Thompson Blames Penny Arcade For Canceling Debate That He Wouldn't Agree To... Huh?
Thompson Blames Penny Arcade For Canceling Debate That He Wouldn't Agree To... Huh?
June 5, 2007
As reported by GamePolitics, a proposed Jack Thompson debate at PAX 07 nows seems unlikely given the anti-game attorney's refusal to agree to terms set forth by the event sponsor, Penny Arcade.The primary bone of contention was Penny Arcade's desire to keep Thompson's appearance a closely-held secret, revealing it just prior to the actual debate in late August at PAX.
The volatile Thompson, however, blew that possibility sky-high late last week by revealing the ongoing debate negotiations to several media outlets. Kotaku was first to run with the story on Friday evening.
Having declined the terms of the debate, Thompson now says he blames Penny Arcade. In an e-mail to GP this morning he wrote:
I have repeatedly emailed... Penny Arcade and told them of my willingness, from the start and now, to engage in the debate. They are the ones who canceled the debate, not I.
Their concern about "security" is absurd and a contrivance. All they have to do is limit the number of admitees to 6000... This is not rocket science. This is not going to be like the Stones at Altamonte, for Heaven's sake. Real security, not Hell's Angels will be providing security.
What GamePolitics or others need to do is get to the bottom of why they really wanted to announce the debate one hour before it occurrs. Now THAT would cause a stampede that would not allow them to have passes in the hands of those who want to go.
I'm surprised, Dennis, frankly, that you have so naively taking this dodge. I believe what happened is that they thought I would never accept the debate offer, and they planned to use that for p.r. purposes.
GP: As I said to Thompson in a reply to his e-mail, his contention doesn't hold water. How could Penny Arcade be using the debate for P.R. when it was their intent to keep it secret right up until PAX? What's more, Thompson was the one who revealed the debate proposal to the world, not PA.
As we wrote on Saturday, the anti-game activist missed a huge opportunity here. Despite all of the negative history between the embattled Miami lawyer and Penny Arcade (which includes Thompson's 2005 attempt to get the Seattle P.D. and F.B.I. after PA), the PA crew was ready to afford near-rock star (oh, the irony...) treatment to Thompson to make this debate a reality.
Sounds like there may be someone here who doesn’t want to debate but still craves the publicity. However, we don't think it's Penny Arcade.
GP POLL RESULTS: Despite its apparent demise, GP readers overwhelmingly would like to see a Thompson debate. Of more than 1,100 respondents to our recent poll, 74% favored a Thompson-Penny Arcade debate. 20% said no, and 6% were undecided.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 11/07/09 at 04:27pm
ZippyDSMlee: man I got alot of junk and dup files too >< god I need orginization...and no not the knee capping media mafia kind :P
ZippyDSMlee: man I got alot of junk and dup files too >< god I need orginization...and no not the knee capping media mafia kind :P
Posted 11/07/09 at 04:26pm
ZippyDSMlee: replaced :P
ZippyDSMlee: replaced :P
Posted 11/07/09 at 04:23pm
ZippyDSMlee: beemoh:hey its like 60GB porn,400GB anime 100GB games and crap I have took from all my DVDs, I hate waiting on dvds to install stuff..... oh and 40GB of my porn was in the found.000 folder...mostly corrupted.... least I got names of wut needs to be repa
ZippyDSMlee: beemoh:hey its like 60GB porn,400GB anime 100GB games and crap I have took from all my DVDs, I hate waiting on dvds to install stuff..... oh and 40GB of my porn was in the found.000 folder...mostly corrupted.... least I got names of wut needs to be repa
Posted 11/07/09 at 04:18pm
beemoh: @Zip: ...and you'd have to spend all that time re-downloading that porn?
beemoh: @Zip: ...and you'd have to spend all that time re-downloading that porn?
Posted 11/07/09 at 03:34pm
ZippyDSMlee: ggrrrrr......vista lost one of my hard drives and I had a heart attack thinking I lost 1TB of data....
ZippyDSMlee: ggrrrrr......vista lost one of my hard drives and I had a heart attack thinking I lost 1TB of data....
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:58am
JDKJ: Which could be explained by both (a) and (b).
JDKJ: Which could be explained by both (a) and (b).
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:56am
Austin_Lewis: JDKJ: You forgot C) the fact that, for some reason, every time he did something that would suggest he shouldn't be in the military, let alone an officer, higher ups ignored it or let it slide.
Austin_Lewis: JDKJ: You forgot C) the fact that, for some reason, every time he did something that would suggest he shouldn't be in the military, let alone an officer, higher ups ignored it or let it slide.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:51am
JDKJ: Part of the problem is, I believe, that (a) the Army had a lot of time and money already invested in him and which they were unwilling to simply write-off and (b) an increasing need for the type of skills and services he provided.
JDKJ: Part of the problem is, I believe, that (a) the Army had a lot of time and money already invested in him and which they were unwilling to simply write-off and (b) an increasing need for the type of skills and services he provided.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:48am
JDKJ: And that even if he was begging not to get cut loose, he was apparently a real good candidate for being cut loose, anyway.
JDKJ: And that even if he was begging not to get cut loose, he was apparently a real good candidate for being cut loose, anyway.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:11am
JDKJ: @chada: And while Kennedy once noted that there's usually more than enough blame for everyone to get a slice, the possibility that the Army was unwilling to cut loose someone who was asking to get cut loose could be a factor.
JDKJ: @chada: And while Kennedy once noted that there's usually more than enough blame for everyone to get a slice, the possibility that the Army was unwilling to cut loose someone who was asking to get cut loose could be a factor.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:07am
ZippyDSMlee: *noms on his feet*..nomnomnomnom*droooll* ...wuuutttttt uuu looking at?
ZippyDSMlee: *noms on his feet*..nomnomnomnom*droooll* ...wuuutttttt uuu looking at?
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:05am
JDKJ: I'm no psychologist, but I'm told that crazy people have a tendency to do crazy things.
JDKJ: I'm no psychologist, but I'm told that crazy people have a tendency to do crazy things.
Posted 11/07/09 at 10:03am
chadachada321: Whoops, was out of the convo for awhile. I do wonder what type of ammo he used etc, but the real issue is WHY he did it, not HOW
chadachada321: Whoops, was out of the convo for awhile. I do wonder what type of ammo he used etc, but the real issue is WHY he did it, not HOW
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:56am
JDKJ: But if it turns out that they actually did, they'll have Hell to pay.
JDKJ: But if it turns out that they actually did, they'll have Hell to pay.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:45am
JDKJ: And I'd tend to rule out the possibilty of FN Herstal supplying restricted ammunition to someone merely because they're ordering it from a military base.
JDKJ: And I'd tend to rule out the possibilty of FN Herstal supplying restricted ammunition to someone merely because they're ordering it from a military base.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:37am
JDKJ: I know you don't leave your gated community and get around much in dark alleys, so you may be surprised to learn that there's this thing called "the black market" where, if you've got enough money, ain't too much of anything which can't be bought.
JDKJ: I know you don't leave your gated community and get around much in dark alleys, so you may be surprised to learn that there's this thing called "the black market" where, if you've got enough money, ain't too much of anything which can't be bought.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:36am
Austin_Lewis: Or, maybe he or someone else at the base ordered the SS190 from FN Herstal.
Austin_Lewis: Or, maybe he or someone else at the base ordered the SS190 from FN Herstal.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:32am
Austin_Lewis: the hands of private owners. They run about 300 dollars minimum for a box of 50, and boxes of AP 5.7 are extremely scarce, mainly residing in the hands of Class III stores or individuals who for one reason or another got a demo box of it.
Austin_Lewis: the hands of private owners. They run about 300 dollars minimum for a box of 50, and boxes of AP 5.7 are extremely scarce, mainly residing in the hands of Class III stores or individuals who for one reason or another got a demo box of it.
Posted 11/07/09 at 09:30am
Austin_Lewis: There are other firearms that fire the 5.7. However, I too would like to know where he got the ammo and what kind was used. Maybe Hasan, planning not to live through this, went out and bought one the boxes of SS190 that are floating around in
Austin_Lewis: There are other firearms that fire the 5.7. However, I too would like to know where he got the ammo and what kind was used. Maybe Hasan, planning not to live through this, went out and bought one the boxes of SS190 that are floating around in
Posted 11/07/09 at 08:44am
JDKJ: And it isn't yet clear what type of ammunition Hasan used. It's strange that he purchased a gun but didn't purchase ammunition for it at the same place and time. Especially because the calibre required is peculiar to the actual gun.
JDKJ: And it isn't yet clear what type of ammunition Hasan used. It's strange that he purchased a gun but didn't purchase ammunition for it at the same place and time. Especially because the calibre required is peculiar to the actual gun.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
Jes is right. He'll only talk and appear places usually when it's him and just him doing the talking.
Exactly, making Thompson a wussy, in the words of Ken Titus.
Thompson knows that if he had debated PA, he would have lost.
Ummmmm. Hate to break it to you, Jack, but last year's PAX attendance was nearly 20,000, and it's supposed to be much, much bigger this year.
Making completely impossible demands and then taking your ball and going home when they're not met? If you didn't want to debate, just say so.
Go back to chasing massacres, Jack. It's the only thing you're good at.
It's also funny that Penny Arcade, who are "using this for PR," haven't even MENTIONED this dustup on their website. Why is that, Jack?
1. As has been stated, he is a coward and does not want his falsehoods exposed in public.
2. He had hoped that this would be a big anouncement and when he made it to the debate, a video game player would have brought a gun and followed through with the threats on his life. Whether he lived or died he would have been a marter and would have proved his point about video games making kids violent.
