Michael Atkinson Letter on R18+ Rating in Australia

[bigsim]

I saw this on Reddit today:

http://bunnitude.com/misc/files/R18-...20Atkinson.pdf

Basically a guy wrote Michael Atkinson on the gaming censorship issue, and he replied in the above document. It's an interesting read, but the guy comes off as a little deluded to me. He's made up his mind and refuses to listen to reason or the opinion of others (more than a little Stephen Conroy-esque IMO). See what you guys think.

[Tyro]

I never did brilliantly at English, but doesn't using 1st person in an argument show not a true basis of facts, but rather your own opinion?

He says that it's the parents responsibility to monitor what kids are allowed access too, both in games and in TV/DVD. Well, how does gmaing differ in that aspect? Parents have as much control over stopping kids from playing games as they do DVD's; more in fact what with most consoles having parental controls nowadays.

Yes some of his points are valid; kids/teenagers are interested in violent videogames. Kids and teenagers are also interested in cars, alcohol and sex, but you put a ban on underage sex, underage driving and underage drinking. Sure it doesn't stop ALL of them, but a fair few are. And any teenager who's had underage sex doesn't automatically become a rapist; nor do all teenagers who drink underage become alcoholics. It's the same with videogames. Not all people under 18 are going to play Manhunt and instantly become serial murderers. How do we know this? Because every other country in the western world has an R18+ rating system, and last time I checked they weren't all populated entirely by rapists and murderers.

My point is that no matter how much Atkinson tries to hide behind the "I'M PROTECTING THE KIDS!!" banner, he's not taking the right steps to stopping kids from playing violent videogames. Lock the consoles, use all that fear-mongering he's so good at to convince parents not to buy underage kids MA/R rated games, and then watch as the emails from gamers nationwide start turning into positive comments, rather than threats (and he'll have less Zombies on his lawn protesting to boot).

[Gus the Crocodile]

Originally Posted by Tyro

I never did brilliantly at English, but doesn't using 1st person in an argument show not a true basis of facts, but rather your own opinion?

Short answer is no. A sentence like "I am aware that many game players are adults." is both first-person and a notice of being mindful of the facts.

Anyway, I was going to quote and point out a few of the (many) gaps in his reasoning, but either this version of Foxit or this particular PDF doesn't want me to copy text, and I'm sure nobody here really needs said gaps illustrated for them at this point anyway. Same old nonsense. The man has taken his stand and he will stick to it.

[piem@n]

Originally Posted by Gus the Crocodile

Short answer is no. A sentence like "I am aware that many game players are adults." is both first-person and a notice of being mindful of the facts.

Generally, it should not be written from 1st person unless expressing opinion, because many people read it as opinion based or experience based and not fact based, regardless of if it is fact. I did notice he was using first person on parts where he was talking about what he believes or is defending his actions, which is perfectly reasonable.


His point seems a little defunct to me when he says " These are all activities that are illegal for individuals in real world, so why ask governments to give people the right to do them virtually". The fact we have games like Need For Speed and GTA which are based entirely around activites which are illegal, with newer NFS games having police car chases with fairly realistic tactics. They are illegal in the real world, but virtually, it is ok. He is not being particularly consistent.

He makes a valid point with some of his examples, but a blanket statement where he groups a game like, say, Left for Dead with Rapelay, which is absurd. Under a proper rating system, certain games, such as rape lay would not be allowed anyway, which i doubt anyone will argue about.

"If adults think they can devise a lock out system to stop children, tell 'em they are dreaming?" I found this point to be stupid, since a lock-out system could be EASILY devised. I don't see how it would be any different to the lockout system foxtel uses on content above certain ratings.

I can definitely understand his concern about violence simulation and how it affects us, but much of these concerns are based upon his own conjecture and quoting one study is not enough for a strong argument.

[Gus the Crocodile]

Originally Posted by piem@n

Generally, it should not be written from 1st person unless expressing opinion, because many people read it as opinion based or experience based and not fact based, regardless of if it is fact.

Then generally, people should learn to read. Readers arriving at presumptuous conclusions based on the structure of the sentence despite its content is not the fault of the writer if his only "crime" was using "I" a few times.

First of all, first person does not imply opinion. For instance, "I went for a walk today" is a clear statement of fact. Secondly, to write a letter presenting your personal position on a matter and your personal (yet hopefully fact-based) reasons for holding those opinions without using first-person pronouns would be rather an odd thing to do.

/offtopic

[piem@n]

Originally Posted by Gus the Crocodile

Then generally, people should learn to read. Readers arriving at presumptuous conclusions based on the structure of the sentence despite its content is not the fault of the writer if his only "crime" was using "I" a few times.

First of all, first person does not imply opinion. For instance, "I went for a walk today" is a clear statement of fact. Secondly, to write a letter presenting your personal position on a matter and your personal (yet hopefully fact-based) reasons for holding those opinions without using first-person pronouns would be rather an odd thing to do.

/offtopic

Woah! I just realised i completely misread something you wrote earlier, my bad. I think i should l2read.

[Gookanheimer]

I wouldn't mind seeing a Gus vs Atkinson battle :P

[bigsim]

Originally Posted by Some Dude

"There are all activities that are illegal for individuals in the real world, so why ask government to give people the right to read about character performing them in novels?"

A valid comparison I reckon.

The thing that irks me about this is that it's not the government's job to look after the children - it's the job of the freaking parents. Also the DVDs versus games double standard etc. etc., but like Gus says it's nothing that hasn't been said before.

[Kabal]

Originally Posted by Gookanheimer

I wouldn't mind seeing a Gus vs Atkinson battle :P

Becareful what you wish for.

[piem@n]

Originally Posted by Gookanheimer

I wouldn't mind seeing a Gus vs Atkinson battle :P

As much as we like to call him an idiot, Atkinson is probably very clever and like most pollys, is probs quite decent at debating.

[Djbrown]

Originally Posted by Tyro

Not all people under 18 are going to play Manhunt and instantly become serial murderers.

Thats... reassuring?
If banning all 18+ video games reduced the chance of a school shooting happening by 0.0001%, do it imo. those games wont be a big loss.

I agree with most of what he says anyway and I love his closing comments. Owned in every sense of the word lol.

[Gookanheimer]

Originally Posted by piem@n

As much as we like to call him an idiot, Atkinson is probably very clever and like most pollys, is probs quite decent at debating.

Which would just make it all the more interesting.

[piem@n]

Originally Posted by Gookanheimer

Which would just make it all the more interesting.

Which makes me wonder about Gus. Is he good only on forums because he has lots of time? Or can he replicate in quick paced discussion?

Such are the mysteries of the universe.

[Gookanheimer]

No, he is good because he is Gus! Gus the mother****ing Crocodile!

[TSPhoenix]

Originally Posted by Djbrown

Thats... reassuring?
If banning all 18+ video games reduced the chance of a school shooting happening by 0.0001%, do it imo. those games wont be a big loss.

I agree with most of what he says anyway and I love his closing comments. Owned in every sense of the word lol.

Its easy to own people when your arguments are based on "because I said so". You can't argue with that.

Speaking of which, I have a plan to reduce the chances of school shootings to ZERO. Its called closing all schools, and heck lets ban children while we are at it to solve all of the issues at hand.