
As reported by
Destructoid, leading retailer GameStop recently issued a new, no-nonsense policy to managers and sales associates (and I'm paraphrasing here):
Sell an M-rated game to an underage buyer and you and your manager are both fired... outta here... terminated, with extreme prejudice...
Harsh?
Perhaps, but ratings enforcement among specialty retailers has been lagging behind that of the big box stores, so the timing is right for something like this. Just last week GamePolitics covered another
embarrassing retail sting conducted by a T.V. news team from the Washington, D.C. area. An EB Games outlet - owned by GameStop -was among the shops caught making underage sales in the news report.
Readers may recall that GameStop CEO Steve Morgan (left) participated in an
ESRB ad blitz last December. The public service campaign was designed to educate parents about game ratings and, surprisingly, enjoyed the support of Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT), both longtime critics of the video game industry.
Comments
Fire the manager too? Hell no. That's just asking for disgruntled employees to go out with a bang. Seriously, did anyone even stop to think this through?
Not just that. Disgruntled customers could call and file a false complaint (like, maybe, some kid who got turned away when trying to buy, and read about this online...). Or pranksters. Or busybodies like he-who-can-not-be-named could make false claims out of spite.
Not to mention this'll leave Gamestop managers at the mercy of disgruntled employees. I mean, if you'd had enough of your job and were ready to quit, wouldn't you like a way to cost your manager his job?
Certainly, it is possible for a child to find someone out there besides their parents to enter the store and purchase the game for them, but frankly thats a minor problem with a good solution that avoids legislation. I can't speak for the policy of firing managers, at first glance it seems like it may be a bit draconian. GameStop does however, have far more experience running retail outlets than I do, and if these measures help increase the minor denial rate, and get the legislators off the backs of the game industry I'm all for it.
Just remember, retail policies can be changed relatively quickly and easily, legislation is significantly more difficult.
They are also acting as if they are forced by law to not sell them to minors and will send the wrong message to everyone that its a restricted substance to minors like pron.I know if someone walks up to me to buy a game and its say rated T and they are 9 years old (its happened) i would have no problems with selling the kid the product same goes for any game.
By acting like its a actual law it wont be long before it will become a actual law(same thing happened with seat belts years back)if anything this will cause many spite false claims resulting in innocent folks being terminated.
If you support garbage like this you are just as bad as a dictator plain and simple.
Dare them to try here in Connecticut.
There would be a lawsuit so fast, it would make your head spin. As well as a Labor Dept. complaint filed.
I was told by an EB Manager, that his regional manager informed them that soon, the point of service software will not only soon auto-prompt for an age verification via ID of the customer, but they will also require the employee to punch in a customer's motor vehicle ID which will then be stored in the company database attached to the customer's name. The day this company thinks they can store that info just because I want to make a purchase is the day they get slammed with major lawsuits. Someone doesn't have their head screwed on properly.
This is GameStop we're talking about, they treat all of their employees like crap, and only care about the customer's money. That's. It. You want to talk about unfair and harsh, ask me about my old GS manager when I worked there last year, and then ask me all about my own stories about being stepped on by "The Man".
@TheGreg
"Not only when buying games. They have to have an adult with ID to trade in M rated games too. How much sense does that make? “You’ve already got it, but you aren’t old enough to have it!”"
You don't know much about GameStop, do you?
That's for everyone, it has nothing to do with M-rated games, and if anyone tells you otherwise they're BSing you. GameStop's trade-ins work under pawn shop law, which means you MUST be 17 or older to make a trade-in. You're also required to fill out a section of paper with your name, address, driver's licence etc. It has nothing to do with GameStop's regulations, just what the pawn shop law is in whatever state it's located in- in which the laws are normally the same.
Keep in mind that's a LAW, not a policy.
Everyone's getting so hyped up over this... It's just like the policies a majority of movie theatre's have for the ratings, and no one's bitching about that.
"Everyone’s getting so hyped up over this… It’s just like the policies a majority of movie theatre’s have for the ratings, and no one’s bitching about that."
Mind listing what movie theater chains have a policy of firing both the employee and the MANAGER if an underage kid gets let into an R-rated movie?
As a manager, you are responsible for what your employee does, and as such you are supposed to know what's going on in your store, in fact, as manager, it's your business to know what's going on in your store. If someone under you is doing something that is against corporate policy, whether or not you know about it, as their superior it is your responsibility. If you don't hold a manager accountable when their employee does something bad, then what are you supposed to hold them accountable for, a managers main job is to manage his/her employees and they are failing that if their employees are screwing up. The same goes opposite actually, if employees under a manager are doing well, then you reward the manager as well.
This policy is just common business management, and just because they phrased it like this doesn't make it any different than normal.
And as someone said, I won't be surprised if alot of bogus complaints come in,especially in the state of Florida.
Yes, it is the responsibility of the manager to oversee the operation of the store and its employees. However the policy, as stated here, is to fire both the manager and employee over a single incident of failure to enforce corporate policy. If the employee(s) were to repeatedly sell games to minors then yes, the management should be held accountable just as they should be if an employee were to repeatedly steal noticeable quantities from the cash drawer. Firing the management over a singular incident which he or she likely isn't even present to prevent, however, will result in a slew of wrongful termination lawsuits and encourage the sort of ineffecient and paranoid micromanagement that makes working under some managers insufferable.
Don't be. See below.
The policy, as it stands, holds a manager responsible for events entirely outside of his control. For example, if an employee turns rogue and sells an 'M' rated game to a minor, the manager is terminated instantly.
While it is acceptable to hold a manager responsible for repeated mistakes, there is absolutly nothing a manager can do to avoid termination. No amount of training, or diciplinary actions can prevent employees from selling a such a game to children, whether it's a simple mistake or malice (which has plausible deniability).
Same employee violates the policy again, termination.
Multiple employees violating the policy, warning to Manager.
Continued violation of policy by multiple employees, terminate Manager.
That would seem reasonable if that is how Gamestop wanted to do it officially. Their Press Release isn't detailed, so there may be a more specified system that they follow.
Do all Gamestops have video survelliance? How long are recordings kept if any store does have video survelliance? I would think having such recordings would be a protection for employee and manager as well as useful evidence of violation of policy as well.
nightwng2000
NW2K Software
@Daniel:
"I played many M rated games when I was underage and there is nothing wrong with it."
I would argue that there are SEVERAL things wrong with you, many of which ARE a direct result of your complete immersion in violent games as a kid.
"I applaud any underage person who plays violent video games. They’re appropriate for everybody."
Do the world a favor. Don't reproduce.
Most retail stores have this policy, so obviously they disagree.
and
"No Daniel, some games are not appropriate for younger audiences. Age is usually a good indicator of development when used in the appropriate context and not treated as a set in stone guide."
Since Daniel can copy and paste posts i figure I can do it to and save some time.
I seriously doubt gamestop, given the extremely profit-hungry corporation that it is, would go firing a lot of managers over this. It takes time and resources to train employees and managers, and if they had to keep re-training people and keep re-training people, its going to cost them at some point along the line. Not to mention the time it takes to find someone who actually wants to be a retail manager of one of these stores.
I don't see the issue with trading in M rated games, in NY state at least you have to have a valid drivers license or some form of photo ID and be at least 18 to trade in games of any kind or have a parent with you when trading in games. I believe the 18 and over to trade in games is corporate policy (if you are under 18 you must have a parent with you to trade in games), so I do not see where there would be an issue with a kid trading in a M rated game without a parent.
The REAL issue at hand here is that parents are buying the M rated games for the kids, and NOT knowing what the M means. Kid takes grandparent into gamestop, picks out an M rated game, they pay, kid goes home with the game, seen it at least 20 times or more, happens almost every time I am in an EBgames store. Employees of gamestop make no effort to explain to the clueless parent or guardian that the game is M rated and is not suitable for children under 17 even though the parent is clearly purchasing the game specifically for the child, and the child is the one who will be playing it. I have seen tons of 6-10 year olds get their hands on GTA this way, its just too easy because nearly every parent or grandparent is uninformed, and the employees make no effort whatsoever to inform them. The stores are keeping up with the policy of not selling an M rated game to those under 17, its just that the kids are getting the game via the parents because the parents either don't know or could care less. THAT is how the M rated games are getting into the hands of kids, and anyone who believes otherwise is very naive.
The other options are minor, there aren't too many stores that will let a kid buy an M rated game and I have personally in about 6-7 years of video game shopping never seen a kid ask another person either outside of a store or inside a store to buy an M rated game for them. Sure it probably happens, but the most common way for kids to get their hands on the M rated games is through their parents. Parental responsiblity in the USA is at an all time low and is most of the time non-existant.
Teens are irrelevant, the content in most games barring a few games is nothing worse than they are experiencing in high school. Most of the time when i see a parent buying an M rated game for a kid its a kid ages 5-10. Yes, I have seen grandparents buy GTA for a 5-6 year old boy. M rated games are NOT intended for this audience, something needs to be done to stop this!
