The Hearings, Of Course, Will Be Held In Camera

Campaign for Real Ale?

Some of the stuff that was in Grand Theft Auto should be censored. They blind-sighted parents with that. There’s no shortage of cheap shot artists.

But censoring is the wrong course of action. The rating system is the way to go, as well as educating parents through ads much like they used to do when they came out with the movie rating system.

But make no mistake about it, there is a problem here, speaking as a parent.

I am so never ever going to vote for Hilary Clinton. If an exit poll asks me why, I will cite the fact that she allowed herself to appear in the same sentence as Rick Santorum.

Keep in mind that while GTA is legitimate fodder for enforcing ESRB ratings Lieberman has been at this much longer. If memory serves he was part of the chorus of people who blamed Doom for the Columbine massacre.

Gotta love politicians. Can’t keep their own house in order and want to try and fix everyone else’s. Hey guys, how about we stop handing out checks from special interest groups on the senate floor FIRST, then worry about how we’re going to control everyone else?

I’m a Dem., and I’m so glad Leiberman lost in the primary. He’s a Repub. lap dog.

Hillary, she’s just plain stupid.

I posted my thoughts on this madness a while back on my blog. Summary: Go to the Video Game Voters Network site.

Like I needed another reason to vote against Hilary Clinton…

Is that all politicians do any more, fear-monger? It seems more important to them that we fear box-cutters, bottled water and video games then they actually do anything that might make us safe, or healthier, or anything else vaguely helpful. If we are afraid, we are more malleable and we question less and less.

So, I guess I get to be the dissenting voice. Did anyone read the bill? Anyone? Bueller?

Funding to determine the cognitive effect of electronic media on children. This is bad, how? It’s funding. You can argue all you want that it will only be doled out to folks who’ll find the way the media wants, but the fact of the matter is I find the fundamental idea of the bill pretty damned sound. We live in a society where everyone is exposed to media pretty much.. well.. constantly. Yet we have little to no empirical data to use to help guide parents (or anyone else) in determining how much that exposure affects children. That it’s significant is probably well understood. But does it matter if I subject my kid to nothing but PBS for the first 10 years of his life vs. the regular mishmash of shows on a more plebian broadcast network. Is having ready access to stuff like Noggin actually good for the kid? Is there a strong correlative trend between video game violence and children’s behavior? If so, maybe I should care what my kid plays. If not, what’s the harm in letting him get his aggression out in the form of a game instead of on the recess yard?

Really, you folks are objecting to a bill that’s designed to engender [i]more information[/i]. More information is bad, how, again? Because we (and by we I mean you this time) are too stupid as a public to look past the spin and use information to actually make informed decisions? Isn’t that what you’re railing against [i]right here[/i]? The irony is a bit thick here.

(By the way, the NAS isn’t exactly a partisan lapdog organization. Nor is the NIH.)

Mouselock:

I object to the funding of research because every single goddamn time they do this research, they learn the same thing: No causative link between media violence and real violence. Every time.

If they would agree to fund this one last time, and then promise to never waste our time or money on the issue again — to accept the (inevitable) ‘no linkage’ outcome as Holy Gospel — I’d be fine with it.

But they won’t. They’ll do the study, it won’t say what they want it to, and they’ll ignore it and continue to prattle on about the deleterious effects of video games on children. For further reference, see anything any politician has ever said about marijuana, and contrast with the results of every peer-reviewed study done on marijuana — including those funded by the government.

Marijuana is bad for you, when used in excessive amounts. I don’t need a government study to tell me that, I ran my own 10 year study. Of course, just about anything is bad for you, when used excessively and/or foolishly.

But, yeah, Hillary doesn’t get my vote in the primaries, and if the Republicans were to run somebody who doesn’t actually froth at the mouth, maybe not in the general. The older I get, the more I hate the two party system.