The first point has already been addressed. The second was thrown out the window when PA wanted to keep his participation a secret until the last minute. If they had done that then no one other than an associate of Thompson would have know he was going to be there and there would not have been anyone with a gun to follow through on said threats.
He is loony and I would not put such a scenario beyond him. But of course, he could be just a huge media whore and want all the publicity he can get.
Why the secrecy? The 'security' reason is either a PR sham, or deeply disturbing. Does Jack need protection from gamers or something? Are we really that violent that we can't watch a debate without mauling someone or some such nonsense? Like I said, that kind of idea coming from a bastion of gamers, is very disturbing to me. Or is the security excuse just a PR trick? Despite what many posters here have asserted, PR isn't just about what a company says, or how they say it - it's also largely about timing, too. So, an event of this magnitude, timed in PA's interests, is a PR agent's wet-dream.
In the interest of true debate, this event should have been transparent to the public, with terms agreed to by both parties openly, and moderated by a neutral agent.
Too bad: PA's desire for a suprise media frenzy, and Jack's desire to sink this ship before it sails once again aborts any attempt at rational discussion. If any could be had with Jack's involvment.
Like I've said in the other article, I'm personally glad this didn't happen - I don't want a thin red dime of gamer-money going to line Jack's pockets. He doesn't debate for free, and that is 100% well-documented.
Their concern about “security” is absurd and a contrivance. All they have to do is limit the number of admitees to 6000… This is not rocket science. This is not going to be like the Stones at Altamonte, for Heaven’s sake. Real security, not Hell’s Angels will be providing security.
What GamePolitics or others need to do is get to the bottom of why they really wanted to announce the debate one hour before it occurrs. Now THAT would cause a stampede that would not allow them to have passes in the hands of those who want to go.
I’m surprised, Dennis, frankly, that you have so naively taking this dodge. I believe what happened is that they thought I would never accept the debate offer, and they planned to use that for p.r. purposes."
You are contradicting your words, Jack Thompson. You brought this upon yourself, you are the one who rejects Penny Arcade's PAX argument offer and you are now blaming them right now? The only thing I hate in this world is liars and cheaters.
BEWARE fellow gamers, don't listen to this freak, if you agree with him, YOU ARE IN BIGGER TROUBLE, JUDGE YOURSELVES PLEASE!
Why the secrecy? The ’security’ reason is either a PR sham, or deeply disturbing. Does Jack need protection from gamers or something?
No. But this would have been the biggest event to completely destroy Jack Thompson credibility. He knew this so he backed out. Thompson cannot handle himself in a debate with knowledgeable people from the gaming industry. And every person attending PAX knows this would love to see this happen. Security would be a concern... I don’t know if PAX would be able to accommodate such a huge attendance for a debate.
"Does Jack need protection from gamers or something? Are we really that violent that we can’t watch a debate without mauling someone or some such nonsense?"
There is a saying that goes like this:
"There is a nut in every crowd."....Jack is the nut of the laywer crowd...and I'll be damned if one of our nuts pop him on stage.
I don't like him...dispite everything cruel that's been said by him...I really don't want to see the guy hurt by one of our nuts. If that happens.....as everyone says he'll become a marytar.....and I fear for us all if that happens.....because there is so much fact ingoring these days (Ex: V-Tech and the media playing the blame game...it's something's fault something had to influnece Cho....no one in the media Expect John Steward can't seem to accept the fact that the kid was plain nuts."...it's a scary world.)
It could very well give Jack more power even if he was to be fatally injured by said nutcase. Things will still be bad for us without his mouth to shoot of lies...or even worse...
And even if he got killed, what would that accomplish? He's alienated any allies with any influence they might have had (David Walsh, etc.) and any others are either fringe groups (The Eagle Forum) or too small and disorganized (The Peaceoholics) to have any kind of effect. His credibility has substantially eroded; most recent appearances on TV have begun to expose him as a fraud, showing the MSM aren't even taking him as seriously as they used to.
Also, who would take his place and take up his cause? I don't really see anyone else standing in line that would be as eager to hog the spotlight as he is. Even David Grossman has been pretty low profile, re-emerging only briefly after VT, but that's par for the course with him. So far, there hasn't been any other anti-gaming critic out there I've seen who's been as determined to get as much attention as possible as Thompson.
Thompson has made many enemies, and he isn't very well-liked by even his peers in the legal profession. If something were to happen to him, it would most likely be seen as something he brought upon himself and not a validation of his wild claims. The only person who could stand to gain anything would be him, and unless he's got some sort of plan that would be set in motion after his death (and I don't even think he thinks that far ahead), I don't see how he could exploit such an incident if he were no longer alive.
As much as he makes himself out to be the standard-bearer in this so -called war against video games, he's not as important as he makes himself out to be. Otherwise his opinions would be taken more seriously, but they aren't. So if he were somehow removed, it wouldn't have much of an effect. If anything, the discussion would probably move forward and be much more rational, and lawyers everywhere would probably breathe a sigh of relief as they would no longer have to worry about his antics further tarnishing the bad reputation they have already. ;)
Oh...
Uh...
Wait...
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
:: Now mopping up the massive amounts of dripping sarcasm I've just spilled all over GP's nice clean floor. ::
Even so, Jack Thompson still has the power to sue Take Two and other companies he chooses to hate. Even if his lawyer license have been revoked (which I hope will happen to this freak of nature), they are not able to get rid of him completely as who knows? He could be planning his secret attack he has hidden in his sleeve for many years.
Haha, Jack Thompson, always thinking that everything is always as it seemed, get real, Jack!
I think JT wins this round. I've tried to consider the motivations of the parties involved.
PA wants a newsworthy event at PAX this year, to entertain attendees and raise the show's profile for future years. JT wants more exposure, even if just to the "pixelante" crowd. His career is fed by his celebrity, but I don't think it matters whether that celebrity comes from "friends" on Fox News or "enemies" who play games.
PA bolstered JT's celebrity (and maybe even his credibility?) by inviting him to be a guest speaker. Instead of returning the favor by playing along with the secrecy, JT steals all the thunder for himself by spilling the beans early. JT: 1, PA: 0.
Now PA has missed an opportunity for its biggest publicity generator of the year, but JT still gets that exposure he wants just by revealing that PA approached him. There's no way JT would have changed any opinions by speaking at PAX, so he gains just as much (if not more) by going public now.
I am just as happy that this debate will not happen. JT speaks in nothing but insincere rhetoric and platitudes anyway. I've never heard him have an honest conversation -- an actual exchange of ideas -- with anyone who disagrees with him.
It's upsetting to listen to JT spread his views on mainstream news shows, but listening to him spout his canned hyperbole and slander to a room full of people who already know he's full of crap might actually turn out to be sort of boring.
Not so much security, as the fact that PA did not want their gamer event overrun with media hounds. How could there be a media frenzy if no one knew it was going to happen? If PA had really wanted to attract attention, they would have announced it to everyone weeks in advance.
I agree with you mostly, I am not saying Thompson is right, or in the clear, I said he had A point. And how would security be a concern?
@ LightWarrior
Take a good look at what you've posted and ask yourself: "Why am I assuming that there will be a violent 'nut' that will fatally injured (or otherwise)?"
I know, "There's a nut in every crowd." That is an old adage, however, and should be used loosely and not as law. In reality, while there might be a nut, or nuts, in the crowd - history with crowds of gamers, even when they interact with Jack in public - is generally non-violent and very positive. The worst thing that ever ACTUALLY happened to Jack, at the hands of a gamer, was that he got "flipped off." The rest is empty childish threats by children, harmless pranks (KY gelee anyone?), and non-violent statments of flowers.
I submitt that Jack, in the event this debate would take place as I've descrived above, would likely be raucously booed, heckled, and the like, possible more 'flipping of the bird," but violence? Where's the history for that? The motive?
A simple metal dector in the debate hall would curb any possibility of long distance harm, and bouncers by the stage would be more security than ever needed.
However, this wouldn't happen for tow reasons:
1) Jack's inability, or fear if you will, to carry himself in a rational, moderated, point-for-point debate. This is well-documented.
2) PA's desire to use this debate as a 'statement.' They wanted Jack to look out over a 20,000+ crowd of 'solidarity,' and get 'Pwned,' by the best and brightest of pro-gamers. So they wanted it secret, with them holding all the cards. Jack's crazy, but not THAT crazy. Come on, people, would you go single-handedly into a PTC national meeting, with the PTC holding all the cards? NO! You'd want an even chance, and we gamers should provide the same for Jack. (Despite his inability to do the same, we should continue to walk the 'high road" ... )
Our continued insistance that Jack needs total secrecy and security from gamers is detrimental to our 'cause,' as it were.
Mewes wasn't in the program, nobody expected him or even knew he'd be there. So you can imagine how the whole theatre exploded when we saw him.
This Jack Thompson debate wasn't P.R., security, or an attempt to restrict Thompson's free speech (or whatever that crazy asshole thinks), it was a surprise for the audience. PAX is a party for gamers essentially, and Mad Jack the Censor was the surprise pressent for us all.
Thompson has a history backing out of debates at the last moment. I can think of three off the top of my head which he has agreed to and then walked away from. Each time he went to the press citing all his "complaints", most of which made no sense (a surprise for the audience encroaches on his free speech in his mind), and ranted how his would-be hosts are hypocites. He's never content to say no and walk away. He always goes to the press.
He's an attention whore. Nothing he's done here is a surprise to me.
Why? Because, Jack Thompson has the same stupidity level like the discourteous teenagers.
And another thing that caught my attention in the Gamepolitics Wiki article is that Jack Thompson signed in many accounts.
Lol, Jack Thompson, who thinks that he can be funny with many nonsensical-names accounts, grow up!