I posted this on many message boards and I am going to keep posting so everyone knows the root of this problem.
When it comes to younger kids like those in their single age digits my opinion differs as young children do not yet have the full capability of knowing the difference between reality and fantasy, right and wrong, and/or what is or is not acceptable behaviour in real life situations.
"I would argue that there are SEVERAL things wrong with you, many of which ARE a direct result of your complete immersion in violent games as a kid."
This is just pure assumption on your part though Hayabusa75. I don't consider his constant repeating of himself in nearly every single post he makes nor his inability to get other people's responses to his posts to be the fault of him playing violent games as a kid and until their is a direct proven link you can't say that they are.
As for his unhealthly obsession with violent video games, i think this has more to do with Daniel's psyche (genetical or developmental disposition) then with violent video games scrambling his brain circuits as a child. I still think that Daniel had Asberger's Syndrome even if he claims he doesn't.
But legislation is designed, and openly claimed by politicians, to be based on what they feel is or is not appropriate for other people's children. They openly pass judgment on content and games, both in general and specifically.
As I've said before, it sucks to be a kid. But there are Parents who DO want stores to have such policies. And while some individuals complain about the inconvience, there are just as many who would complain about the lack of policies.
Yes, there are some Parents who make decisions that other individuals wouldn't make. I would prefer they make those decisions informed, in part, if not fully. Are all games safe for all kids? It isn't possible to make such a statement. Can anyone say that a particular game or a particular type of game is inappropriate for all kdis? No. The only person who can make an informed decision regarding what is or is not appropriate for any given child is the child's own Parent(s).
And also, as I've said before, there is the one loophole for both a store policy and formal legislation: Both rely on age. Which means the purchaser doesn't have to be a Parent, just an older "of age" person.
Frankly, I'd rather the corporations take a harsher stance over employees than risk the encouragement of legislation.
nightwng2000
NW2K Software
"Mind listing what movie theater chains have a policy of firing both the employee and the MANAGER if an underage kid gets let into an R-rated movie?"
Be more of an ass, please.
I meant the policy of carding for R-rated movies as a whole, not this specific policy of hitting everyone an their mother with the firing stick. If you noticed, I made no mention of the "manager being fired" part of the policy in any of my post because I wasn't directing my point at that specific issue. My fault for not being clear, but since you were so "polite" to me I'll indulge you in my opinion of GameStop's policy itself.
When I worked there before the company became a fortune 500, before it went corporate, before it started sucking every single customer's dick for money, the store had the policy to card for M-rated games, unless the customer looked, at the least, 30 years of age. If a parent was buying an M-rated game for their child we made sure to tell them that it was an M-rated game, and the reasons why- Because, contrary to Daniel's idiotic "VIOLENT GAMES FOR EVERYBODY YIPPEE" younger children's minds are not developed enough to understand certain violent games. It wasn't because we HAD to, it was just a point of being moral and having ethics. There was a minimum punishment for selling a game to an underage child, usually just a slap on the wrist or a scolding. The worst punishment wasn't even from the manager but from the parents that came in to scream at you- Nay, not scream, literally blow up in your face at you.
GS went corporate. It sucked. You didn't work there as a friendly gamer helping out the rest of the gaming community, now you were just considered a corporate drone working $5.15 an hour. The policy stood, except you'd get a few warnings and if it continued you WOULD be fired. I didn't have a problem with this because I didn't like selling M-rated games to snot-nosed 13 year-olds who ran around my store like monkeys on crack. But I digress. That was the policy, it was fine.
That policy is similar to the majority of movie theatre chains. If you admit a child under the age of 17 without parental consent you would be cited for it. Enough warnings and you were given the ban-stick. That's the policy I was talking about in my earlier post, and I apologize to you personally Grey for reading me wrong.
This new policy at GameStop I do not agree with. A no-warning termination of an employee and the manager is an incorrect way to go about it, though I can gaurentee there will not be any screw ups.
Does that clear some things up for you, Gray? Do I need to type in shorter spurts for you with smaller words for you to understand?
-Sara
@Daniel
God you're a dumbass.
"I don’t see the issue with trading in M rated games, in NY state at least you have to have a valid drivers license or some form of photo ID and be at least 18 to trade in games of any kind or have a parent with you when trading in games. I believe the 18 and over to trade in games is corporate policy (if you are under 18 you must have a parent with you to trade in games), so I do not see where there would be an issue with a kid trading in a M rated game without a parent."
Anyway. @Sara
"I don’t see the issue with trading in M rated games, in NY state at least you have to have a valid drivers license or some form of photo ID and be at least 18 to trade in games of any kind or have a parent with you when trading in games. I believe the 18 and over to trade in games is corporate policy (if you are under 18 you must have a parent with you to trade in games), so I do not see where there would be an issue with a kid trading in a M rated game without a parent."
Again, as I said in my post specifically talking about this: Trade-ins are under PAWN SHOP LAW. Not under GameStop's corporation. PLEASE READ THIS SO YOU DON'T SOUND LIKE AN IGNORANT FUCKTARD.
Thank you.
I would agree with Hyabusa. However I think Daniel's personality is more responsible. I also think an immersion in comics, books, music, porn, movies, cars, or stamp collecting would have resulted in a similar disposition with him acting similarly in context with what ever his obsession is.
Daniels argumentative skills and interpretation skills appear to be almost non existent. I would agree with you that he has Asberger's though I have never know someone with it who was so... infuriating. I think however he missed some key lessons during his social development.
The only one being an ass here is you. Everyone in this thread already knows that corporate policy restricting sales to match the suggested ages like movie theaters restrict admission to match suggested ages. That's not new, whole news articles on this site have been about how well various stores are adhering to their age restriction policies. In general, people agree with such restriction, although obviously there are a few exceptions.
However, you said "Everyone’s getting so hyped up over this… It’s just like the policies a majority of movie theatre’s have for the ratings, and no one’s bitching about that."
Since the only thing everyone is getting "hyped up over" is the "fire the manager along with the employee" part, obviously people are going to think you're referring to that. Not about the age restrictions, not even about the part about firing the employee that violates the corporate policy.
And it's kind of ironic that you're yelling at Sara to read what you say, or else be an "IGNORANT ****tard" when you apparently have a problem with reading comprehension.
Ok, I suppose NOW I'm being an ass, but remember, you're the one that started the ad hominem attacks. All I did was question a statement that called for questioning due to it being outrageous and inaccurate. I suppose "This person can't properly formulate what he actually wants to say." or "This person has missed what people are getting excited about." should have occurred to me; however I tend to assume that people posses a basic level of competence until they prove otherwise.
"The only one being an ass here is you. "
That's because I am one. If you have a problem with it I suggest talking it out with me, or ignoring my posts completely.
At everything else: All I can say is that I'm sorry you didn't understand what I was trying to say, and to certain other points "Touché"
While I would assume "Everyone in this thread already knows that corporate policy restricting sales to match the suggested ages like movie theaters restrict admission to match suggested ages." you'd be surprised at what little people know.
Now, I, on the other end of the spectrum, assume that everyone is like Daniel, and doesn't know his head from his ass. And I incorrectly assumed that everyone was hyped over an age-restriction policy as a whole, not just the manager part. I'm so, so very sorry for misinterpreting the buzz, let me go shoot myself to make up for it.
As for Sara, maybe I was too harsh- But after reading Daniel's crap, I don't take lightly to stupid people.
Your last line seemed to be subtly calling me incompetent. I'm sorry I don't reach your standards. I'll try harder next time. Because I care. No, I really, really do.
The reason why I'm very into defending violent video games and hammering my ideas is because I have been defending violent video games for years and some of the members in my family don't think I'm serious. Last spring, one of my close relatives said that I was probably one day going to be like Jack Thompson and attack violent media. I paniced and I started buying violent movies and violent games very quickly and I was upset that after all these years, some of the people in my family don't think I'm serious and they think that one day, I'm going to be like Jack Thompson and tell people not to watch violent things on a screen.
They still don't think I'm serious. That's why when Brokenscope and Hayabusa75 called me the reverse of Jack Thompson, it lifted my spirits and filled me with glee and I considered it the best compliment ever. I'm trying to prove to myself that I will never be like Jack Thompson and that the members in my family are wrong. Of course, I haven't said all the things in real life that I have said on this website. If those relatives knew half of what I have said here, they'd be furious at me.
Do you all think that I will ever be like Jack Thompson? I hope not because that means I am winning. That's a huge reason why I sound very obsessed with violent video games, although it's not the only one. I was raised around people like Jack Thompson and I was around them for years. I rebelled against the idea that everything is bad and a sin. I have been around those kind of people most of my life. I used to go to a very conservative church where they talked against pornography all the time and I was always afraid that one day, they would say something against violent media and that my video games would go in the trash, but that day never came. They almost never said anything against violent media.