Grimwell, it really doesn’t matter what the rating system is when content deserving of a worse rating is hidden in the game. I agree that any parent that would let their kids play that game is failing them, but this was a step well beyond that. The rating was changed upon discovery of the hidden content to “adults only”, alot worse than “mature 17+”. They willfully tried to blindside parents to get away with a rating that is quite a bit more acceptable for sale than the adult only rating. They also did the industry a huge disservice in trying to get away with this.

My point of advertising the rating system for games seems to not have hit on any buttons, but I think it’s important. There are alot of parents who are very busy, and not familiar at all with games. They may not be aware at all that “games” have the kinds of content that they sometimes do. I mean, it’s just a game, right? Untill parents become more savvy and aware on the whole, it just seems like the way to go.

I agree with Mouselock. Some of you don’t want to waste money on this. I can understand that, but I think the whole thing needs some attention.

See, I’m a big government liberal, and even I don’t think that this study is going to do squat to advance the understanding of how games change people. I think this is just a gambit to try to get some stamp of officialdom on a political position.

And I think it is a hypocritical attempt at that. Not just because anything that undermines the political agenda underlying this will be buried, but because there are plenty of questionable media aimed straight at children, particularly TV, that aren’t being talked about by these same politicians because they don’t want to offend TV media.

It isn’t that I think studying games is a bad idea. It is that I don’t think this has anything to do with studying games or making children safer. This is just political grandstanding by pandering to the ignorance of the mainstream at the expense of a minority, in this case a behavioral one.

Short version: Politics as usual.

“Is that all politicians do any more, fear-monger?”

Bob | 18-Sep-06 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

No kidding. I can just see Bush holding up his Osama bobble head doll over us going “boogidie boogidie boo!” for this upcoming election.

Lurktastic, from that link you provided…

“Rockstar Games, the publisher of the Grand Theft Auto series, initially denied allegations that the minigame was “hidden” in the video game, stating that the Hot Coffee modification (which they claim violated the game’s End User Licence Agreement) is the result of “hackers” making “significant technical modifications to and reverse engineering” the game’s code.[2] However, this claim was undermined when codes and techniques were released on Internet forums for PlayStation 2 and Xbox cheating devices (such as Gameshark, Action Replay Max and modchipping) that demonstrated that the controversial content was, indeed, built into the console versions as well.”

“The creator of the mod, Patrick Wildenborg (under the Internet alias “PatrickW”), a 37-year old modder from The Netherlands, rejects Rockstar’s claim that the mod required significant technical effort, pointing out that he only changed a single bit in the installed game’s “main.scm” file, and that there is absolutely no new content that he actually created \’e2\’80\rdblquote every piece of the required code was already in-game, just not available to the player.[3] The PC mod itself is actually just an edited copy of the game script files with the bit changed. The mod was also made possible on the console versions, by changing the bit inside a user’s savegame or by using a third-party modding device.”

So, the idea that this was created by someone else isn’t accurate, it was in fact released and hidden in the game in the first place.

Then….

“Mods for the Grand Theft Auto series are nothing new. The mod community has flourished for years creating additions to the map, new cars, and even a mod for multi-player gameplay. All of this is possible because Rockstar left the scripts open for mod makers to edit in order to have user created content. These mods do violate the license agreement that comes with the game and until recently were partially encouraged by the company.”

So they knew what they were doing, hid it, lied about it, and hoped to shove any blame off on MOD makers.

The scumbags were trying to get away with it, and this is perhaps the worst part involved. The ol’ “anythings alright if you can get away with it” education for todays youth.

And I take issue with the idea that this was “dry humping” (which would still be bad). If you look at the picture shown at the wiki site, the nurse character looks to have bared breasts and pulled up skirt. It doesn’t take any imagination at all to see what’s not shown.

And I’ll tell you what, the folks in this industry better stop defending this kind of stuff as “free choice” and “user created”. People outside of the industry don’t see it that way at all. And if the industry doesn’t handle it themselves, others will.

This isn’t a threat, it’s a warning. I’m concerned that outside controls will take away content that I don’t think is bad at all.

