ECA Forums: Feed or Ignore the Troll?

For those out there that might long for the days of Jack Thompson and find themselves wondering exactly what the disbarred attorney is up to day-to-day, seek help.

In addition to seeking help, you may also want to cast your vote in a poll currently running on the Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA) forums, which is asking for votes on the matter of starting a sub-forum dedicated to Thompson’s communiqués.

The current vote stands at 18 in favor of the addition, and 4 against.

As I understand it, if enacted, Thompson’s missives would be posted in his dedicated section by a forum moderator. Whether Jack himself would be able to post or engage users directly is still open for debate.

Voting is restricted to ECA Forum members, but anyone can sign-up for access.

Disclosure: GamePolitics is a publication of the ECA.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. Father Time says:

    I’d rather have a forum dedicated to Rapeplay or the Ao rating. Those are more relevant than Jack and just like Jack they only need an official forum post to contain the discussion.

    Although now that I think about it there should be a forum for discussing the newest game that’s bringing up controversy or at least a sticky.


    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  2. speculawyer says:

    If you give him the chance to post, perhaps he’ll violate his court order with TTWO and end up having to pay them. 

  3. GoodRobotUs says:

    No offence, but I’d consider it somewhat a case of laughing at the afflicted. The man needs help, not mockery, as entertaining and amusing as it may be. Whilst I think Thompson has helped set the entire debate on consumable media back several years, there’s no real point, to my mind, pointing and laughing at people who are their own worst enemy because of a concern that has become an obsession and finally a delusion.

    Whilst there might be some psychiatric value to reading his ‘press releases’, and there is certainly some comedic value to it, I’m not sure it really qualifies for in here, it’s a mentality that doesn’t really suit.


  4. gellymatos says:

    First, I don’t consider JT a troll. A troll is someone who has only the intent to get people upset and angry, usually without really believing in what they post. JT just says what he does because he truly believes it. I also don’t think he has been doing all of this to further his career. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have tried to stick it to the Florida Bar. It’s hard to further a career in law if you’re disbarred.

    However, I do think we should ignore him for now. He hasn’t been in court. He hasn’t been in the news. He isn’t really a threat at the moment. However, the forum would be fun. I really would like to "talk" to him.

  5. Ambiguous says:

    I wouldn’t mind having a forum for him, even if only so I can go there to amuse myself every now and again.  On that note yes.  But I don’t think he is, or ever was, important to the gaming industry.  So on that note no.

    On an unrelated note, I can’t seem to post in the shoutbox at all.  It loads up a white page with the on it after clicking shout, and then does nothing.  It seems to be an issue with my account, as it happened both at school and here at home.

    Anyone got any ideas?  AE: Try clearing the "Your Website URL" box before posting your shout.

  6. Zerodash says:

    Giving him a forum grants legitamacy to a little man who is 100% irrelevant now.  He self-destructed and brought disgrace to himself.  Please, do not masturbate this mans’ ego- it is what he lives for.

    To pay attention to Thompson is childish.

  7. Thomas McKenna says:

    Nothing worth while will come of the forum.  In fact, having it there would only stroke the man’s ego and add more fuel to his fire.  Rational discourse can not be done with the man or about the man.  Let it go, and ignore the fool.

  8. sharpshooterbabe says:

    I see you do agree w/the moderators chasing people away from there. I know I joined that forum & one of them kept bashing on me b/c of my degree in college I am pursuing & then other guys on there were supporting him. He’s a douche bag along w/the others on there.



    "It’s better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not." – Montgomery Gentry

  9. black manta says:

    Are you trying to make this into the gamer’s equivalent over the debate over the Healthcare Reform bill?  Because that’s what it looks like you’re trying to turn it into.  Like in the argument over that bill, both sides made the issue into one huge rorschach test with both sides seeing what they wanted to see in it; cherry picking some sections and distorting others.

    I read through the bill, and frankly I don’t see what you see in it.  You missed the parts (deliberately?) that said they do not intend to regulate the internet with an eye towards restricting content.  All they propose are extnesions of laws and policies that are already in place.

    Your issue basically comes down to the word "unlawful" and how the government would get to choose what is "unlawful."  Personally I don’t think the government would institute sweeping changes to suddenly ban porn or viewing or listening to copyrighted material overnight (which, let’s face it, is what this is really about.)  Yes, they could do that.  The spectre of censorship is always there.  No law operates in a vacuum and there will always be those politicians who would want to abuse and twist those laws to satisfy their own personal agendas.  But that’s where we as citizens and the courts come in.  You underestimate just how finely crafted the Constitution is and the system of checks and balances that are in place.  Net Neutrality will only be as good as we make it to be.  The government will give us that opportunity, but it will be our responsibility to mainitain it and make sure it isn’t taken advantage of.