It annoys me that some people think I'll be like Jack Thompson some day and tell people not to watch violent media after all the years I have defended it and all the crap I have put up with defending it even from my own family. I am nothing like Jack Thompson, but some people in my family don't get it. I have dedicated almost the last year to proving it wrong in almost all my free time. I have been in many arguments and even been given the cold shoulder sometimes because I defend violent media and that's hard when you come from a family where everything is a sin and evil.
I said screw that and I distanced myself from it and some people think I'm going to be like them again someday. If they knew what is going on in my head, they would know that it will never happen. That's why I take it as a compliment that sometimes Brokenscope and Hayabusa75 have called me the opposite of an anti-game activist. That tells me that I'm succeeding and that I will never be an anti-game activist. You all know more about me than people who know me personally and you know that I am a progame activist and that I will never be against violent media. People, who think that everthing is bad, are almost always bad. Out of all the people I have ever met like that, only two actually are as holy as they claim to be.
I think that about clears up why I'm very into defending violent media and why I'm very gung-ho about it. I'm trying to prove to myself, as well as others, that I'm not like anti-game activists. I think some people know that about me, but I can't believe that some people think I am going to be an anti-game activist some day. It will never happen and you are telling me that you take me seriously and believe that it will never happen and, for that, I say thank you. You've made this last year of my life a victory.
"This is just pure assumption on your part though Hayabusa75. I don’t consider his constant repeating of himself in nearly every single post he makes nor his inability to get other people’s responses to his posts to be the fault of him playing violent games as a kid and until their is a direct proven link you can’t say that they are."
Hold on, you can't get on me for making assumptions (which I didn't really, I just said I could argue the point) about Daniel and then in the same breath make assumptions yourself about what I was actually talking about and also what's wrong with Daniel. We make assumptions and inferences about people we don't know everyday on this site, it's nothing new. For the record, I never made any specific claims, I just made that statement as a rebuttal. You can think Daniel has Asberger's, but for all you or I know, he might just be a run-of-the-mill idiot.
@Mr. Blond:
I understand all that, but making blanket statements that ALL games are a-ok ALL of the time for ALL ages irresponsibly ignores the fact that this is a many-layered issue.
@Yoshiko:
Easy, easy. Danielitis can affect us with varying levels of intensity.
I wonder if I was ever that bad,I never had that kind of energy 0_o
.....
@Daniel
When a family member tells me that I will one day magically reverse my political ideology about the second amendment, I don't go out and buy a enough guns to supply a small group of anti government nuts in a small compound in Wyoming...(Okay i took that a little farther than i needed to.)
When a kid at school tells me that one day I'm going to go out and get shitfaced like every other "normal" student on Thursday, I don't go out and buy tons of non alcoholic beverages. I go on with my life and have a small amount of alcohol when relaxing with my friends who find sobriety a better way to be.
I mean that has to be one of the worst coping mechanism i have seen in my life, and man i have seen some bad ones(mostly mine).
Once again your post makes very little sense, it gives us almost no insight except that you can be borderline irrational in the face of adversity.
I take that back, it tells me one thing. You have trouble believing in your own personal convictions to the point, where a person can make a negative statement about them and you are forced to go do something that physically reinforces your beliefs, just to make sure you still have them.
You actually remind me of a guy who if someone called him gay, if someone did something that he felt wasn't completely straight. He had to go home and look at porn for hours just to get it into his head that he was heterosexual. He was that unconfident in his sexuality and his homophobia that he had to physically reinforce his convictions that he was straight.
You need to go reexamine yourself and your actions carefully, you need to think about what you are saying and look at how it reflects on you as a person.
I just deleted a 250-word essay on Reality For The Intellectually Impaired rather than post something tangential.
The first two comments to this article sum up my thoughts, really. So... what they said.
Consider this, the store Managers and the employees below them are all aware that they'll start losing their jobs if they slip up. The main issue is that M rated games should not be in the hands of young children, so obviously, none of them will be letting copies of Manhunt and Resident Evil and all of those happy games slip through the cracks.
Now, both employees and managers know their job is on the line if one of these instances occurs. So what's going to happen? Nothing. I don't forsee any employees calling down to corporate office and confessing unless it's another employee who hates the both of them. It's like calling the police to confess a murder.
Now, unless there's a big hotline number posted above the register that customers can exploit at the sake of helpless employees, I can see this as a problem, and GameStop will likely scramble for new workers all over.
The upside to all of this.. I needed a job anyways.
I always wondered that myself but the I think it depends on the parents. We probably would get some disgruntled parent come in and yell at us for giving thier kid an M-rated game, they would give us a reciept or something which has the name of the employee who sold it and that would be the end of it. Other than that I dont know, Some employees might turn someone in occasionaly but I dont know.
I can't believe it took 7 posts before somebody realized this.
It is great that GameStop is finally taking some initiative. Obviously they aren't actually going to fire any managers over an employee selling an M-rated game while the manager isn't there. But if the manager is there, and knows that it happened, and still allows it... well then he's breaking company policy and deserves to be disciplined. This might mean firing, this might mean suspension, or it might just mean a stern talking-to from the boss.
You sign an employee handbook when you take a job. You can't file a wrongful termination suit if you willingly and knowingly broke the rules. Get rid of a few of the lazy clerks that don't care, and the rest of them will shape up real quick.
"...the average sales person gets paid in peanuts and to lose that job would not be a huge hit."
Many GameStop employees work there because they get to borrow games and play them for free. That alone makes it better than flipping burgers. Anyway, have you ever met anybody with a college degree that is hawking games in retail? I'm not saying they are "stupid" or anything like that (some of them are using it to pay their way through college), but it's not as easy for a kid working retail to just go out and get another job.
Smaller EB/Gamestops (such as the one I worked at in college), only have two managers, sometimes just one full time manager and a couple of keyholders. Firing the manager at locations like these would basically render the store inoperable - I don't see them doing that.
There's a lot more to the job than you'd suspect, and it's not exactly quick to train a manager up. Also, having been subject to a number of bad managers during my relatively short tenure at the EB, and knowing how rare a good manager is, it'd be a shame if a good manager was fired on account of one kid screwing up or not giving a damn (which kids are apt to do).
Do you have to ask for some kind of id before ringing up the game? or does it ring up on the register that says "please check id" before printing the receipt?
also, do you/ is there the same check for movies?
Is it a stunt to get good publicity? Of course. Is it way too harsh? Of course. But I doubt that there will be a rash of employees getting back at their managers. This is the wake up call that they have to crack down, that they have to get tough, and they have to enforce the rules.
Now some bemoan the fact that under 18 gamers can't buy violent video games without their parents, that these stores are engaging in censorship, and I think they are missing the point of these rules completely. These policies exist so that stores have a good rapport with parents and the community. Most parents would object to their 6 year old child playing GTA, and the store is helping them out by refusing to sell the game to that child. The cries of censorship miss the point completely. It really is not in the spirit of censorship. Censorship is the outright banning of materials usually with the intention of thought control. Keeping six year olds from playing a game where they can kill a prostitute for her money after having sex with her is, well, on a different level. Plus, it's not like nobody can purchase these games. Yes, technically it might meet the definition of censorship, but the spirit is a touch different.
For those of you concerned about false complaints, keep in mind that there are usually cameras in most stores pointed at the register, that these registers print out a piece of paper containing information about the sale including the date, who did the sale, the product purchase, the price, and how the sale was completed.
And finally, for those of you concerned about honest mistakes - that's life. I worked in two stores that sold cigarettes, and if you sold to an underage customer once, you were to be fired. This is not like you are trying to make a judgment call that is tough, you are just making sure that only people who are old enough are buying M rated games. There aren't honest mistakes in this area, only disobedience of policy. Most of these stores say ID to an age where there is no mistake that they over the legal age. And if there is a gray area, then you ID anyway. And if the customer complains, well, it's store policy for both you and them. And if they aren't following policy, then you don't do the sale.
I'm sorry for the long post, but I think a lot of people here are turning this into some evil policy when it really is just a company cracking down on constant disobedience of company policy. And if you are so adverse to company policy, then you don't shop or work there.
"To all who worked at Gamestop
Do you have to ask for some kind of id before ringing up the game? or does it ring up on the register that says “please check id” before printing the receipt?
also, do you/ is there the same check for movies? "
I believe the computer system (we were running off of something a little better than MSDoS) has been changed since I worked there. But, when I was there a message popped up on the screen when you scanned the barcode of an M-rated game into the item list saying "This is an M-rated game. Please check customer's ID. If customer is born before 2/12/89 (for example, it'd update the date everyday) then customer is 18 years of age or older" or something similar to that effect. It'd tell you to press "Y" or "N" to continue, and that was that.
I've never worked in the movie industry so I have no idea. I'd imagine they have the same sort of deal.
@ Daniel
So. You're a complete idiot with no sense of rational thinking- which means you are EXACTLY like Jack Thompson. Good to know.