WHAT A DUMBASS! Jack Thompson gets stupider every day!
~Otaku-Man
Good that someone here agrees with us. Greetings sir, what brings you here? Are you new here or a regular visitor of Gamepolitics?
I find it unlikely that Thompson would be considered a good 'suprise.' The debate itself isn't PR, but the secrecy that PA wanted just plain reeks of PR. Like I said before, PR is most often about timing a press release as much as the content of said press release. And if Jack agreed to secrecy, the PA PR people hold all the cards, which is a total classic PR move.
I think the only thing they are interested in is the same as the rest of us. To see JT publicly shot down, unfortunately, only those of us that pay attention to this news would know about it as the mainstream media would not really pay attention unless JT actually got attacked / injured. Which I would think would be a possibility because I do think JT would intentionally provoke the crowd to get that kind of reaction and someone would take the bait. Metal detectors would not work, someone would find a way if they truly hated him and it is pretty safe to say that there are plenty of people that hate him.
I think JT is smart for bailing out though, he (and we) know he would get owned. There is no challenge and it is like preaching to the choir. Nobody would walk away with new insight into the matter. Except JT's hurt pride. But I doubt he would be packing his hubris.
Personally, I would rather see a debate on national television so that the people who do not understand video games can see him get wrecked. If JT got smoked at PAX, it would not change anything. Convince the general public the man is an ignoramus and the voting public may change their outlook on video games (slowly, but better than believing JT).
Doesn't have the Testicular Fortitude to take responsiblity for cancelling because he couldn't promote himself, which is what this was about for him, self-promotion, and if he has to lie to do it, he will.
I don't think he EVER intended to turn up and debate there, he knew he might actually face someone who knew what they were talking about, and who would have bothered to read the reports that Jack keeps mis-quoting.
In a room full of gamers? Isn't he the nitwit who thinks people who play games are violent?
"I have repeatedly emailed… Penny Arcade and told them of my willingness, from the start and now, to engage in the debate. They are the ones who canceled the debate, not I."
Hate to admit it, but Thompson is half right (congrats Jack, that's the closest you've ever been to right). Penny Arcade DID cancel the debate. But that's only because you breached the agreement they were trying to make with you. You would think a lawyer would understand a simple agreement and how they work.
And how "willing to debate" are you when you knowing breach said agreement? That's like punching someone for no reason, then claiming they started the fight.
"I fail to see how that is PR."
Yeah, I get that. It seems that most folks here have only a passing knowledge of whar PR is. PR in genreal is simply a company, organization, or person's way of presenting themselves to the public, via mass media in all forms.
You say that it isn't PR, but then go on to state exactly how it IS.
"The only thing they would have credit for is providing a debate where JT gets wrecked by someone who is actually knowledgeable about the industry."
And they would be able to paint whatever PR-picture they want (hold the cards, as I said).
"And this is not news to the rest of us and highly unlikely the mainstream media would even pay attention to it."
Right, not big news to us, but you are inccorect, Jack has an annoying knack for getting MSM airtime. PA isn't hurting for fans, where did I say they were? I don't think they are trying to grow their fanbase. They were, however, trying to make a big statement to Jack, and I have no doubt they would try their best to make it into the MSM with Jack's probable defeat.
"Metal detectors would not work, someone would find a way if they truly hated him and it is pretty safe to say that there are plenty of people that hate him."
Call me naive if you want, but I'll stand behind the history of gamers' interaction with Jack and say that metal detector in and of themselves would likely be overkill. Where is the evidence that Jack is in any way under real threat from gamers? Again, your insistance that gamers would harm Jack physically is kind of scary - are we really that violent?
"I think JT is smart for bailing out though, he (and we) know he would get owned. There is no challenge and it is like preaching to the choir. Nobody would walk away with new insight into the matter. Except JT’s hurt pride. But I doubt he would be packing his hubris.
Personally, I would rather see a debate on national television so that the people who do not understand video games can see him get wrecked. If JT got smoked at PAX, it would not change anything. Convince the general public the man is an ignoramus and the voting public may change their outlook on video games (slowly, but better than believing JT). "
I agree. But, this is not likely to ever happen.
---
“Their concern about “security” is absurd and a contrivance.”
In a room full of gamers? Isn’t he the nitwit who thinks people who play games are violent?
---
Right! Don't you find it odd that Jack is ready and willing to waltz into a group of avid gamers, but PA is afraid we will hurt him? That says A LOT about what lies beneath both parties. Jack knows gamers aren't really violent, and PA fears . Weird ...
"and PA fears that we are.
Jack claims that security wouldn't be an issue, but they need to limit the number of attendees to 6000 in order for that to be true.
Last year's had over three times that, and they wanted more this year. I don't think Jack's 'solution' will work. Thus, security would be an issue.
