+- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net)
+-- Forum: Social (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: The Speakeasy (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=54)
+--- Thread: It's D-Day today... (/showthread.php?tid=32204)
It's D-Day today... - iamflip - 2010-11-02
So... oral arguments have been made in the Schwarzenegger vs. EMA/ESA Supreme Court case on Tuesday. Now we wait for the results which could come as likely as... June 2011.
May Mario and Master Chief help us all.
It's D-Day today... - Berzerk - 2010-11-02
I'm still completely confused on what the pineapple this law is doing. From what I understand it basically just prevents minors from buying M-Rated games, to me, this seems like common sense. Am I missing something?
It's D-Day today... - Khoi - 2010-11-02
Srsbsns in mah vidyagaems?!? What nonsense. Not it matters to us 18+ people, we're above that range now.
It's D-Day today... - iamflip - 2010-11-02
Berzerk Wrote:I'm still completely confused on what the pineapple this law is doing. From what I understand it basically just prevents minors from buying M-Rated games, to me, this seems like common sense. Am I missing something?
Not quite. Pretty much, the state of California force retailers to hide games that the state deems violent. The law's definition of "violent" is vague however, so the fear is that the law's loose definition will hit anything that has some sort of violent content, e.g. SSBB. All of this because of "panic" over violent video games causes people to go kill or something.
Also, there's already ratings in place, as well as retailers already carding people who tries to buy M-rated games. Why have the government control what's already self-regulated and working?
Here, I'll give you a linky that can help you: http://www.theeca.com/schwarzeneggervema
It's D-Day today... - larmie - 2010-11-02
Completely ridiculous; I've seen one NC-17 movie playing in theaters in a decade yet they're labeling all rated M games (which are equivalent of rated R) as NC-17? Unless the game is about gassing Jews or raping girls in subways, I don't think you need to banish it from store shelves.
Also: Amazon doesn't card check.
It's D-Day today... - iamflip - 2010-11-02
Well of course online retailers can't check lol. They would think since you're paying via credit card, you're old enough. xd
It's D-Day today... - Berzerk - 2010-11-02
Pineappleing stupid. The ESRB works. Parents should decide what games they want their kids to play, not the government.
It's D-Day today... - iamflip - 2010-11-03
http://gamepolitics.com/2010/11/02/scotus-arguments-complete
Quote:The arguments are over, and some sites have started to detail how things played out in the court. While early indications are that the justices (who heavily questioned California Attorney General Zackery Morazzini about the vagueness of the law, and if it overreaches on protecting children from violent things) seem skeptical of the State's arguments, there is no real way of knowing which way the court will rule.
Sadly, when it comes to Supreme Court cases, decisions don't come pretty easily. It can take from a few weeks to several months before we finally hear something. ):
It's D-Day today... - ChaosCorpse - 2010-11-04
I was about to make a topic regarding this, but checked just in case and it turns out this thread was related. Is it possible to rename topic to Schwarzenegger VS. EMA or something to add interest to the topic?
That said, yes, this was the case that I made a thread for a while back to sign the ECA's petition for.
I have a little confidence on where it will go based on the few articles I've read containing the questioning regarding clarity, but this case is still testing my nerves.
For those who are uninformed, the primary concern isn't the law itself, but the precedent it can set:
EXAMPLE 1: How do you cut off "obscene violence"? - This could lead into varying degrees based on studies that have shown comic violence causing just as much of an impact on children as graphic violence. (Studies all seem to be partial to their benefactor though so there is nothing conclusive here)
EXAMPLE 2: "If you've allowed restrictions here, why stop there?" - Other outlets of the media are concerned with good reason that this would be a foothold to lash against them as well. Violence is violence after all.
EXAMPLE 3: PARENTS: "If it is illegal to minors, isn't it just plain bad?" Why not ban it entirely to make sure older people don't go violent on us? - Moral legislation just treads dangerous grounds and can be led one direction if the mass media keeps displaying things as it has.