@Hayabusa
I was probably a little mean. Long day at work. =\
Did that same check also occur for DVD movies rated R, or was it solely for video games?
@ anyone who worked at a movie theater,
Was there any age checks for movies Rated R?
The MPAA movie ratings (G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17) are entirely voluntary, and they always have been. And yet, they are treated as if they are law - theaters enforce them almost universally, as do, to my knowledge, retailers that sell movies. The fact is that though the MPAA system started out as a system of recommendations (like the ESRB system), it was reliable enough (like the ESRB system) and became so widely used (like the ESRB system) that it eventually became a de facto system of restrictions.
The paralells are pretty obvious. The ESRB is at this crucial stage where it transitions from being a little-known "guideline" system to a widely-known (by non-gamers, that is), trusted system for judging content, and the enforcement of age restrictions by retailers is a necessary step (as was the enforcement of film ratings by theaters for the MPAA system). As Magi said early on in this thread, the strict enforcement of ESRB ratings by retailers doesn't take responsibility away from parents, but actually forces it upon them. It requires parents to make decisions about the games their kids buy, because they have to buy the games for them, just as the MPAA system requires parents to decide what movies their kids can watch.
Yeah, it did the same for movies.
Well, in either case you end up canned...
I'm not an idiot. I just got a B+ on an english paper. It's not that I don't feel that my convictions are strong. It's that I have to practice it by running down anti-game activists. It's like studying for a test. You know the material, but without studying, you could lose it. I have to say nasty things about anti-game actvists and do at least one nasty thing a day in a video game, or I could end up like Jack Thompson. You have to do it everyday to keep your beliefs, or you are in danger of losing them.
Hey, Yoshiko, are you actually a gamer? Do you play video games? I'm seriously starting to doubt it and doubt that you're on our side. I think you said up there that people used to try to discourage people from buying Mature rated games for young people because it was the moral thing to do. What gamer would say that? If you believe it's immoral for a young person to play violent video games, then you belong on Jack Thompson's sidelines. I don't think you're a gamer at all. You sound a lot like an anti-game activst. You sound like they do, at least, it seems that way to me.
Not even close, man. Not even close. =)
Oh so that why you post like you do. You have to be a dumb ass at least once a day otherwise you might actually start saying things that are intelligent. Well shit, that explains everything. Guys, we need to find Daniel and not let him do something stupid for a few days. We might have a contributing member to the sight, hell we could all get back to discussing the issues and not trying to explain them to Daniel.
Thats a pretty sad life to lead Daniel. You have to do something bitter and petty once a day to make sure you believe in your convictions.
@Daniel again
There is a good movie, Its called hotel Rwanda. It is about the civil war between the Hutu's and the Tutsi in Rwanda. It goes something like this.
Paul: I am a Hutu, leave these people alone.
Hutu Militia Leader:... They are Tutsi, they are cockroaches.
Paul: They are my friends, leave them alone.
Hutu Militia: Are you sure you are a Hutu? You sound like a Tutsi traitor. I don't think you are a Hutu, why don't you shoot one of them and prove that you are a Hutu.
Not the best comparison but I think it serves it purpose.
Daniel, your attitude of your either with us or your against us is annoying.
By doing something dirty, I mean playing a violent game everyday and running down anti-game activists everyday. If I do that, I don't think there's much chance that I'll ever be like Jack Thompson. If I absolutely do everything I can to not become what I most despise, chances are, I won't. I have to try everyday to not become what I most despise to persevere.
A Nietzsche you bring me such wisdom everyday.
He who fights monsters should be careful lest he himself become a monster in the process. Think on that for a while.
@Josh
They are selling it to the adult, who can give it to the child. Or the adult gives implicit permission by being present.
Just because you're "booksmart" doesn't mean you're intelligent, it only contributes. When I talk about intelligence, I talk about common sense, which you lack greatly.
"Hey, Yoshiko, are you actually a gamer? Do you play video games? I’m seriously starting to doubt it and doubt that you’re on our side. I think you said up there that people used to try to discourage people from buying Mature rated games for young people because it was the moral thing to do. What gamer would say that? If you believe it’s immoral for a young person to play violent video games, then you belong on Jack Thompson’s sidelines. I don’t think you’re a gamer at all. You sound a lot like an anti-game activst. You sound like they do, at least, it seems that way to me."
I'm just going to say "lol". I can't have my own opinion? I either have to be completely for one specific topic, or be on the "other side".
That's like saying if you're a Democrat you ABSOLUTELY have to be PRO-LIFE, and if you're not PRO-LIFE then you HAVE to be a Republican. Seriously, you are the definition of being single-minded. You are so fucking selfish, locked in your own bubble thinking that only YOU are right and anyone that disagrees with your specific opinion is the devil.
You. Are. Jack Thompson.
You don't even deserve to hear my defense because you won't even bother to look at it, because after all: You're always right.
I am a gamer. I have been since I was 4, when my brother got his NES for Christmas. I watched him play Mario and DuckHunt/Clayshooters all day long. Eventually I started playing it on my own. I stopped playing for awhile, then when I moved to Arizona my friend introduced me to the Playstation, and FF7. I fell in love with RPGs. I then went back and played Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, FF1, FF3 and FF5. As the rest of the Final Fantasy series came out, I bought and played them. When FFXI came out, that became my first MMORPG. I didn't like it so much, so I stopped playing- However I did start playing World of Warcraft when it came out and I've been playing that since release. Don't believe me? Make a Horde character on the server Deathwing and I'll log in for you on my mage simply to prove it.
I've played Counterstrike (not Source, F-that), Half-life, Doom, some occasional Halo, Legend of Dragoon, Elder Scrolls series, Myst, NCAA, Tetris, Shadow of the Colossus, Indigo Prophecies, Okami, GTA, Genji, Shadow Hearts, Kingdom Hearts, almost every single fucking game on the PS2 that has 3 out of 5 stars or more I've played. Do I need to go on?
I love video games. That's why I'm going to major in Video Game Design at the University of Advanced Technology in Tempe, AZ this Fall. It's my goddamn passion, not just a fucking hobby, AND PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE RUINING IT FOR EVERYONE ELSE.
The difference between me and you is that I have common sense, morals, and basic linguistic skills.
Oh. Yeah.
AND I'M NOT A FUCKING LUNATIC.
Tell me, OH GREAT HISTORY MAJOR WITH A B+ ON HIS ENGLISH TEST, why the HELL should an 8 year old be playing something like Gears of War? Seriously.
You think age doesn't matter. Age is completely irrelevant to everything.
Should a 10 year-old be driving a car?
Should a 13 year-old be able to walk into a bar and order a glass of Jack and Coke on the rocks?
Should a 15 year-old be able to walk into any store, buy a pack of cigarettes and smoke their way to an early grave?
I'm not saying kids don't do the second two at that age, I know I was at 15-16ish. But not legally- That doesn't make it right.
I'm sorry that your parents failed to teach you to be human. I can only hope that you'll kill yourself in the near future to save the gene pool- Or we can just take the safety tags off of everything and let the problem solve itself.
One last thing before I go. The reason why I'm not on the anti-video game activists side is because I don't believe that violent video games cause extreme violent behavior, nor do they correctly simulate and/or train for real-life murders. They CAN affect an exception of people who are already psychologically impaired to begin with, but for the majority of people, they don't. They ALSO do have short term effects of violent behavior- How a person reacts when they feel this way defines them as a person.
I don't think Jack Thompson's concerns are ill-founded, I just think they're too extreme. He has reason for a small amount of concern, but none warrant a reason for legislation. The reason why I dislike (notice how I don't hate him, because I'm not an idiot and know that hate is a very strong feeling. One that you would use when talking about something that you would murder) Jack Thompson is because of the way he goes about his "crusade". He's an asshole. He makes shit up. He's a hypocrite. He slanders the people he, at the same time, claims to be working to "protect".
The reason why I'm not like Jack Thompson and you are, is because I can logically think about and understand video games on a level he can't- and I can present myself in a non-lunatic way. You, don't. You are just like Jack Thompson in every aspect of personality, except you're preaching about the opposite things.
You are not the opposite of Jack Thompson.
You are the same. You just have exact opposite opinions- which is fine- But you act just like him.
And that's why you're family doesn't take you seriously, nor will anyone with half their brain on this comment forum, or anywhere else in the world.
http://myspace.com/takeoutfortwo
If you want to continue telling me about how I'm 'on the other side', go to my MySpace (shut up, I like MySpace...) and send me a message. I'll talk to you there so I can verbally beat you in private instead of embarrass you here.
That offer goes for anyone else who wants to contact me and tell me I'm an asshole or something (I'm looking at you, Gray).
-Sara
This is ridiculous. I'm ruining gaming for everybody? No, I don't think that children should be allowed to drink and smoke. However, video games are only images on screen. That can't hurt anybody. By I hate Jack Thompson, I mean I disagree with him totally and I don't like him. You're going to embarrass me on this site? Ooooh I tremble with fear. Although I might send you an email.
