I think the thing is, as was mentioned earlier, you don't neccesarily need to play computer games to pass comment on them, but you should, at the very least, be expected to do some decent research and learn something about a particular game and its content before attacking it. The NHS may take advice from people who have never performed an operation, when it comes to financial and managerial decision, but what Vaz is suggesting is that non medical members are able to tell Doctors what operations they are allowed to perform, which is, quite patently, complete tosh.

He has a point, but he's taking it too far. It's not like we need hardcore gamers to set policy, but you do need to take the advice of retailers and developers seriously.

yea, until any of these jackasses learn to research what the hell they are talking about i wont give a crap about what they have to suggest, no matter how much sense it makes. You can always tell the ones who dont know what they're on about, they quickley reveal themselves when they start talking.

Oh and watching your kids play isnt a way of games and gaming culture.

@Jabrwock

Ideally, yes, politicians consult economists and accountants when they draft incentives packages and tax reforms, talk to doctors before deciding how to go about instituting State-run health programs, and consult Geneticists and Biochemists before drafting new GMO/Biotech laws...

...but in reality, that almost never happens and when it does the research and advice comes from rabidly biased groups pushing a specific agenda. The politician decides ahead of time what they want to do (push for socialized, State-controlled medicine, for example) and then they go shopping for the appropriate Ph.Ds to back them up. You can find a Ph.D and/or "expert" to support ANY public policy if you look in the right places, and they do. And if they can't even bother trying to get the story straight on matters that have a direct impact on the livelihood of millions (such as economic and tax programs or health care) what makes you think anyone's even going to -try- to do it for "culture war" issues?

Also, even supposing a given politician -does- get themselves a bevy of "experts" -and- intends to stay neutral and focused on effective and reality-based policy, how is he or she going to be able to assess the value of their advice if they haven't gone out and at least acquired a basic grasp of the issue on their own? You can't think logically or critically about a subject if you haven't taken the time to educate -yourself- on it. Expert advice is valuable, certainly, but accepting infodumps and acting on them just because the person giving you the information has a Ph.D or similar credentials is an absolutely horrible idea.

@Brer

Recognizing a problem does not mean you are qualified to propose a solution.

Exactly. That's why you're supposed to have advisors.

The politician realises that wait times at hospitals are a problem. He then enlists the aid of advisors who are experts in the medical field and law to help him draft a solution. (there may be certain acts they have to comply with)

The politician realises that game content is a concern. He then enlists the aid of advisors who are experts in the medical field and law to help him draft a solution. (preferably constitutional experts)

Unfortunately what we get right now is:

The politician realises that game content is a concern that will get him elected next time. He then enlists the aid of grandstanding lawyers who have an agenda to push and "experts" who did little to no long term research as well as a few loud mouthed "soccer moms" to help him draft and push a do-nothing bill that makes everyone feel good about themselves without actually accomplishing anything. He neglects to talk to constitutional experts, or ignores those who voice concerns, and never actually bothers to read the research he's basing his law on.

End result, bill fails miserably when put to the test, and pol is left standing alone, stupified that his band-aid solution didn't work...

Of course this could be applied to any bill that is just slapped together to take advantage of the concerns of the public...

Heh, speaking as the son of a surgeon and a social worker currently involved palliative care who's pursuing their own education in the biotech and medical fields: Yes, you -DO- need to be a doctor or trained health care professional to make informed decisions about the policy of a health care provider, and the policy of putting MBAs or political bureaucrats in charge of hospital, hospice, or outpatient care inevitably leads to a worsening of patient outcomes across the board.

@Jabrwock

Recognizing a problem does not mean you are qualified to propose a solution. I don't need to be a structural engineer to know that building a thirty story concrete and steel building on a wooden foundation is a bad idea: I am, however, NOT competent to draw up a competing design for the building.

As for the "well, I hear about games from family and friends" argument, am I the only one bothered by the idea of proposing LAW based on "something I heard at the breakfast table last week"? Hearsay does not constitute sufficient research for a high school term paper, let alone something that will become part of the structure of rules regulating society.

