Like I explained to another poster, indeed. I didn't say it was a good idea, it just seems like people are making more of it than it is (possibly as intended by the original speaker). Really, though, I just think it is interesting how "gaming" folks seem to consider it a bad idea, when it is something they seem to clamor for whenever an "anti-gaming" parenting group gets uppity.Riobux said:Even then, the problem then created is "you just said a vague phrase, well done". Instead of offering up what he has in mind for prosecution he has left it open-ended so the general public eats it up and rages out. I'll admit I fell for it because typically those "arrested" (using the title of the article) usually end up jailed, not simply fined. Fines usually occur out-of-court and are done on the spot. Fines I don't have much of a problem with (a little, but then we're getting into the argument of "should parents try to govern their own children", personally yes but some parents use video games as a third-parent (or second parent) rather than a supplement), I just hate the idea of jail time because of the counter-productive damage it serves.Nuke_em_05 said:Did I read the same article everyone else did?
This guy said "prosecute", not specifically "jail" or "arrest". Maybe he means like a fine? Who here has ever received a traffic ticket?
I also have to wonder how much money it would take to investigate this kind of behaviour. You wouldn't get normal police to do it since it would lack the subtly required to catch it happening with proof. You'd have to get a particular branch made up or an existing one used (e.g. fraud) to catch people in the act. A lot of questions have to be raised by the enforcement and the idea of the researcher just saying "well, just prosecute them for this" is far from simple and I really do hope in the original paper he actually proposed something less vague than this.
The steps between "what some guy says in a book or paper" to "actual law", assuming this ever got that far, would include so many revisions, conditions, potential circumstances, etc. that the final product would be either too specific to be effective or too broad to be consistently enforced.