Three New Gamer Videos for Republican Presidential Debate

August 14, 2007 -

Last week the Entertainment Consumers Association issued a call to action, challenging gamers to create grassroots video questions for Republican candidates participating in next month's CNN/YouTube debate. As a show of support, ECA president Hal Halpin even promised to send an ECA t-shirt to everone who submitted a gamer issue-oriented video.

The response has been unprecedented with new gamer-created videos appearing almost every day. Here are three brand-new submissions:

Jordan from Maine wants to know what the Republican candidates will do to keep his video games safe from censorship. Tim from Pennsylvania wonders how the candidates would help parents make the right video game choices for their children. UGIPhobose from Atlanta wonders if the candidates believe it is the government's duty to censor digital media, including the Internet and video games

To see all of the gamer debate videos submitted so far, click on the Presidential Debate Videos category tag in the right sidebar. And if you're submitting a debate video to YouTube, don't forget to contact GamePolitics or the ECA to claim your t-shirt!


Comments

test

the halo video is pointless. unelss your real name is ugi fugil or what ever.

Apparently mine was deleted. I like the second one best. Machinima doesn't really work for this.

I expect a complete dodge on the "what will you do to hold parents responsible for their choices" question.
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

must avoid spam filter, must not sing the lyrics to the monty python spam song.

In the .0007 percent chance this does get through these videos don't seem to be as good as the ones before.

I don't like these videos at all. The Machina ones just need to go away. Politicians want to respond to real people, not cartoons.

The other two were very weak questions that would recieve very weak answers.

We need to call these politicians out, not cater to their two tongued tactics.

All of these questions are good, but they are too clear, if that makes sense. The answer you want to hear is obvious. If it were phrased more neutrally, like "How do you feel about video game violence and regulation." I would do it myself, but I can't afford a decent camera.

@jabrwock

that or they will be answered by candidates who never intended to legislate games in the first place, like guliani or ron paul.

I can't watch the videos at work, but doesn't Machinma violate one of the rules?

Machina definitely violates rules.

At first I didn't want to post anything on this, because I made the second video, but after seeing a few of these comments I thought I'd say a little something here.

The whole arguement about videogame legislation is that it's not suppose to be up to the government to make decisions on what kids should and shouldn't play, view, read, or listen to, it's suppose to be up to the parents. That's the answer WE want to hear, but most politicians don't want to say it.

From my POV, simply asking the politicians how they feel about videogame violence and regulation lets them talk around the issue. Grilling them about regulation conflicting with the first ammendment gives them an easy way out. Neither put the real fix (getting parents involved) to the problem at hand (unwanted and unconstitutional legislation). Asking them specifically how they would implement the fix leaves them no choice but to A) talk about legislating videogames, or B) working with established groups (like the ESRB) to get parents more involved.

Either answer would give everyone a better picture of how the candidates will handle the problem.

Thanks to everyone for the cirticisms though, because they did give me some ideas for a second question.

the 3rd one isn't going to cut it...

I sent an email to GP regarding these debates. They have been "rescheduled" to November 28, read: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/13/cnn%e2%80%99s-gop-debate...

The main reason cited for the change was "scheduling conflicts" with major candidates. Unless something changes dramatically in the next 3 months I would put money on Guilaini and Romney skipping out on these and at least a 50% chance the entire debate crumbles and is canceled. The debate has been planned for quite some time now, and if candidates thought it was important they would fix their scheduling conflicts. Republicans are not ready to embrace the technological movement just yet.

@ Evan

Guiliani is going to be there. If Romney doesn't, then he's a coward.

The first two were at least decent efforts. Timmay, memorize that shit. It looks a lot better when you make eye contact with the camera. But hey, I liked it. You were easy to understand, thought out your question beforehand, and really used those 30 seconds to their fullest.

I love--absolutely love--the way you posed your question. What will you do to hold parents responsible? That's genius. It's a direct question, which makes it that much more obvious should a candidate try to dodge it, and completely turns the tables on the debate, illustrating the parents as the responsible party. It's like a slap in the face, but in a valid and polite way. Saucy.

The last video... made me want to bash my against a wall for the sheer stupidity of it.

First: Machinima. Don't. It makes you look like an idiot. This is a serious issue and if you can't be serious about it, stay away from it. No one will respect a question asked by someone hiding behind a game character. Seriously, we already know these people don't take games seriously. Do the math.

Second: Ask something important. It seems little or no thought went into formulating the question. If you only needed 10 seconds, you weren't trying hard enough. Bland and generic. Most importantly, it's not direct enough. The question, as posed, would give candidates too much room to maneuver. And believe me, they will. They'll talk for minutes on end without actually saying anything.

Third: For the love of everything holy, people need to learn to enunciate... especially when you have a wacky name like "Ugio F. Foma... see..." something. See? I couldn't understand it. Not that they'd remember it anyway, but anything you don't pronounce clearly becomes a distraction.

And finally... are you serious? A copyright notice?

Get the **** out. Right now. Seriously, just go.

/sigh.

One missed tag and the whole post goes to shit.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
Matthew WilsonSF have to build upwards they have natural growth limits. they can not grow outwards. ps growing outwards is terable just look at Orlando or Austin for that.04/16/2014 - 4:15pm
ZippyDSMleeIf they built upward then it would becoem like every other place making it worthless, if they don't build upward they will price people out making it worthless, what they need to do is a mix of things not just one exstreme or another.04/16/2014 - 4:00pm
Matthew Wilsonyou know the problem in SF was not the free market going wrong right? it was government distortion. by not allowing tall buildings to be build they limited supply. that is not free market.04/16/2014 - 3:48pm
ZippyDSMleeOh gaaa the free market is a lie as its currently leading them to no one living there becuse they can not afford it makign it worthless.04/16/2014 - 3:24pm
Matthew WilsonIf you have not read http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-games/ you should. It is a bit stats heavy, but worth the read.04/16/2014 - 2:04pm
Matthew Wilsonthe issue is when is doesn't work it can screw over millions in new york city's case. more often than not it is better to let the free market run its course without market distortion.04/16/2014 - 9:36am
NeenekoTrue, and overdone stagnation is a problem. It is a tricky balance. It does not help that when it does work, no one notices. Most people here have benifited from rent controls and not even realized it.04/16/2014 - 9:23am
ZippyDSMleehttp://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2014/04/15/riaa_files_civil_suit_against_megaupload04/16/2014 - 8:48am
ZippyDSMleeEither way you get stagnation as people can not afford the prices they set.04/16/2014 - 8:47am
Neenekowell, specifically it helps people already living there and hurts people who want to live there instead. As for 'way more hurt', majorities generally need less legal protection. yes it hurt more people then it helped, it was written for a minority04/16/2014 - 8:30am
MaskedPixelantehttp://torrentfreak.com/square-enix-drm-boosts-profits-and-its-here-to-stay-140415/ Square proves how incredibly out of touch they are by saying that DRM is the way of the future, and is here to stay.04/16/2014 - 8:29am
james_fudgeUnwinnable Weekly Telethon playing Metal Gear http://www.twitch.tv/rainydayletsplay04/16/2014 - 8:06am
ConsterTo be fair, there's so little left of the middle class that those numbers are skewing.04/16/2014 - 7:42am
Matthew Wilsonyes it help a sub section of the poor, but hurt both the middle and upper class. in the end way more people were hurt than helped. also, it hurt most poor people as well.04/16/2014 - 12:13am
SeanBJust goes to show what I have said for years. Your ability to have sex does not qualify you for parenthood.04/15/2014 - 9:21pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician