positive. Saying that because only people with a vested interest (gamers, game makers, game sellers, right wing nanny state wackadoodles) will take part in the debate is an asinine statement with no basis in fact.

 

[Callate]

At the risk of beating a dead horse (as the point has certainly been made) isn't wanting to dismiss the opinions presented on a gaming rating system because they belong to gamers kind of like wanting to dismiss public comment on a hydroelectric plant because there wasn't sufficient input from the Amish?