I am not going to say that no one who hasn't played games is competent to comment on their content. However, if you haven't read the psychological literature and the criticisms of it, familiarized yourself with the -basics- of the relevant court cases in whatever country you happen to live in, and at least -seen- the games played in their original context (that is, seen someone sitting and booting up a PS2, Xbox, or PC rather than a video montage created for effect)...then no, I don't think you're competent to make video game policy.

BlitzFitness
Would it hurt for the politicians to understand the law of it all before trying to ban it to half the populace?

@Siftr

It's a valid comparison. Politicians don't need to know about medicine to know that long wait-times are a bad thing. Plus they have medical experts to advise them. But they wouldn't be so stupid as to comment on a particular medical proceedure they don't know the first thing about.

The same with games. Developing a broad policy only requires some knowledge of games (it actually requires a lot more knowledge of legal matters). Commenting on a specific game though, you'd better do your homework before you look like a twit on camera... And I don't mean talking to a lawyer with an agenda.

Maybe if the pols started talking to researchers and skipped the middle man with an axe to grind...

I've never really looked at this debate in the form of "politicians need to play videogames to make policy", but rather "politicians need to listen to those active in videogames before making policy". There are obviously too many people in politics that will listen to Jack Thompson and Grossman, but they don't play, develop, or market (in any fashion) videogames. Videogame players, developers, and distribution points (such as Best Buy, GameStop, etc.) have been calling out politicians to participate in more important, easier, and seemingly more correct actions, such as ending legislation and working for education.

I do want to point out how important a factor it is for policy makers to be active in the habits of their targets by giving an example.

First happens to be my old part-time job at a Sears Hardware. I've repeatedly asked store level management and (when they visited) upper level management to replace our old run-down equipment, especially ladders, before an accident happens. Two years after I broke my wrist and nearly broke my hip, as well as 2 years after our forklift malfunctioned and zoomed off a dock dropping about 10 feet below, nothing has changed.

They did, however, have a brilliant plan on saving floor space by hooking our display models of snow throwers and lawn mowers to beams attached to our ceiling. Since the people making this decision didn't work on the sales floor they didn't realize that the important job of a display model was to allow consumers to get a 'feel' for the machine in order to make their decision. Thankfully, there must have been one or two experienced and/or logical people among them, as it never happened.

I agree that you don't need participation to make a decision, but I do believe that the difference between a guess and an educated guess is involvement in some level.

Surely it all comes down to a reasonable level of research. Obviosuly an MP doesn't need to be a doctor, but if they're going to make decisions on the NHS, I'd at least expect them to see a doctor.

Likewise - if a politician has children playing games then he has access to a console and presumably certain games. Actually sitting down and playing some of them wouldn't be an unreasonable expectation.

"Members of Parliament may not play video games themselves, but most will have families and children who enjoying playing, this helps keep them informed of new developments and issues from the video games agenda"

I'm curious to know what kind of games these members of parliment let thier kids play.

The problem is a lot of industries are sadly losing touch with the link between 'quality of Service' and 'Profit margin', thinking that they can use 'tricks' to alter one without affecting the other. It never, ever works, and it is always the customer base that suffers. In the case of the NHS, you'll note that almost every member of higher management is on a Private health scheme.

It's the same thinking here 'Well, we don't play computer games, so it doesn't matter what we do, it won't affect us personally.'. There's nothing more tempting to a decision maker than to experiment with something that they personally do not have to use, it means that only other people suffer the consequences of their actions.

Basically, over-regulation of computer games in any country will drive out the Industry and cause a severe loss of jobs and income for the country, considering the UK is already in a IT Specialist Drought, I find it sad that Mr Vaz is willing to sacrifice the future options of University students in IT, such as myself, for the sake of political expediency, it is truly a destructive, ignorant and dangerous way of thinking.

"Clearly you do not have to be a gamer to suggest policies on the games industry any more than you need to be a doctor to do so with the NHS. (British healthcare system)"

True. However, I'd say that well over 99% of the people talking about the NHS have been on the receiving end. Only letting doctors suggest policies in the NHS would be like only lettting game DEVS, not GAMERS, suggest things to do with games.