Security doesn't have to be for Jack's security. It can be for everyone in the audience too. The last thing they need is for someone to put together a plan for everyone to charge the auditorium, and for Jack to have called the fire marshall ahead of time, shutting them down for 'gamer stupidity', followed by claims by him that the gamers either were really interested in hearing his arguments, or were a bloodthirsty crowd intent on his blood.
Personally, I'm rather glad it didn't happen. I don't want to see this guy get any money for his personal crusade.
The mediator will ask the main questions, then have some people from the community and game community to ask questions. With no other audience, except community members and a small handful of the press, both mainstream and gaming. The questions must be answered within a set time limit. Maybe both debaters having the questions asked by the mediator prior to the event to formulate a response.
One addition I'd like to see is a break between sessions for fact checking. And calling out of each points of the debaters.
What do you all think?
When do we have enough to lock him away?
go to SECTION III and read what it says. conservative estimated attendence is 30,000 people.
Fact of the matter is that while most gamers are sane and non-violent, you can not deny that there are some that are not. Violent video games do not breed violent people, violent people are attracted to violent video games. No matter how you look at it, there will be plenty of people there that hate JT with a passion, even non-violent people. But that won't stop one person from ruining it all for the rest of us (as we have seen in the past).
The problem with your statements, Daniel Speed, is that they are all inclusive. You say ALL gamers are safe, but we know from past incidents and tragedies, that this is not true, so you can not say ALL gamers are safe.
Plus there are plenty of other concerns for the volunteer security folks like theft to worry about. And I would add, violence aside, that there are other security concerns with JT showing up announced, that would be the potential of a 30,000 pissed off gamer riot. It would be an understatement that JT could provoke a crowd of gamers. You can not control ALL 30,000 people there, it is just not feasible with the given constraints.
"As I said to Thompson in a reply to his e-mail, his contention doesn’t hold water. How could Penny Arcade be using the debate for P.R. when it was their intent to keep it secret right up until PAX?"
His point was that his refusal to debate would be used by PA ("they thought I would never accept the debate offer, and they planned to use that for p.r. purposes."). You seemed to have completley missed the mark with "using the debate for P.R." as his contention was that his *refusal* would be used as PR.
Whether PA kept the negotiations secret or not is a completely moot point and makes the logic-phile's brain squiggle uncomfortably.
Just saying.
That being said, JT is such a dink! He knew he would be completely embarrased before a hostlie audience. I find the fact that he even pretended to be interested an obvious PR menuevar on his part.
Odds are he wasn't getting, which is likely why he backed out
@Jer
If that were proposed something would conveniently happen where JT was unable to attend, but the true reason is he would back out since he wouldn't be able to spew uncontested.
cant we all just put together a pool and get him a good running comp with a copy of wow and the burning crusade expansion back with a card saying "here now you have a hobby shut the hell up"
Hmmmm then again on second thought i see him going off saying the computer is a "Bomb"
Loser
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, horror and true crime comics flourished, with EC Comics the most successful, artistically creative, and infamous publisher of such comics, many containing violence and gore. Targeting these and other comics, politicians and moral crusaders (without any basis of evidence) blamed comic books as a cause of crime, juvenile delinquency, drug use, and poor grades. The psychiatrist Fredric Wertham's book Seduction of the Innocent, concerned with what he perceived to be sadistic and homosexual undertones in horror and in superhero comics, respectively, raised anxieties about comics. This led the Senate Subcommittee on Juvenile Delinquency to take an interest in comic books. As a result of these concerns, schools and parent groups held public comic-book burnings, and some cities banned comic books.
i also seem to recall a similar action in the 80's about heavy metal music and in the 90s with rap. someday maybe people will learn from the past and maybe there wont be so many people making themselves look dumb.
Brian Crecente of Kotaku says the PA boys told him:
“They wanted to leave it as a surprise until the moment the grey-coiffed head of Jack appeared under the limelight so as to prevent way too many people trying to pack in a room that could never hope to hold everyone who would want to witness this epic event, but Jack wanted to put out a press release about the appearance.”
This is confirmed by Thompson himself:
“Penny Arcade said that it was concerned that too many people would want to go if word got out too widely that Thompson would be at the event.”
Is that the only reason for keeping it a secret? Maybe, maybe not. To me, it sounds like a combination of crowd control and a fun surprise for the attendees.
Andrew Eisen
Click on the hyperlink in my name and we'll celebrate, hmm?
"“Their concern about “security” is absurd and a contrivance.”
In a room full of gamers? Isn’t he the nitwit who thinks people who play games are violent?"
Hahaha, good point Chip.
Silly Thompson. He's such an attention whore that even the prospect of a debate has him foaming at the mouth for PR, sending out the initial "spill the beans" email. The guy loves online drama that much.
Jack's refual to do a debate has been brought up before. Namely the fact that Jack refused to honor his own "I'll debate anyone in the industry" challenge because when someone did want to. Jack would not do it unless he was paid roughly $3000 for the speaking arrangement
And if anything Jack "taking his ball and going home" has done nothing but strengthen PA's side of the arguement.