    And like Andrew said, if it means that much to you, go ahead and post about it here.  If you want to continue complaining that the ECA forums are not worth your time, go ahead.  But if this is something you really care about, then post and get people talking.

  10. Andrew Eisen says:

    Sounds like an excellent topic for the Issue Areas and Policy board.  Hopefully, it will generate discussion.  I’d also recommend sending your concerns directly to the ECA.  After all, they’re there to represent your interests and if you don’t think they’re accurately doing so, tell them.


    Andrew Eisen

  11. TJLK says:

    As far as not wanting to post on the forums.  

    Why would I want to?  When people raise questions the board is subject to being taken down and dissenting comments will be deleted.  As I remember the mods were really good at chasing people away so why exactly would I want to even visit that place?  Waste of my time. 

    Its not that the ECA is ignoring Net Neutrality.  The ECA obviously is a strong supporter of Net Neutrality.  Its that the ECA is not even exposing the terrible things that are being included within Net Neutrality, like the issue I mentioned above.

    If you’re going to support it fine.  But take a lesson form the Electronic Frontier Foundation.   They at least have the sense to point out some flaws.

    I wouldn’t even say they’ve gone far enough to expose the flaws but at least its a start.  They aren’t blindly supporting an effort without first making people aware that according to the plan ISPs will be obligated to essentially be the medium the goverment can utilize to censor the Internet… in the name of "reasonable network management".  They aren’t flooding peoples e-mails with biased information in an effort to support Net Neutrality.  They are attempting to take an even look at the subject

    If you still agree with the principle then perhaps you should try to get some of the language changed or better yet REMOVED.  As in "We support the principle of Net Neutrality but these things in particular are troubling and should be either looked at or removed."  Reading the ECA e-mails that come into my inbox it seems like Net Neutrality is 100% positive and is all about keeping the Internet free and open.  Yet when I read more about Net Neutrality I see nearly the opposite in some respects. 

    Why not try to change the direction of Net Neutrality so the interests of gamers are best served.  Its not all about ISPs throttling your connection.  Its not about them choosing what you can and can not see based on what plan you have.  Because in the Net Neutrality world the government gets to tell tell the ISPs what is unlawful and you just have to suck it up and deal with it.  It is about them being forced to prevent unlawful transfers of content or unlawful content to be transfered.  If the government deems something to be unlawful then ISPs have to enforce it or violent Net Neutrality.  How it is that good for gamers?  Has everyone has forgotten all the efforts to regulate games in our recent history?  What happens when we are left open to the government regulating the Internet?  How is that beneifitial to gamers?  Its not.  If given the chance they will tear us apart in the name of safety, children and what is socially acceptable.

    Really, what I hate is reading the ECA’s one-sided e-mails about Net Neutrality and being asked to send that misleading letter to my representatives.  A one-sided letter that represents a small portion of the truth of what is going on.

    Here is a clipping from the ECA’s website.

    "Net Neutrality — the principle that ensures that gamers are free to go where they want, do what they like, and connect with whom they choose online."

    So that is a good principle to stand for but that is not what Net Neutrality is.  Perhaps it is what you want it to be… but it isn’t what it actually is.  It is much more than that.  Here is an example.

    From H.R. 3458

    "(d) Reasonable Network Management- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit an Internet access provider from engaging in reasonable network management consistent with the policies and duties of nondiscrimination and openness set forth in this Act. For purposes of subsections (b)(1) and (b)(5), a network management practice is a reasonable practice only if it furthers a critically important interest, is narrowly tailored to further that interest, and is the means of furthering that interest that is the least restrictive, least discriminatory, and least constricting of consumer choice available. In determining whether a network management practice is reasonable, the Commission shall consider, among other factors, the particular network architecture or technology limitations of the provider."

    Sounds harmless enough but later in definitions, the important part, you will see…

    "‘(4) REASONABLE NETWORK MANAGEMENT- The term ‘reasonable network management’ shall be defined by the Commission through regulations.’."

    Could that possibly be any more vague? So the Commission, being the FCC, is going to regulate what Reasonable Network Management is.  They aren’t restricted by this bill.  They are given free reign to define what exactly "Reasonable Network Management" is.

    So here is what they think it is in their notice of proposed rulemaking.

    "Reasonable network management. Reasonable network management consists of:

    (a) reasonable practices employed by a provider of broadband Internet access service to:

    (i) reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network or to address quality-of-service


    (ii) address traffic that is unwanted by users or harmful;

    (iii) prevent the transfer of unlawful content; or

    (iv) prevent the unlawful transfer of content; and

    (b) other reasonable network management practices."

    So first thing to notice is that they left themselves open to amend it.  "other reasonable network management practices"  Nice and vague so they can add more to it down the line.