EXAMPLE 4: "Well, hell! All those dang gaming companies are making their content download-able, how the heck are we suppose to maintain this restriction?" - This is my greatest fear. If it was by law, a simple age verification or ID card input would not be enough. It could lead to IP Identification practices being put into place on everyone covering all internet use. I've seen reports over the years that the government has wanted to put some form of restraint on the internet for a while, but it got out of their hands before they realized it. I realize this is a slippery-slope logical fallacy, but this to me sounds like the closest thing I've heard to "thought police" coming into practice. And that possibility should never be given the chance to exist.
As it stands, the ESRB works. When I was testing games we had a specific category of that nature so I can attest to making sure that content stays in it's target rating personally. Parental controls are everywhere as well, so it isn't like people are advocating children playing these sorts of games. Parents are just not willing to admit their own laziness and irresponsibility.
I know my arguments are simple and non-sourced, and that I couldn't hope to make as good a point as journalists have (which is why you should go read more yourself on the topic), but this is my personal summary of the case.
Book of the day, "Grand Theft Childhood."
It's D-Day today... - Worthyness - 2010-11-04
Or you know, parents could, i don't know, NOT BUY THEM THE GAMES? Is it really that hard to say "no" to the kid? Hell i got that all the time. Can you buy me this? No. that was the end of it. Throw a tantrum? Not only did i not get that thing i wanted, i got over a month of punishment: no TV, Not toys for a month.
It should be common sense that parents, after they have looked at the box and examined the video game's rating, should decide whether they want their kid to play the damned things. Is it really that hard to look at reviews/ ask the store manager whether that game is appropriate for a 10 year old?
Dumb people who can't do a little bit of research or asking a few questions should not be able to ruin the experience of others. It's called common sense and control.
Also: what the hell is stopping people who are old enough to gift the game to a kid?
It's D-Day today... - iamflip - 2010-11-04
Carp... I can't change the original thread title myself. Would a mod mind changing it for us?
And yes, some parenting is really in order here. Even if you don't know about video games at all, it's not that hard to look at the box, look at that ERSB rating, and ask someone what that means. Even some store retailers put up guides on what the ratings mean.
And if that kid bypasses that system, you still have parental controls or... just taking the game away from them lol.
Also is the underlying issue that caused Yee to propose the bill in the first place: Violent video games cause people to be violent?! Yeah... they sure do, but only because said people have been predisposed with other symptoms that can lead to violent behavior. And that's like... a small minority if you consider that about 4.5 million U.S. households have at least one gaming console...
But that discussion is for another thread.
It's D-Day today... - Lord Xela - 2010-11-05
iamflip Wrote:And yes, some parenting is really in order here. Even if you don't know about video games at all, it's not that hard to look at the box, look at that ERSB rating, and ask someone what that means. Even some store retailers put up guides on what the ratings mean.
And if that kid bypasses that system, you still have parental controls or... just taking the game away from them lol.
But that right there is a big issue. For that to work, we have to assume the parents are *surprised gasp* good parents. Now, I'm not a parent (hell, I'm still in college), but I feel justified in saying at least this much: parents should NOT give in to every little whine and "BUT I WANT IT" that comes out of their kids. That's the issue with the ESRB. Parents buying games for their kids regardless of warnings, and then if they try to take the game away after the fact the kid screams and cries until he/she gets what he/she wants, which is the game back. I've seen too many parents (2 years as a cashier in high school) who get their kids exactly what they want with no question, and that kind of enabling is making the kids spoiled. Which is not good.
As for the legislation that this topic is actually about, one of my friend was mentioning this the other day, and it really does sound like a terrible idea. He basically cited the same things you did, John, only not all of them. Mainly the "setting a precedent" thing. If they decide they can regulate games as they see fit, what's to stop them from moving on to other things? Movies? TV in general? The INTERNET?
People need to stop blaming their kids' problems on outside sources, because from what I've seen, it almost always comes from the parents.