And I hate to be self depreciating of Gamer's in general, but one thing rings true for this in that you can never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
And BTW Altamont is a horrible analogy for this. Altamont was 300,000 people at a raceway in Alameda and a group of drunk/drugged up Hell's Angels
Watch the footage of the concert and you can see every person in a Hell's Angels jacket is out of it. The footage of the incident at altamont: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HkZ01fsK9A
If the debate were to take place under Thompson's conditions, however, with an announcement and plenty of media coverage beforehand, the number of people coming to PAX could possibly swell to the point of becoming unmanageable, with a larger-than-usual amount of party-crashers as well. And if just one out-of-control group of rowdy, cramped attendees manages to cause some major disturbance, then it's bye-bye venue for any future PAXs, and Krahulik and Holkins have both stated that they are extremely happy with the large venue they have now, and would presumably want to avoid trying to find a new home for the event.
If you think about it this way, PA's probably just trying to avoid a circus, and taking the long view of keeping PAX successful over many years rather than the short one of boosting attendance to dangerous levels for this one year.
Oh, and JT is retarded, or just remembers events incorrectly. Only an idiot would refuse all terms, none of which were outlandish in any way, and then blame it on them...
Jack is a polarizing public figure in front of an audience of people quite in favor of that which he so rabidly spins vitriol and lies against.
Of course, if I were there, Jack would be in no danger from me.
As a matter of professional courtesy, I'll even go ahead and *assume* that he'd be in no danger from The1Jeffy. ;)
But can you make a similar guarantee about each and every one of *thousands* of people? Of course not. That's a fool's bet. You're MUCH safer assuming someone would try to make trouble.
Jack has received death threats before, which of course I, and I assume 99% of the people here utterly condemn.
PA's plan was a smart one. They didn't need the debate to sell tickets. They were going to sell out anyway. Why invite people who might want "to shut that guy up about games" using anything else other than reason, facts and logic, the three weapons Thompson fears above all else?
Thanks! :D
I don't assume anything. All I do is stand behind our history as gamers, and state that a minimum of security would have been more than adequate. There's more security in going to most sporting events in the US, than what I suggested. The secrecy was nothing but a PR move, however, and it blew up their plans.
Can you contact me by e-mail ???
Thx!
GP
June 5th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Jer: A mediator-controlled debate is the only way that Thompson will shut up long enough for his opponent(s) to get a word in edgewise to combat his propaganda.
-----------------
Let's see. There was that radio interview that John Bruce did last year (?) and a guy from NIMF called in and John Bruce wouldn't let the guy get in a word and John Bruce kept trying to change the subject to something other than what he and the hosts had been talking about (Bully).
And there was that court case before Bully came out where John Bruce was acting up in the courtroom.
I'm sure others can think of times where John Bruce didn't want to act intelligently, even with a moderator/referee/judge.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Security was a GREAT idea, and limiting a 20,000+ attendance event to 6,000 people would be idiotic at best.
Thompson's only interest in this whole thing was to say "I wanted to debate and they canceled on me! They're AFRAID!" Nothing could be farther from the truth - if JT wants to debate at a gamer's convention, he must learn that he cannot dictate every term. The bottom line is that the people who ORGANIZE the convention have the power, and the convention will go on without him. With the facts about his involvement in the open, and his un-acceptable terms aired here and elsewhere, JT further proves what a coward he is, at least to those of us who can read between the lines. Of course, he'll lie 'till the end of the world to say that PA canceled the debate, but even if they did we couldn't blame them because they cannot in good faith agree to JTs unreasonable demands. Even in his lies he is his own worst enemy. He must adapt to the reality of the situation or prove himself an inflexible, pathetic old man who still fails to comprehend how many gamers there are out there.
Announcing it well in advance, with plenty of coverage is just going to attract people that want to boo JT. Which with a figure like Jacko, is just begging for an unruly crowd, which is just asking for someone to get hurt.
Announcing it just beforehand on the other hand, would draw a large but manageable crowd with no time for anyone to talk themselves into causing a scene.
The problem is that while the safest route is good PR for Penny Arcade, it's poor PR for Jack. Jack would be unable to handle himself well in a debate in this venue. He'd come in a distant last against whoever he was debating, and the guys at PA would be able to say they got Jack to come debate at PAX where he was treated civilly but lost the debate.
The reverse is also true. It's in Jack's interest to trumpet his appearances from a couple of standpoints. The likely boost in attendance would mean he'd get to boast about how he debated in front of x*10 number of people in the future instead of just x number of people. Plus given it's Jack, and given the coverage, you'd almost certainly get some idiot making a scene. You know, obscenities, rotten food, that sort of thing. That'd boost Jack's standing regardless of how he did in the debate as he could distract by pointing at the immaturity. Plus with the increased overcrowding, you increase the likelihood of someone getting hurt by accident. Which would be bad press for PA and PAX.