The word hate is not a word you use to say that you want to kill someone. In Boston, they hate Bucky Dent, but they wouldn't kill him. I think that when it comes to images on a screen, age doesn't count. When you see this, I would like you to respond and I'm not a bit afraid that you will embarrass me at all. I don't think that anti-game activists have any legitamate arguments at all and their cases don't have a leg to stand on. They're wrong about everything.
Images on a screen can't influence anybody to do anything at anytime. Those images are not dangerous and they don't kill or lead to violence ever in any case period. Please respond to that argument. You embarrass me? lol lol lol lol lol As if you could.
"In Boston, they hate Bucky Dent, but they wouldn’t kill him."
You obviously have never been to the East Coast.
"I think that when it comes to images on a screen, age doesn’t count."
So it's ok for a 4 year-old to see a picture or video of a man sawing off another man's head, then holding it up to the camera while spewing a sling of inappropriate language? (I'm not saying this is in anyway compared to video games, just an example of violent imagery).
You're not ruining gaming. You're ruining our reputation. People think the entire gaming community acts like you- Which is not a good thing.
"Images on a screen can’t influence anybody to do anything at anytime. Those images are not dangerous and they don’t kill or lead to violence ever in any case period."
I already argued this. If you had read and understood me, you would not need to type these meaningless lines.
And I quote myself:
"I don’t believe that violent video games cause extreme violent behavior, nor do they correctly simulate and/or train for real-life murders. They CAN affect an exception of people who are already psychologically impaired to begin with, but for the majority of people, they don’t. They ALSO do have short term effects of violent behavior- How a person reacts when they feel this way defines them as a person."
You're right. I could never embarrass you. You do a good enough job of that already without my help.
You're the most pathetic human being I have had the unpleasantry of encountering.
You’re the most pathetic human being I have had the unpleasantry of encountering.
You are lower than Jack Thompson, and I truly feel sorry for you.
"They’re wrong about everything."
-Jack Thompson
I have been to the east coast two times and I know all about the rivalry between the Yankees and the Red Sox. I know they don't like Bucky Dent at all in Boston, but I seriously don't think they would kill him. It's just sports and it happened many years ago. I am not lower than Jack Thompson. No one is lower than Jack Thompson. That's the worst insult that's ever been spewed at me.
I'm the most pathetic person you've ever encountered? Is that because I think violent media is appropriate for everybody? If it is, you're a hypocrite because I remember a few weeks ago, you said that you are seventeen. How old were you when you played Gran Theft Auto for the first time? Were you under seventeen? If you were, you played while underage.
If you played Mature rated games while you were under seventeen, you are a hypocrite to say that violent video games aren't appropriate for people that are under seventeen. If you played Grand Theft Auto while you were underage, then you are a hypocrite to say it's wrong. Who's pathetic now? At least I don't do something and then say it's wrong and become a hypocrite like you.
How many times have we that people mature at different rates. How many times have we said that most kids in their teens can deal with your average halo violent M rated game.
The thing is you think even small children are able to deal with it.
God you and Jack Thompson have ruined the Monty pythons Black Knight for me. I can't watch the movie anymore thanks to both of you, I get to that part... you've just destroyed the happy part of my childhood.
On a less irrational note
Jesus Daniel, you just don't know when to shut the hell up.
Fuck, id rather study calculus than deal with you. Sadly I'm done with calculus now.
Is this thread ever going to get back on topic? Because if you all are going to just hurl insults at each other, I don't see any reason to visit it again.
"Is this thread ever going to get back on topic? Because if you all are going to just hurl insults at each other, I don’t see any reason to visit it again."
Which is the real reason why I told Daniel to message me, unfortunately it went over his head. I'd rather him argue semantics with me over private messages than on a public board off topic. I do apologize to anyone who actually comments on the specific topic at hand for going off topic, it's just something that happens on more than a few occasions here.
Again, I personally apologize. Please don't take this as a "norm" for GamePolitics.com, and please do continue posting relevant comments to articles, Dennis and other GP.com owners/writers are not responsible for our long-winded 'battles' against each other. If possible, ignore any off-topic posts and just focus on all the other ones.
-Sara
"That’s the worst insult that’s ever been spewed at me."
That was the reaction I was going for. Because you ARE lower than him.
"I’m the most pathetic person you’ve ever encountered? Is that because I think violent media is appropriate for everybody? If it is, you’re a hypocrite because I remember a few weeks ago, you said that you are seventeen. How old were you when you played Gran Theft Auto for the first time? Were you under seventeen? If you were, you played while underage."
I'm not a hypocrite because I never said it was A-OK for me to be playing GTA at 15 years of age, just like I said I was drinking/smoking at 15, but that didn't make it right. The difference is that I know I'm doing something bad, as oppose to me being completely oblivious and saying that violent video games are for -everyone-. Another point is that my -parents- went out and got GTA for me, because they knew I was mature enough to handle a video game and not be retarded about it- Which is 'legal' under ESRB policy.
Do not sit there and tell me that I'm a hypocrite, because I did not, in any of my posts, say that what I did/do was/is legally and morally right.
You really are worse than JT.
My parents knew what I was doing also. I didn't hide it from them. However, when I played, I didn't think it was wrong for underage people to play these games. Tell me did you think it was okay when you were playing underage? A hypocrite would think it's okay when he/she is playing underage, but then thinks differently after reaching the legal age. In other words, "If I'm doing it, it's okay. If it's someone else, I'm not so sure." That's the attitude of a hypocrite.
I don't have that attitude. I didn't think it was wrong back then and I don't think it's wrong now. It's true you haven't said that you think that what you did was right, but did you think it was right and appropriate back then? I've stayed the same in my beliefs. If underage people want to play, I know why first hand and I think it's okay for everybody to play because I did.
If I said that it's wrong for underage people to play, I'd be a hypocrite because I did it and I thought it was right at the time. If you want to insult me, call me something else because no one is as low as that slime pit. Call me an MF if you want to insult me. Even call me a SH, but don't call me that. Oh, and if I'm worse than he is, then howcome I'm not insulting you? I'm just saying what I think and what my definition of a hypocrite is, but I haven't insulted you, or anyone on this site the way he insults people who don't agree with him 100%. Read some of the things he writes to people. Go read how he treats people and then see if you can say that to me. I don't think you would be able to after reading the way he treats people.
@ EOTD
No, we don't always hurl insults at each other. Actually, the only person I've really insulted here is Jack Thompson. I didn't mean to call Yoshiko a hypocrite as an insult. I think that if someone thinks it's okay to play a Mature rated game while underage and then takes it back when he/she is of age, that's a hypocrite. That's my definition of a hypocrite. The only person I've ever really meant to insult directly here is Jack Thompson. I got into the hypocrite thing because she honestly sounds like a hypocrite to me sometimes and because I didn't take kindly to the post above it.
@ Brokenscope
I don't know the film "Monty Python's Black Knight." I don't know what the anger that I feel for anti-game activists has to do with that. However, when someone calls me pathetic, I can't lay down and take that like a loser because I'm not. I have to respond and I don't like Yoshiko's agressive attitude. I don't know why she has to insult me when I'm defending video games except that sometimes I do it with too much enthusiasm. However, I think that she insults me with almost the same amount of enthusiasm. She started the insulting up there by saying and I quote, "God you're a dumbass." I didn't start it with her, so don't blame me.
I don't like it when people are against violent media. I think the idea that humans are stupid enough to imitate what they see on a screen is downright insulting to human dignity. We don't imitate what we see on a screen and it doesn't have any effect over anything. That's what they're argument comes down to. They're saying that we're stupid like animals and we copy what we see and I hate that theory.
Another point I'd like to make. Where you said, "That was the reaction I was going for." that sounds like you enjoy insulting me for some reason and you know you started it by saying up there, "God you're a dumbass." I didn't call you that, or any other profane thing. I rarely ever even use profanity when I insult Jack Thompson. I knew someone like you once and I don't like it when people insult others unprovoked. I didn't start it you did, so don't go making yourself the saint because you're not.
You are aware that at best, you come across as naive.
First off, human beings do imitate what they see on television. This is not in dispute. To what degree is in question.
A lot of people's concerns with violent video games actually deal with their effect on children. There is an age in which children can not readily determine what is reality and what is fiction. In fact, it isn't until you are 25 that scientists say you can fully recognize the potential effects of your actions. Most young children are unable to recognize the effects of their actions, or even the morality. Not to say that children are unmoral or immoral, but they may not grasp complex ideas like the anti-hero.
Despite what you believe, human beings actually do a lot through imitation. We learn a lot by imitating the things we see. If you were trying to teach someone how to build something, chances are you would build one of the item yourself so they could imitate your actions. In fact, you know how some things come with instructional videos showing you how to use them, it is so you can imitate what you see on the screen.
