California Congressman Demands Videogame Warning Labels [Again]
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Seems like another politician who doesn't know how to interpret scientific research results, assuming the studies he's referring to are indeed reliable and from a reputable, independent source. Things like 'correlation =/= causation' or 'may cause =/= will cause'.
But I'm sure the congressman is a wise and worldly man who does know these differences. After all, that is why he is in office and we aren't, is it not?
But I'm sure the congressman is a wise and worldly man who does know these differences. After all, that is why he is in office and we aren't, is it not?
But right there is the rating. Go look at the bottom right or left part of either side of the box and you will see a rating, guaranteed. Whats going to stop a parent from buying their kiddy-wink Call of Duty when there is already a warning system in place for it.Kyrinn said:
A parent must decide what is right or wrong for their kid, and its every parents right to let their kids play whatever they want, regardless of age.
The problem with out right saying that "THIS GAME THAT IS RATED E IS GOING TO TURN YOUR CHILD INTO A SEX CRAZED, DRUG ATTIC CRIMINAL WHO MURDERS SMALL BABIES THEN EATS THEM!" When there is enough evidence to the contrary, along with the fact that Kinectimals is not going to train your child to do any of these things. He choose the lowest rating out there for the baseline which is just incorrect. EA is Early Childhood, and there are very, very few games out there with this rating.
Once again, the government shouldn't be telling parents what their kids are allowed to view, because you can bet your grandpas knickers that they will find out one way or the other to view something that they aren't allowed to. Either playing it over at Tommies house, or straight up stealing it, they will find a way themselves. There is not one person who won't be tainted by the media around them.
Its like with porn, nothing is going to stop a horny twelve year old from finding a way to jerk off, so why try to stop them.
-------------------
Do I have to say anything more, there already is something for this, its called the ESRB.
God, if only we had something like this:
You know, if we had a system that looks at the content of games and gives it a rating based on which age groups the game is appropriate for... a "rating system" if you will.
And, if only that rating system could have labels that are stuck on the back of a game's box and if they could inform you of the content that's within the game.
Too bad we don't have something like that. I guess this politician, who in no way is trying to advance a personal agenda, is right. We totally need to have labels that warn people of the content in videogames.
I mean surely if we had something like that, all of these "concerned parents" would actively look at the ratings and never buy an inappropriate game for their kids.
You know, if we had a system that looks at the content of games and gives it a rating based on which age groups the game is appropriate for... a "rating system" if you will.
And, if only that rating system could have labels that are stuck on the back of a game's box and if they could inform you of the content that's within the game.
Too bad we don't have something like that. I guess this politician, who in no way is trying to advance a personal agenda, is right. We totally need to have labels that warn people of the content in videogames.
I mean surely if we had something like that, all of these "concerned parents" would actively look at the ratings and never buy an inappropriate game for their kids.
the only real outcome to this would be that some parents would be hit with the alarmist text and never buy anything for their children that the children would actually enjoy, and that most of these parents would actually ignore this label due to its meaninglessness
however, the IMAGINARY effect that retailers and publishers would perceive will change their behavior, possibly leading to a cascade of changes that would impose increasingly inane procedures in the process, that would then adversely affect our hobby
i'd say let the stupid guy have his labels to make himself feel more important, if it weren't for how stupid people can get over something insignificant
however, the IMAGINARY effect that retailers and publishers would perceive will change their behavior, possibly leading to a cascade of changes that would impose increasingly inane procedures in the process, that would then adversely affect our hobby
i'd say let the stupid guy have his labels to make himself feel more important, if it weren't for how stupid people can get over something insignificant
Yup, games lead to violence. I've played every violent game from halo to gears of war to whatever the hell happy wheels was supposed to be. These games are the reason I always try to find a middle ground in arguments and try hard not to lose my cool in stressful and angering situations...
Wait
Wait
Fix'd.Andy Chalk said:
But seriously, I'll be glad when the people who are so deathly afraid of videogames and such are dead and we don't have to deal with their bullshit anymore. Good thing they are pretty much all old. Just a couple more decades now.
Our industry rating system is one of the most stringent in regards to the sale of inappropriate games to minors, and aside from congratulating us on keeping this material out of the hands of minors without adult consent, they're pushing to have videogames treated like a social version of tobacco.
And that's aside from the fact that almost all of the studies which have shown a positive correlation between videogames and increased violence are themselves products of suspect methods.
Um...he's a democrat.antipunt said:
Political assumptions are humorous assumptions.
God I love hearing people ***** and argue across party lines. None of it ever makes sense, they all look like fools, and it makes for one hell of a good laugh.
Don't videogames already have warning labels? You know, the little ESRB thing on the back with an overview of the content?
Oh wait, it's a politician from California. Carry on.
Oh wait, it's a politician from California. Carry on.
Umm...he's a politician elected to office in the USA. He's a conservative.Vigormortis said:
Now, I will grant you that Democrats are more liberal than Republicans, but on the political spectrum, almost everyone at the Federal Level of the USA is more conservative than, say Reagan or Eisenhower.
Every time I read his name, my mind changes it to "Baka" which is a Japanese word for "idiot"
rather fitting if you ask me
rather fitting if you ask me
I wouldn't necessarily say that certain video games don't have an impact on mental behaviour, but all the studies that have been done on it so far have used games such as Grand Theft Auto and Mortal Combat. You know, actual murder simulators. And those aren't suppose to be sold to teenagers anyway, so the whole deal about "thinking of the children" doesn't apply here anyway.
And if they do want to have these warning labels on everything there has to be conclusive evidence that even games like Mario and Rayman have an effect as well. And therein lies the problem. When discussing physiological health risks, it's easier to get that evidence, but psychological health risks are hard to determine, considering our profound ignorance of the human mind.
Then again, they might just be going for the do-this-for-every-game approach as a starting point for compromise. Come to think of it, this entire bill veers a little more to the political side than to the issue itself. Something this controversial brought forward as a bi-partisan effort AND in an election year? Yeah, this is vote bait.
And if they do want to have these warning labels on everything there has to be conclusive evidence that even games like Mario and Rayman have an effect as well. And therein lies the problem. When discussing physiological health risks, it's easier to get that evidence, but psychological health risks are hard to determine, considering our profound ignorance of the human mind.
Then again, they might just be going for the do-this-for-every-game approach as a starting point for compromise. Come to think of it, this entire bill veers a little more to the political side than to the issue itself. Something this controversial brought forward as a bi-partisan effort AND in an election year? Yeah, this is vote bait.