So I'd say that the security concerns definitely exist. But the lack of compromise that killed this had more to do with PR concerns.
Any competent security team will make sure there's a safe path for him to avoid the crowds and make sure there's an escape route, and that's just for a worst case scenario.
The no pre-publicity term might have been a good ideabut it's not one that Peny arcade should have imposed unilaterally. They obviously have their reasons. Thompson has a clear and perfectly understandable desire to make sure he's heard.
The "security teams" are volunteers and they have to watch an estimated 30,000 people. They can not be worried about jt also. They are not there to escort him around as he makes a fool of himself, they are not his personal body guards, or any of that.
The only thing clear and understandable about jt's desire is to make a scene where he can get press, that is all he cares about, this was never about a true debate, not in his intentions anyways. If there is a will, there is a way. He very clearly does not have the will.
Yeah, kinda what I thought. Can't stop reporting on someone who'se your biggest draw. Even if he is the world's most uninformed ambulance chaser.
Suffice it to say that offering a legitimate debate to Jack Thompson is an exercise in futility, as he has no interest in it. His only interest is in situations he can reframe to his benefit in order to get attention and, by extension, money.
Congratulations John Bruce Thompson. You are the biggest lying pussy assed piece of shit on God's Green Earth.
Post-PAX, Dennis. Without advanced notice given to outside media, Thompson may have been afraid of wildly skewed reports on how the debate might have gone.
I also want to cry foul on the "security" claims. Let's be honest, a lot can happen over the course of an hour. The initial decision wasn't exactly secure in and of itself. Convention officials could have announce JT's debate, phone calls would have gone out, and someone's freaked-out maniac friend could easily have shown up with a weapon and attacked our fearless pundit. The only difference between their plans then and the situation now is when Mr. Maniac Friend buys his ticket.
That was why Jack wanted the thing to be more public before the day. I don't see 6000+ people, including non-IT related reporters, deliberately miscontruing the events of the debate in their own favour, it would be impossible with that many people present, so I don't buy that line of reasoning.
Basically, Jack wanted to promote himself and make as much money as possible from the debate, whereas Penny Arcade wanted a serious intelligent debate. When they refused to turn PAX into 'The Jack Thompson Show', he pulled out.
If he thinks that people are not willing to own up to their own incompetence for being unable to regulate their children's gaming, and that people are making games for violent-training reasons...
What makes him think that suddenly, these same "irresponsible" people take the responsibility to go out and vote? Especially when the stronger half can easily just shoot it down and let it continue?
Power lies in who has the better sized wallet sometimes.
If he's fighting against video games, he's fighting Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. Three of the biggest companies around. And to think they'll go down quietly is misguided at best. Lawyers will shred him if he even tries to go so far as to ban a large majority of video games. And his success rate for doing nigh anything is less than stellar.
So, if he was sane and logical, he'd see it this way: "I am in a situation where I could rally the masses and the masses would get crushed, and I'd be the scapegoat".
Rather, he sees it as "Video Games are Evil! Surely Good will come along and vanquish it if I keep trying! Or maybe if I send the FBI at it."
Wake up Jack Thompson, we're gamers; we outrank you in terms of numbers, and enough of us are quite within voting range. And those who aren't have parents who probably like said games. They ARE the ones buying them or providing the means for them.
I mean, its not even just the fact that he's got huge corporations and we're ready to knock his ass to the ground before he can do anything: His own worst enemy is himself. His tactics aren't worth a damn; his debating skills are shoddy, and slanderous at best. I recall a debate with him and Co-Host Adam Sessler from G4's X-Play, and he clearly won in terms of logical arguing.
He called out the FBI over a Webcomic. He goes out of his way to threaten a Webcomic, and then when they fight back, he ran to his corner and said "Stop harrassing me!", throwing out lawsuits at whomever tries and fails miserably.
Does he have ANYTHING going for him? Who is still signing this guy's paychecks? He's deluded into his own world, and for some reason people are just refusing to knock some sense into him, indulging his insane ramblings.
He's got no sense of decency either. Within the Virginia Tech shootings, he immediately dove upon it and said "VIDEO GAMES DID IT!" At least give the people involved a chance to mourn. Or at least let people find some evidence supporting the claim.
Why this man goes on with his life is beyond me. At this rate, he'll either snap (worse than now, mind you) or have a heart attack.
Simply stated... Jack Thompson: He's an indecent human being trying to fight indecent games that are only as such to certain people, but he's fighting the problem and not the source, which is irresponsible parents and/or workers at stores. And thats sad.
This is a fight he simply cannot win without destroying video games entirely. And he can't. Nobody really can, save an act of god. Either society changes its ways or it doesn't.
Untill that time, Jack Thompson, if you read this, take the time to reflect; Is it REALLY worth the effort your feeble mind is putting forth? I'm 17, and I bet $20 that I could debate your head off in mere minutes. I bet another $20 that my 11-year-old cousin could do it.