It is insulting to say that human beings will imitate things. First off, we are animals. Secondly, just because you view imitation as a 'lower' form of acting does not mean it does not benefit 'higher' forms of acting.
Simply put, would a six year old child play GTA? No. Would I let a 15 year old play GTA, perhaps. It depends on what I feel is appropriate for each specific person in each specific case. In all honesty, the effects of violent video games is not fully understood. I would say we know it doesn't create murderers, but it is probably a variable in a lot of cases.
Does this make me an anti-gaming activist? No. My view that some people should not be exposed to certain material does not mean I view these games as evil or bad.
I'll tell you something, on this board you come across as naive as best, and at worst... well, a jerk.
I quote: "By doing something dirty, I mean playing a violent game everyday and running down anti-game activists everyday. If I do that, I don’t think there’s much chance that I’ll ever be like Jack Thompson. If I absolutely do everything I can to not become what I most despise, chances are, I won’t. I have to try everyday to not become what I most despise to persevere."
You are aware that by acting that way, you end up becoming that which you most despise. Many anti-gaming activists are reactionaries. Your actions are reactionary. You aren't thinking things through, instead, you are simply saying "I don't agree with those people, so I will do anything I can to not be like those people." And you become exactly like them. The only difference is you are pro-gaming. I don't agree with their viewpoints, but I'm not going out and playing GTA just to stick it to these guys faces. I actually listen to what they have to say, consider the merits of their argument, listen to the other side, and determine for myself which is the best. It isn't like Jack Thompson is completely wrong, it is just that he pins the blame on video games instead of the person.
I think most people will tell you that video games do influence some crime. It is natural. Just because you find it insulting to humanity to believe that they imitate what they see on TV doesn't change the fact that the weekend that Saddam Hussein was hanged, a few children actually hanged themselves after seeing the footage, or the fact that many children have injured themselves after pulling the stunts they saw on Jackass.
In summation - think before you speak and consider exactly what you are saying. In your crusade to not be like your 'enemies', you've become exactly like them. Just as many anti-gaming activists are reactionaries, you are a total reactionary. Just calm down a bit, and realize that you come across like a naive fool, at best.
"My parents knew what I was doing also. I didn’t hide it from them. However, when I played, I didn’t think it was wrong for underage people to play these games. Tell me did you think it was okay when you were playing underage? A hypocrite would think it’s okay when he/she is playing underage, but then thinks differently after reaching the legal age. In other words, “If I’m doing it, it’s okay. If it’s someone else, I’m not so sure.” That’s the attitude of a hypocrite.
I don’t have that attitude. I didn’t think it was wrong back then and I don’t think it’s wrong now. It’s true you haven’t said that you think that what you did was right, but did you think it was right and appropriate back then? I’ve stayed the same in my beliefs. If underage people want to play, I know why first hand and I think it’s okay for everybody to play because I did.
If I said that it’s wrong for underage people to play, I’d be a hypocrite because I did it and I thought it was right at the time. If you want to insult me, call me something else because no one is as low as that slime pit. Call me an MF if you want to insult me. Even call me a SH, but don’t call me that. Oh, and if I’m worse than he is, then howcome I’m not insulting you? I’m just saying what I think and what my definition of a hypocrite is, but I haven’t insulted you, or anyone on this site the way he insults people who don’t agree with him 100%. Read some of the things he writes to people. Go read how he treats people and then see if you can say that to me. I don’t think you would be able to after reading the way he treats people."
Jesus christ. Did you even fucking reading my post?
"I’m not a hypocrite because I never said it was A-OK for me to be playing GTA at 15 years of age, just like I said I was drinking/smoking at 15, but that didn’t make it right. The difference is that I know I’m doing something bad, as oppose to me being completely oblivious and saying that violent video games are for -everyone-."
Is exactly what I said. I knew what that I technically shouldn't be doing something, and I didn't think it was right. I should clarify now, since you've proven to be so extremely stupid, ignorant, and naive, that they're are always exceptions to the rule. Those exceptions are determined by their parents. Their parents will say "I believe you're mature enough to play this game, even at the age of 14." As oppose to the psychopath down the street who is 16 years-old and everyone and their grandmother knows that he should be doing/playing anything that could push him over the edge.
As a general rule, I believe that in the older teenage years you have comprehension to the point where you can play violent video games safely. You say that you think that a child- Not just an underage personal, but a CHILD- the age of 6, 7, even 8ish is ok- no, SHOULD, be playing violent video games.
And if you honestly believe that, you're just pathetic. And again, you ARE worse than Jack Thompson, because Jack Thompson isn't COMPLETELY oblivious to the world around him like you are.
Seriously, Daniel. Grow up. You're so obsessed with sticking it to the man. You sound like a Junior High School student who just learned about the concept of anarchy, and though my faith in humanity is so low, I refuse to believe something as dim-witted as you got into an actual college, let alone hasn't killed himself by choking on a McDonalds toy.
The whole crap about you going out and buying violent video games simply to prove that you're "serious" to your family, is complete and total idiocy. I'm not even going to go further than tell you again what an idiot you are.
You? Insult me? The reason why you don't insult me is because you CAN'T. Because I'm not an asshat like you are. Got it?
seriously though, both of you need to cool down and get back to the topic at hand.
if you two really want to do a battle of the words theres a forum you can use.
Several people, myself included, have tried tog et Daniel on the forum. However he seems incapable of looking at the links on the right side of the homepage or making an account.
- Zach
Actually, video games are like playing with toy guns, in my opinion. My friend that got me interested in playing video games in the first place many years ago was only about 5 or 6 when he started playing violent video games in the 90's. The last time I saw him in the late 90's, he was barely 9 and we played Mortal Kombat and Area 51. He loved the gore more than I did. I was about two and a half years older than he was.
You think I can't insult you? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA I think I should tell you a little secret that I have never told anyone. I could insult you in a way that you probably wouldn't even be able to understand much less respond to.
I'm from southern California and, for many years, I actually almost lived within bicycling distance from Disneyland. I used to go there all the time, although I haven't been there since 1999, and I remember that they sell toy guns there and I used to play with toy guns. There is no difference between playing with a toy gun and playing a video game. It's all fake. I haven't seen so many HA's since the last time I was in the station for Riddler's Revenge at Six Flags Magic Mountain. I go there all the time now. The XTREME PARK rocks.
Some would argue that playing with toy guns teaches disrespect for real firearms.
@Daniel
"Images on a screen can’t influence anybody to do anything at anytime."
The Marketing industry that spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year on TV and Movie advertising begs to differ.
That depends on pre-dispostional behavior or beliefs though. For instance no number of Tampax commercials would make me go out and buy tampons because i'm a man and don't want them or need them.
On the other hand, if i'm hungry a Taco Bell commecial might make me want to go out and get something to eat but that is because i already have a dispostion of wanting something to eat.
Heh, say that to the idiots who wound up injuring themselves trying imitate Jack Ass, or pro-wrestling moves...
Images on a screen, just like EVERYTHING in life can influnece poeple, especially when the poeple are young and impressionable like children... However, how much they influence poeple is in serious question and the level of influence varies greatly from person to person (in other words, your PERSONAL experience with violent video games and how it has influenced you, speak only for you and DO NOT speak for the rest of the human population).
Video games, other media, and activities do have influence on us; it's utterly idotic to ingore that fact. However, the same studies used t prove that fact also show that the influence is far too low on its own to warrent legislation. Thus, why children playing violent games and such is generally a bad idea, and yet why laws restricting games will never come to pass.
"On the other hand, if i’m hungry a Taco Bell commecial might make me want to go out and get something to eat but that is because i already have a dispostion of wanting something to eat."
ah yes, but you see, the main reason you actually acted on your disposition is because of the commercial. If it were not for that commercial, you might not have felt like going out to eat... thus, though somewhat limited how strongly it can influence, the comercial DID have an effect/influence on you.
You make a good point, it is true that media such as commercials can influence us BUT the fact of the matter is pre-dispostion plays an important part in what influences you. If you're not a person with violent or aggressive tendancies to being with no amount of violent media will influence you to want to commit a violent crime or action.
"and you don’t even need to be hungry to get the craving for something to eat in particular… if i liked tacos for intance, but wasn’tnessasarily hungry, seeing a taco bell commercial, or seeing someone eating a taco, might put me in the mood to go out and get a taco, even if i’m not very hungry… where as normally if i didn’t see the commercial or the person eating, i might be a couple of weeks before i go out for tacos."
Yes, but only as you said in your post if you have a pre-dispostion for liking Tacos to being with. If you don't like or care for tacos no amount of taco commercials will make you want to go and eat at Taco Bell.
Now, now, don't go jumping to conclusions... i never said pre-dispostition didn't play a role, now did i?
