Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Champions Online: Champions Online, F2P & The Governator

2»

Comments

  • erictlewiserictlewis Cottondale, ALPosts: 3,026Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Wardrop

    A label is ok with me.. im a parent... though im a gamer, many parents arnt. So they havent a clue to what content is going to be shown to thier children.. a label will give them an idea... It helps.





    But, in no way should the power of parenting be taken from the parent and inforced by something as extream as a law.



    Its my job to monitor and mentore my children, not the state.





    Cought a article about  how some group wanted to have a law made to force mcdonalds to remove the toys in happy meals. The representitives reasoning for such an action was.. "the nag levels up to here" ( she waved her hand over her head back and forth).





    I do not need a court nor state law to tell me how to say NO to my children.. Im a parent my job is to parent. Why cause im the mother fkin boss. ]



    No means no and i have that foundation built i don t have these issues. I wear big boy pants. Lots of these marshmallow "i wanna do what i wanna do " parents need to grow the hell up and do the job! If you didn't want them then you should have wore something fkin excuses are just that excuses, You accept through your eyes.. i see you with mine and your sorry assed cases of fail from my view.



    Stop trying to live through them and teach them to live for them selves. They are alive, they hurt feel and see the world from their universe not yours..



    And remember they are the ones that are going to have the say when your too old to choose. Better be good to them.. that ghetto assed rest home may be your final destination.





    Mainly its movements like these that push the nanny state agenda have way too much money and time on their hands.. if they focused that time and energy on their children they wouldn't have these problems.

     

    I will do the job and never stop!



     

     See and that is the problem.  The state is trying to mandate what you do as a parent.   A real parent does not need state intervention to do the right thing.   I can use the word no often with my 2 kids.

    Somebody wanting to take toys out of happy meals.  I am sure the burger places are gong to fight that one.  However I already fought that battle and one.  When my kids were around 4-6 I did not mind the little gadgets they got as long as I did not step on them.  However After both my kids turned 7, we moved them to the Jr burger. At seven you don't need junk little toys to play with, and I don't need the added cost of a kids meal.

    Oh well some parents will be parents,  other parents will always take the easy way out as long as the kids are out of their hair.  This law is aimed at those parents who have no clue about what they kids are doing.

  • SenadinaSenadina San Diego, CAPosts: 896Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Athcear

    Every new medium goes through this same nonsense.  Movies did.  TV did.  Even printed books did.  Every new form of music has.  Jazz corrupted our youth.  Then rock and roll did it.  Then it was heavy metal.  Now it's gangsta rap.  And it's the same dumbass people who are always attacking new media.  No invention has destroyed children yet, and no invention ever will.


     

     I don't understand why we need to keep kids isolated from reality. Violent games do not lead to an increase in violence. Sex is part of life and we are really too afraid of it in America. If a parent actually addresses these issues with their child, instead of expecting society to raise them, they will be prepared for reality. Of course I'm just a hard-nosed pragmatist, and feel practicality should rule over morality every time.

    image
  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member

    The real issue here is INTERSTATE COMMERCE. California has no authority  to regulate a sale which occurs in Nebraska. The only people who have that authority are the feds. With traditional brick and mortar sales this is a non-issue. A store physicaly located in California is governed by California law. A store physicaly located in Nebraska is governed by Nebraska law, even when selling to Californians.

    The real sticky wicket comes with internet sales. Essentialy, local governments are trying to impose a nightmare patchwork of laws and regulations on online business. Trying to pretend that the business needs to adhere to the laws of EVERY location where an end users computer MIGHT be able to access it. Read that again, the impact of a law like this would mean that an online business would need to be aware of and adhere to EVERY law or regulation of not just every state in the US, but every county, city, town, village or hamlet of 200... even where they contradicted each other. That's on top of the fact that the online business has no means to even reliably tell WHERE an individual customer is located when making a purchase. Bottom line is that the Supremes need to throw this turkey out on grounds that it violates interstate commerce. The laws that govern should be the local ones where the online business is located or Federal Law (if located in the US.)

  • KiskaraKiskara Waldorf, MDPosts: 47Member

    Originally posted by Nephaerius



    Originally posted by Jetrpg


    Originally posted by kalinis

     That said the banning of violence in video games to children is a huge issue.

    What right does the goverment have to get involved in this at all. Its a parents job to choose what kind of games there kid can and can not play its not the goverments job to raise peoples children for them. Anymore then its up to tv to raid the kids.

    Parents get to choose what there kids can play and not play they get to choose what there kids can watch and not watch on tv. Im so tired of people wanting the goverment or tv to change what they program so they dont have to be the bad guy.

    Raise your own kids people. Its not the goverments job to raise our kids for us dont want your kids playing a violent game dont let them. It really is that simple. This is just taken the idea that parents dont want to raise there own kids so its up to the goverment to do so.

    NO its not. . I hope this law gets shot down.  I just dont believe its the goverments job to police this stuff. Or pass laws on this kind of thing. Dont they have alot more important things to look after like i dont know. The economy , and creating jobs.

    That and violent media has no effect on children commiting violent crimes (or doing so as adults). Study after study proves this.


     

    Let me start with a qualifying statement: kids need parents to control their access to media.  Therefore, since I expect this to be a required component to raising kids I do not see a need to limit free speech (the production of any kind of media).  I do however, think it makes sense to ban the sale of M games to minors.  This is already the case with access to R rated movies and should really come as no surprise.  In fact Wal-Marts and Targets all around my area have carded people for the last 10 years or more on the purchase of any of these titles.  Previously this was at their discretion, but under the new law it would be a requirement.  This is no different from limiting the sale of tobacco, alcohol, pornography, etc. to minors. 