    The second, most important, thing is the word "unlawful".  This means the government is going to be involved and the ISPs have to follow suit.  The ISPs will become the medium in which the government is going to regulate the Internet.  So for all of you that wish for the Internet to be free of regulation.  Net Neutrality is not for you.  If something goes through congress saying a type of transfer of content or a type of content is illegal then the ISPs have to prevent you from seing it.  In other words the ISPs must censor what the government tells them to or answer to the FCC.

    All I’m asking for is a fair representation of Net Neutrality.  If you still agree with it then that is fine and dandy as long as you realize there is much more involved in this effort.  Currently the ECA is picking and choosing what information about Net Neutrality to expose.

  12. DarkSaber says:

    I consider them stupid enough for it to be a possibility. Then again, counter-balancing that possibility is the fact Hal would be loath to do anything that might take away from his headline-time.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  13. Andrew Eisen says:

    There is a Net Neutrality thread.  There’s just no one commenting in it.  I don’t see how you can draw the conclusion that the ECA is ignoring the issue just because the users of its forums don’t seem to be that interested in talking about it.


    Andrew Eisen

  14. ZippyDSMlee says:

    Well you have to remember GP is a entertainment news site that focus on games,culture and politics. With that in mind its hard to be let down by them.

    Whats more scary is the FCC suddenly not being able to regulate ISPs if they disappear  from TV and radio I think things could balance out but my god remove them from the ISPs……scary sht….

    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people!

  15. TJLK says:

    ECA Forums are pretty much as useless now as they were when they were Game Politics forums.

    I find this especially true when looking back on how how the whole "Amazon Discount" fiasco was handled.  Bring the forums down because "everything has already been said" (Bullshit) and then bring them back up and notice that there are posts relating to that issue missing.  Sounds like something JT would do.

    Perhaps instead of discussing Jack Thompson we could discusss how Net Neutrality actually enhances the power of ISP and governmental bodies to censor the internet.  Just a suggestion.  I find Jack Thompson boring an irrevelvant.  While here we have Net Neutrality that will absolutely require the ISPs to prevent the transfer of "unlawful content" and to also prevent "unlawful transfer of content".  So bascailly the ISPs will be censoring the Internet.  Why isn’t this talked about?  Some say you trust the government more than corporations but Net Neutrality will ensure that corporations and the government work together to censor us.  A fast connection is worthless if they are going to censor the Internet.

    At least the EFF is discussing this.  The ECA is absolutely 100% ignoring this.  Its right there in the text of every proposal.  Proof of future censorship is right there in the text and we’re being bought off by a guarentee that the ISPs wont throttle our connection.  Instead of discussing this train wreck of an effort you call Net Neutrality you instead talk about a troll on a forum.  Seriously?  Is this organization that weak?  I refuse to believe that is true.

  16. black manta says:

    I’m likely to be outvoted, but no I don’t want him back.  His time’s come and gone and he should be deservedly treated like the footnote to the culture wars that he was.  Anything like what what’s being proposed would only legitimize him and inflate his already over-inflated sense of self-worth.  He’s irrelevant now.  Leave him that way.

    And yeah, it’s all about Atkinson now.  He’s now replaced JT as the man gamers love to hate.  I guess we all need our boogeymen.

  17. DarkTetsuya says:


    I’m just surprised anyone still gives a shit about this loser anymore.

    I mean we won, he’s unemployed, it’s over! There’s many other anti-game people we should be concerned about. (Atkins, Yee, and is Vaz still around?!)

    300 Episodes and counting:

  18. CMiner says:

    My vote is to continue ignoring him, unless he does something notable (which his constant press-releases and empty threats are not.)

    If I want LOLs from his antics, I can look up his previous releases, lawsuits, and statements.  There is little reason to believe that his more recent letters will be substantially different from past ones.

    I understand the argument that we don’t want to ignore him completely, which is what allowed him to gain the undeserved notoroity and influence that he once had.  But that doesn’t mean we need to give him undue attention, or make him ‘important’ again (which, in his mind, this will).  A thread in a board is sufficient.  An entire sub-forum is too much.  Plus it will boost his self-googling ego.

  19. DarkSaber says:

    If it’s an officially sanctioned ECA poll and idea, then the ECA are bigger tools than I already thought they were.


    I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

  20. Cerabret100 says:

    while i believe it’s important to pay attention to the things he does (completely ignoring him would be just as dangerous) i think this passes in to the "giving him TOO much attention" catagory, which can help him in a strange way.

  21. Andrew Eisen says:

    He’s still sending out press releases?  Huh.  He must have dropped me off his mailing list.  I’m hurt.


    Andrew Eisen

Comments are closed.