My responce was first to Daniel's comment that “Images on a screen can’t influence anybody to do anything at anytime.”, and Bigman-K's comment which was a responce to Kommisar's comment, which in turn was in responce to Daniel's idotic quote. The way Danial talks of violent media, he acts that it can't influnence us AT ALL, so even those with dispositions are included with that. EVERYTHING has influnce on us, that is a fact. However, the level of said influence is determined in part by our pre-dispositions.
Another thing that contributes is having little to no pre-dispositions on a particular matter, such as for children since they have little experience in the world. If they are a clean-slate and have not learned to be either peace-loving or violent, violent media could end up creating a disposition for violence. Of course good parenting can help with this by raising their kids right so that they develop a pre-disposition for peace, thus lowering the influence of violent media. So once again, "why children playing violent games and such is generally a bad idea, and yet why laws restricting games will never come to pass." Now THAT's all i'm saying.
Sorry my last post was supposed to have "@Daniel" in it.
It was a direct response to one of his earlier posts where he says something along the lines of "imitation is an insult to the human race".
I may have misread, hell the topics are starting to run together so much I may have posted in the wrong thread, I wonder why I even bother, why any of us bother. I mean damn, I know I try to post on topic but then... sigh.
I completely agree with what you are saying. Sorry for the confusion, my life for an edit function, I miss live journal, ect ect ect..., find a happy place.
" hell the topics are starting to run together"
"my life for an edit function"
actually, funny thing...
i just realised i was supposed to be replying to Bigman-K XD
Ahh, threading made things so much simpler.
"You think I can’t insult you? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA I think I should tell you a little secret that I have never told anyone. I could insult you in a way that you probably wouldn’t even be able to understand much less respond to."
I. Dare. You.
At everything else you said: You're a fucking psycho.
This thread is making me laugh.
I'm a ****ing psycho? You're the one that likes to insult me, as you indicated up there. I looked up some bad words in another language, so here it is. Hypothetically speaking, if I said to you, Va te fair foutre. Vu trou de cul. Could you respond to that? Do you know what that means? I didn't think so. The reason why I don't insult you is because I'm not as low as you are. I don't get a thrill out of insulting people, except anti-game activists, and how is the rest of what I said psychotic? I like amusement parks. What's wrong with that?
My friend that got me into playing video games was two and a half years younger than me, so what? We were neighbors for many years and we were good friends and we played many violent video games when we were very young. How does that make me a psycho? I don't see that anything I said makes me a psycho and try responding to those insults that I could insult you with if I were as low as you. I only insult anti-game activists. I try very hard not to insult fellow gamers, but you're pushing it.
Let's review what my comment up there says because I want to know how that makes me a psycho. I argue that children play with toy guns and play cops and robbers. That's make believe and it's the same as Grand Theft Auto, except that Grand Theft Auto is a bit more adult themed. It's not real. How does that analogy make me a psychopath? I used to play with water guns and toy guns all the time years ago. Who didn't? I had a good friend years ago that was younger than me who got me interested in playing video games. How does that make me a psychopath? I like amusement parks. How does that make me a psychopath? How does any of that make me a psychopath? I had a happy childhood and that doesn't make me a psychopath.
You're insults are very nasty and I don't know what's wrong with you. I try to defend video games every way I can think of and you just bash me and insult me worse than Kerry bashes Bush. I think you're the one who has problems that or you're just flat out mean. I said I had a happy childhood with a good friend that got me interested in video games and you call me a psychopath for that? You started the insults thing here and now everybody blames me for defending myself from your uncalled for insults. You have no right to call me a psycho at all and I haven't said anything that even sounds like I'm anything close to a psycho.
I like violent media and you know what? A lot of people do. If they didn't, there would be no violent movies or games. Are they all psychos? They maybe less vocal than I am about it, but they like it or they wouldn't spend money on it. Being vocal about it doesn't make me a psycho. You're lower than Jack Thompson, not me. At least he never called a gamer a psycho, that I know of. I'm no psycho. I'm a fan of violent media and I have done it since I was very young. That doesn't make me a psycho.
Once again you have demonstrated a shocking lack of knowledge about Jack Thompson, games, and the world around you.
You don't seem smart enough to be manipulative(Maybe its just a clever ruse).
Conscience? No idea if you have one. I think logic and reason would say you have none. You abuse them more than anyone I have ever met.
Poor impulse control? I would say you do.
However IANAP/P (I am not a psychologist/psychoanalyst.
I think it was more a usage of psycho to denote you are in general nuts. Something I am inclined to agree with.
Then again the definition of insanity is doing something repeatedly and expecting a different result. So maybe the rest of us are insane, trying to talk reason to you is like trying to smash a brick wall with a flyswatter, yet we do it anyways in the vain hope you will get the point of what we are saying.
You think that by making an insult in another language that I 'can't understand' somehow makes a loophole in my statement. How do you know that you are really insulting me by saying that? For all I know you can be calling me a bitch, and yet that would not insult.
I'm low? No, I'm just mean. I tell the truth about people, which in your case is a harsh reality that you will learn sooner or later when you're out of Middle School.
I call you a psycho for the exact reason Brokenscope said. You're so delusion to everyone/everything else around you because you're a little selfish twat. Who in the hell thinks "I am going to go do this as much as I can to prove this to people." In certain things that would make sense, on rare occasion.
Example "I hate gun control activists, and I love the NRA and I think everyone should own a gun. To prove, I'm going to buy as many guns and firearms as I can. That'll prove to everyone that I am serious about guns"
That is what I see when you start typing. Any sane person can see that you have some terrible and deep mental issues, whether or not it stemed from your OBSESSION with watching violence or if you had a crazy aunt on your mother's side. regardless, you're not mentally safe and have no creditbility in speaking.
Oh, and, you're still lower than Jack Thompson.
thanks to the internet and google... ya, i think he could...
hell looking up that first one one of the results was "show me how to curse in french"
"I like violent media and you know what? A lot of people do."
Y'know what a lot of poeple don't like though, giving heavily violent media to children. They also don't see violent media as the greatest thing in the world, placing many other things before it, there are far better things in the world than violent media. As it has been pointed out before, allowing children (not teenagers) to view/play with violent media is generally a bad idea. While there are those who were raised well and be mostly unaffacted other children may be more easily influenced and thus may gain some negative affects. not to mention how violent and realistic games have changed GREATLY since you were young... and note that with the increase of realism comes the increase of how strongly they can influence; some children, unlike most teenagers and adults can not fully decern fiction from reality, especially when that fiction gets very realistic. Quite frankly, your overall obsession with violent media makes me think that those games didn't exactly have a positive effect on you...
"You’re lower than Jack Thompson, not me. At least he never called a gamer a psycho"
Ah, once again, Daniel shows that he doesn't know Jack as well as we do... though technically he might not have used the term Psycho of all things... i mean lost souls, hilter youth, and minions of satan, yes, but i'm not sure he called used the term psycho. XD
Latin is a dead language as dead as dead can be, Latin killed the Romans and it nearly killed me.
Frankly your insult was the linguistic equivalent of a 7 year-old calling another childed a "fucker" in a low voice on the playground, then running away before he tells the teacher.
Nah, I believe it's French. Either way, he just looked it up on google and thought that'd he'd be cleaver. I don't think he understands that an insult must be something that is meaningful and hurtful. Something isn't an insult if the other person can't understand it, because then how would it insult them?
But whatever. I'm done with him, it's obvious that he has major problems and that nothing will show him another person's view. He doesn't even understand that you can disagree with someone and still be on the same side, or at least be civil. He just acts as if "If you don't agree with my specific opinion, then you're no better than Jack Thompson". At the age of at least 5 my parents taught me how important it was to look at sides from different view points, even if you don't agree on one- Even if you absolutely despise one side. You can't make a logical and rational decision based on a biased opinion, and that's something a college student should have learned in their early years.
It's too late to talk sense with him, so from now on I'm just going to make my one-liners when I feel like and resist from acting like I have over the past few days on this thread.
All that matters to me now is that everyone knows he's an idiot, even if he's too in denial to realize it himself.
I simply like violent media. I also wrote down that hypothetical insult the way I found it on the internet. I didn't mispell anything. Oh and it was worse than B*tch and I looked it up on google. However, that's not the point here. The point here is that you started the insults here and now you're acting like the saint. I don't like that attitude. I didn't start it. Oh, and my mother is from Nicaragua and I grew up around people that speak Spanish, so I know Spanish insults right off the bat. I also wrote down all the French insults that I found in my notebook, so I could memorize them and there are worse ones than that.
please stop the nonsense. only an adolescent immature teenager would do what you say you are doing.
WHY do you like violent media?
I guess you missed that whole part about "Something isn’t an insult if the other person can’t understand it, because then how would it insult them?"