There’s an issue here though. Totally user created content through MODs is also a problem and a huge threat. The producers can’t control this, only take out otherwise innocent content to prevent it’s use in bad ways. Remember the UO humping? In an MMO, they can make an effort to control such activity, and that’s acceptable. But when the game leaves the producers direct control, it becomes subject to abuse that can reach kids of all ages. Producers are powerless in this. This is where lagalities can come into affect. MOD producers need to be held accountable, and the game industry had better start working with legislature to make it workable. I don’t truelly know that they aren’t, but if not, if they are resisting it, they will find they end up on the short end of the stick eventually. And we players might suffer content loss due to it.

Yawn.

Amaranthar: Oh No! SEX! Eeeeeviiil!!

I find it truly fascinating that you can get so worked up on difficult to reach, simulated scene of sex when the children have completely unblocked access to a game that mostly involves shooting people up or driving over them with a car (and that is if the parent completely ignored the RATING on the game targeting it for 17+ year olds which in most countries is considered adult enough to be responsible for their own actions).

“They blind-sighted parents with that.” What a load of crap. Here’s a cluestick for you: your 17+ kids are already having sex. If you’re lucky, they’re not beating up other teens with baseball bats (yet).

Oh, yes, fearmongering is such a respectable way to win a debate. We should all live in fear every minute of our lives. Or else who knows what may happen!
/rolls eyes

Let’s be Zen. Is it violent video games making our children crazy? Or is it the violent nature of humankind that translates into another media making video games violent.

I”m not sure, but I do remember Bugs bunny Cartoons with violence as a kid.

Is Video games just an outlet to prevent violence? To lessen rage in children and not create it?

Send me funding Mrs. Clinton! A phat check please, 7 figures. I’ll give you a half baked study too!

Uh, why not? Is there something inherently wrong with a business making decisions on what they want to sell? Walmart doesn’t sell music with explicit lyrics either, and somehow rappers still manage to practice for their gynecology degrees.

Amaranthar, you left off the part of the wikipedia article where it points out that assets from the ‘locked’ section of the game were used elsewhere in the actually released content, which explains why they didn’t simply remove it.

Selective quoting for the win?

As long as the research takes all factors into account, I\’e2\’80\’99m fine with it. It won\’e2\’80\’99t, though, it\’e2\’80\’99ll be slanted to give them the results they want.

Then we’re in far deeper shit than whether or not kids can play games, because you’re basically saying that the most prestigious independent scientific body in the US has been bought off. I call bullshit. I see no evidence of that in any of the PNAS articles I end up reading through regularly.

It isn\’e2\’80\’99t that I think studying games is a bad idea. It is that I don\’e2\’80\’99t think this has anything to do with studying games or making children safer. This is just political grandstanding by pandering to the ignorance of the mainstream at the expense of a minority, in this case a behavioral one.

I think the introduction of the bill is motivated for exactly these reasons. But I don’t get why, when the bill has none of this inherent bias involved, people get all pissed off. Politicians want to score points by introducing potentially useful legislation under a pretense that they hope will give them a positive slant? Yes please! Far, far better than more shitty legislation that accomplishes nothing in order to generate positive political buzz, don’t you think?

Because none of these politicians give a shit about kids, but only about getting re-elected because if they did they would tell parents to actually\’e2\’80\’a6you know\’e2\’80\’a6be a parent.

The beautiful thing about apportioning money for real, honest-to-god, scientific studies is it doesn’t matter a bit what the politicians do or don’t do once the money hits the NAS. The NAS gives it to researchers, the researchers do their research, and the results are vetted by other scientists. So yeah, I suppose if there’s a concerted conspiracy between the scientist board of the NAS, the researchers submitting proposals to do the research, and the peer-reviewed journals which send the research out to be vetted by their reviewers, you have a point. However, if there is then science in this country is so fucked we might as well give up anywa.

I’m still left wondering how many of the people who are arguing so vehemently for our rights has even taken the first step of reading the goddamn bill linked to.