    This law is not a replacement for good parenting and is not intended to be.  This isn't a case of "if you're a good parent you can keep your kids from accessing this stuff anyway."  If you truly believe that then lets open up the sale of tobacco and alcohol to minors and see what happens.  The fact is that as long as these games are allowed to be sold directly to minors, then tons of other kids that hang out with your kid will have the product and expose them to it.  Sure you can say "oh if you were a good parent your kid wouldn't be hanging out with those kids anyway."  Seriously though, you can't keep your kid locked in a box with no social contact at all, so guess what?  Even if you are the best parent in the world you will fail at keeping your kid away from all the stuff you don't want them exposed to.  Therefore, it doesn't hurt to have an occasional law here and there to lend a parent a helping hand (I'm generally a libertarian so you know if I'm supporting governmental intervention it's probably not that bad).

    As far as violent media not being related to future violence (I'm broadening the scope from solely violent crime here as the above poster stated) this is simply not true.  There are actually many studies that show quite that opposite.  You can look at the BoBo Doll experiments done by Albert Bandura in the 50's and 60's for some of the earliest experiments covering this issue.  If another individual models violent behavior for a child it is more likely that the child will engage in violent behavior when placed in a similar situation to the individual that modelled the behavior (this is true for adults too).  However, none of these studies truly show anything except that two factors tend to happen together (Correlation not Causation).  In the case of the BoBo doll we see that increased aggressive behaviors tend to follow aggressive modelling.  However, it is not clear what actually caused the increase in violent behavior as any number of factors can influence an outcome (genetics, family environment, room temperature, etc.).

    Much more interesting in my mind as a student of psychology (already finished school, but always learning) is what the actual effects of playing video games are on individuals.  Current research is showing a suprising blunting of affect related to video game exposure.  This is largely a lack of emotional connectivity, empathy, etc. between a video game player and other real life individuals.  What's more distressing is that the content of the video games played does not appear to matter.  From Reading Rabbit to GTA this result has been found to hold steady. 

    To put this in more polarizing terms and to stir up debate for excitement's sake this research is basically saying that if a video game player and a non-video game player were both watching their mom die, the non-gamer would actually feel more emotion and the end result of that is that the non-gamer would actually care more.  Again this is not saying that playing video games causes reduced emotional connectedness simply that the two phenomenon are related.  I could certainly write an entire dissertation on this topic so I will stop here for now before the wall of text grows too large...


     

     

    Except there's already regulation out there to prevent minors from buying M rated games. Stores already risk high fines (and if the parent sees fit, a nice date in court) if they do so. Stores already card, and turn down little Timmy from pivking up Lesiure Suit Larry.

    This law is exactly whayt you claim it isn't; it's, once again, not holding the parent accountable for their own lack of involvement. Supporters of the bill are claiming that "violent" (and I use quotation marks because the bill is terribly vague as to what can be considered violent - which opens up another can of worms as it'd be allowing for lawmakers to enforce their own personal standard of violence, nd thus the law is a cleverly worded censorship bill) games are the main cause of the rise in violence. Thing is, adolescent violence is at its lowest in 20 odd years. The difference is that we now have the new beast that is the 24-hour news cycle that can scare the everloving piss out of us.

    Games make a convenient target because its the new kid on the block of media in comparison to TV/movies/books/music. And the people that are pushing this bill, and many similar bills are people that are cashing in on the current cultural boogeyman for their own political gain.

     

    The bill isn't about video games; bills like these rarely are. It's a culture war, plain and simple. Games and Internet are the brand new things, and the out of touch masses of the world are reacting in fear.

  • TruthXHurtsTruthXHurts El Do, KSPosts: 1,555Member

    If it wasn't for violent material I saw as a child I would have no idea who the Governator even was.

    "I am not in a server with Gankers...THEY ARE IN A SERVER WITH ME!!!"

  • AdalwulffAdalwulff Sacramento, CAPosts: 1,152Member

    All this talk of F2P is beyond stupid!

    Everyone knows that F2P is what happens to horrible games, becuase they cant get subs. There is no revolution here, please move on.

    As for violence in video games, its also rubbish, there is just as much violence on the news these days, just watch it and tell me how many people were killed today. Movies and even books are full of violence and other disturbing behavior.

    The only reason video games are being targetted, is becuase its a male dominated sport, and the concenses today says, all young males are lost and playing too much games and wont grow up. They want to take away the only thing that keeps us sane in this crazy world.

    image
  • Benj4minBenj4min his coolish cookiePosts: 23Member

    I dont like the sound of the Goverment changing what kids can and cant play. Thats not their job, they need to stop wars and keep other stuff working, but not the gaming industry. This will anoy alot of people I think.....

     

    It wont affect me though as i live in the UK :)

  • jabari800jabari800 köln, AKPosts: 9Member

    I think Aion is a suitable candidate as the next MMORPG going free to Play - but knowign NCsoft it probably wont.

    Aion is loosing more and more players ( even thought NCsoft claims Aion is fine!) even thought ALOT of people would want to play it ( or play it for free on different servers..) but since NCsoft only cares for their Asian department they will just keep merging servers till the subscription fee cant pay for their servers anymore (hello Lineage2!).

    I love MMO`s - why dont they love me?

2»
Sign In or Register to comment.