Insults are subjective, not objective... you can only insult someone if they TAKE IT AS an insult. If a person does not feel like they've been insulted they you did not insult them... For example, Jack using the term Pixalente to insult gamers, however, gamers have come to except the term and become proud to be called that (Jack thinks Vigilantes are bad... did it never occur to him that like most every DC and Marvel hero could called a vigilante... like batman). Thus, Jack calling us Pixalantes is not actually an insult... So keep using those foriegn curses, because since no body understands them, they will never feel insulted or hurt, which ofcourse defeats the purpose of an insult.
I have a very good memory when it comes to events. I have some bad memories from the last few years and I don't use a lot of profanity here, but, in the real world, I cuss almost constantly remembering certain things like braces and some people that hated me for no good reason. That's why I need to be able to cuss in another language, so no one will understand me.
Up there, you said you think I don't know the difference between right and wrong because I am proud of the fact that I played video games when I was way underage. I have no remorse about that and I don't think it was wrong, but that doesn't mean I don't think I've never done anything wrong. I do feel bad about some of the things I've done, but that isn't one of them. I like violent media because it's exciting and entertaining.
Yoshiko, I know you hate me, but at least be fair about it. Go look up there. My first comment here had nothing to do with you. Then a bit lower, you said and I quote, "God you're a dumbass." Do you remember that? Don't say I started it because that's not correct you did. I didn't say anything to you until you called me a "dumbass" and you know it. At least acknowledge the truth. I just checked it out. Seven posts below my first post you said, "@ Daniel God you're a dumbass." The order doesn't lie.
This will probably go right over your head, but i'll post it anyways.
Dan, if you didn't see the issue as just black and white and actually added something relevant to the conversation here then people wouldn't be attacking you all the time. Your inability to do this is the reason people like Yoshiko, hayabusa75, Brokenscope and many others don't like you. Your opinions are on the extreme side of the issue and you are unable to defend them with anything other then "Violent video games are good for everyone and if you don't agree with me on this then i don't think you're a true gamer". If you believe violent video games are good for everyone including young children and media has no influence on us whatsoever then DEFEND your opinion by telling us why you think this is true. Show us examples of why you think your opinion is right. Use some intelligence for goodness sake. If you did this then people would stop attacking you here.
Okay, here are some statistics. Grand Theft Auto is sold all over the world. In fact, I once heard that in Spain, that's one of their favorite games. Many violent video games are sold all over the world. I think we're about the only country that blames Grand Theft Auto for anything. Granted they do it in other countries but not as much. My point is that millions of people have played Grand Theft Auto and probably at least close to a million of them are underage. How many of those people have ever committed actual murder?
That's right very few and most of the crazy ones that have came from a bad background, like Cody Posey. I'm using Grand Theft Auto as an example because that's the one that is attacked the most. These games don't train people to kill or use a gun. Then there are the consequences of murder. People don't play these games and then throw their lives away because of it. Everybody knows that jail isn't a nice place.
Another reason why these games aren't murder simulators is because of weight. A controller isn't very heavy. A gun is made out of medal and must weigh more than a controller. Therefore, it must be harder to use and there is no automatic aiming devise in real life. You think young children can pick up a heavy gun and do some damage?
Let's review my points:
#1 violent video games are popular all over the world and very few players have ever committed actual murder.
#2 the ones that did were almost always very troubled
#3 real life consequences that keep people in line like laws and jail
#4 guns are heavy to pick up and probably not so easy to fire
#5 there is no automatic aiming device in real life like in Grand Theft Auto
#6 young people are too weak physically to cause any damage
Those reasons are good. They totally prove that violent media isn't harmful. Another thing, in action movies like "Desert Heat" and "Rambo," they always make the actors very strong and they make it look easy to do what they do. Most people couldn't do what Sylvester Stallone and Jean Claude Van Dam do in the movies if their lives depended on it. I. E. it's not even that easy, and in most cases, not even possible to do in the real world. How's that?
Much better. While your points aren't the greatest and i'm sure someone will counter them very soon, at the very least you're trying to add something to the conversation by defending your opinions with an explaination of why you think they're true.
"They totally prove that violent media isn’t harmful."
let's take this point for point
1) the average age of gamers is about 30... menaing the strong majority of "violent game" players are most likely over 18, a minority are teenagers, and children are probably rather rare (sticking to mostly E and T games)
2) true, but doesn't prove that violent media has NO influnce at all. But, since violent games are good for everybody, as you love to say, i guess even the dangerously troubled children should be able to play them, am i right?
3) Many children and even teenagers have a rather loose understanding of consequences of their own actions... thinking mostly short term... basically, many come to think they are invincible and that they won't ever get caught
4) true, but doesn't prove that violent media has NO influnce at all... and you don't need a gun to be violent
5) same as 4
6) They are strong enough to hurt to their own peers if not younger... and if the children develop a pre-dispostion that violence is acceptable, then they will eventually grow up and be more then capable of doing real harm
Your points only serve to prove what the courts have shown, that video games can not on their own incite MAJOR incidents... such as murder and school shootings... in such incidents there are too many other factors to consider to place the blame on games.
However, we are not talking about the big things we are talking about the little things. The very development of violent tendencies, the development of aggression, the development of thinking that violence in the real world is ok. These kids may not end up going out commiting acts of violence, but they may become violent poeple in general. Introducing a child to violent media before they can properly learn and understand right from wrong, and fiction and reality could easily set them on a negative path. They may grow up not only being very excepting of violence, but also willing particpant. What makes matters worse, is that for the most part, the parents that would allow children to play such games also tend to lack good responcibility, and thus are even less likely to teach their kids right from wrong.
Once again, everything we see, hear, and experience has some influence on how we develop, it's a psychological fact; there is no such thing as something having NO influence. Ofcourse, the level and strength of that influence varies greatly from person to person. Age plays a huge role on the strength of that influence. The younger a person is, the less developed their minds and pre-dispostiions are, and thus the more easily influenced they are. For those who mature at a young age, violent media will not do much damage due to low influence, but for those who have yet to mature, years of exposure to violent media can possibly have some negative effects. ofcourse it is only parents are the ones who can properly judge the maturity of the child, but parents should not be so ignorant to just go give their children violent media since, like everything else in their lives, it can have some negative influence how they are developed.
"Yoshiko, I know you hate me, but at least be fair about it. Go look up there. My first comment here had nothing to do with you. Then a bit lower, you said and I quote, “God you’re a dumbass.” Do you remember that? Don’t say I started it because that’s not correct you did. I didn’t say anything to you until you called me a “dumbass” and you know it. At least acknowledge the truth. I just checked it out. Seven posts below my first post you said, “@ Daniel God you’re a dumbass.” The order doesn’t lie."
I DIDN'T SAY YOU STARTED IT.
I was making fun of YOU by saying "Waaah! You started it! Waaah!" Because you sound like a 5 year-old pointing fingers going "YOU STARTED IT!"
I KNOW I called you a dumbass, I KNOW I struck first, what does it matter? You haven't even "struck back" yet because you STILL haven't insulted me.
I didn't insult Yoshiko by saying that. She is the one who has insulted me repeatedly and then called me low. I knew someone who did that once and I'm glad I'll never see that person again. No one is lower than Jack Thompson. I never used people's deaths to make money. What do you call his 600 million dollar lawsuits against Rockstar Games? I never used people's deaths as an excuse to get money for myself. I'm not lower than he is. No one is. Anyway, I'm done with Yoshiko. She's just mean and manipulative and isn't even close to nice.
Oh, and I don't like being called a psycho either. I'm not a psycho and I think you just said that to be mean. I think you're a very unkind person and I don't know why you have to treat me like that, but I don't like it. I'm going to ignore you for good. I also don't understand something else. Why isn't it okay for me to compare Jack Thompson to a vulture, but it's okay for you to call me a psycho? I didn't even call him a vulture directly. I said he acts like a vulture. This is a double standard if there ever was one.
That's perfect. You said it yourself. You not only insulted me first. I haven't insulted you at all. You say I'm low? I'm not the one throwing insults at you. You are insulting me, yet I am not insulting you. You called me low. That sounds like a hypocrite to me. I didn't stoop to the level of insulting like you did. That means all of a sudden, the lowness is on the other side. I'll make this easy to understand. I didn't stoop to the level that you did, but I'm low. In fact, I'm lower than that anti-game activist pig. Who's low now?
This is awesome. You're the hypocrite now. I don't stoop to low levels and then tell people that they are lower than the him. Hey, I am being a bit harsh. After all, it took a lot of courage to admit that you're a hypocrite. That is basically what you did by admitting that.
Yo aware that you did stoop to low levels and just insulted Yoshiko. See, by staying "I'm not going to go down to such a low level and insult people like you do" you are back-handedly insulting Yoshiko.
So, YOU'RE the hypocrite.
Also - you really should do some research and reading on this subject. I find that you take a lot of your opinions as fact, and I find that many of your opinions are formed from misinformation. I think if you were to do some serious reading on the subject, you would be surprised.
QTF.
That's why I'm mean to you.
I wonder who here is humble themselves over this ordeal?
Cart Mevacor...