Actually, the CDC was pretty well hamstrung in the early AIDs days. It is a government agency, and depends on, guess who, the government, for all it’s support. It is ‘bought off’, in an absolute sense. Look at the crap around the FDA lately regarding Plan B; look at stem cell research. Any government agency ignores the wishes of the Congress and the Executive at it’s peril. They can do good work, but are often hamstrung when politics is in play. That is a weakness of having primarily government supported research institutions. Other modes of support have their own flaws (What do you mean they patented my daughter’s liver?).

But the CDC could do a full, fair, through study, and if the results don’t suit the interests of the politicos, it will get buried and discredited, regardless. The CDC won’t be holding any press conferences for a study like this; that is the province of politicians, who will only use such a forum for their own ends. Given the clearly stated goals of those behind this, the results of any study will at best be ignored, and most likely will be distorted beyond all recognician.

Actually, the CDC was pretty well hamstrung in the early AIDs days. It is a government agency, and depends on, guess who, the government, for all it\’e2\’80\’99s support. It is \’e2\’80\’98bought off\’e2\’80\’99, in an absolute sense. Look at the crap around the FDA lately regarding Plan B; look at stem cell research.

The FDA is a government regulatory agency. The NAS, simply, is not.

As for the CDC, it’s a closer comparison, but you do realize what “hamstrung” means for the CDC right? It means they can’t get funding. Since this bill establishes funding in the first place, I think the comparison is a bit far-fetched.

Is there the possibility for government influence? You betcha. But if it’s there it’s backroom political string pulling on wannabe politicians who want to retain their cushy jobs. And since the people this would refer to in this case are the advisory board of the NAS, that would fall under heading 1 of: We’re more screwed than you already realize.

When our science capability is bought off on the ideological level, rather than strangled off through some petty beauracratic shufflings of funding, we’re in far deeper shit than worrying about whether or not the government is gunning for videogames.

In general the NAS is high profile. It’s something that most scientists would consider a crowning achievement on their career. But scientists are funny beasts; the whole lot will turn on you if you start to compromise your scientific integrity for, well, anything. Which is good, because it keeps the lure of being appointed to something like the NAS advisory council as a lapdog pretty damned low. The last thing you want when trying to build a lasting legacy as a scientist is to have the last X years of your work called into question as possibly slanted because you were found to be pushing research findings for political reasons. It happens, sure, but [i]far[/i] less than in the political realm.

This is why the government ends up controlling science by choking funding: They can’t generally control science by controlling the scientists. Look at the whole recent NASA kerfluffle for an example.

There’s nothing in the bill that looks like they’re trying to aim funding toward specific places. They place the responsibility of portioning the money out on the head of the NAS and the IoM. In funding speak that’s as close as you get to untainted money, really. It’s in the hands of the scientists. It’s not, say, commisioning $10M to study the impact of violence in videogames secretly dressed up as a general project. And it’s certainly not all going to that one researcher at the University of Bumblefuck who’s already sold out just so he can get [i]some[/i] research money. (Unless our entire scientific infrastructure has broken down which, again, from working with scientists on a daily basis, I find exceedingly unlikely.)

But you are missing my main point, which is that whatever any study finds, the people who will or won\’e2\’80\’99t publicise it are not the scientists, but the politicians, specifically the people sponsoring this bill. And they have very clearly delineated positions on this which make me confident that they will cherry pick whatever results they can to support their position. And if that is somehow impossible, then they will do their best to simply bury the whole thing

It’s not so much that I’m missing the point as it is that I’m assuming if we, as a public, don’t care enough to do the necessary work of publicizing the counter examples and countering whatever bias the government or media brings us, we deserve what we get.

If the public wasn’t eating up the idea that games lead to violence because it abrogates their responsibility for raising their kids shittily, we wouldn’t be worried in the first place. And all things being equal, I’d rather have funded but obscure and hard to find examples that this isn’t the case, than simply saying “Nuh uh! It’s not true either!” which is what we’re effectively doing now.