Atkinson on Discussion Paper, Threats

"I'll consider changing my mind about all this when the gaming community decide to behave in a civil fashion and apologise for the theats to me and my family."

This line right here guarantees he'll never do that.  He's judging us all from the actions of a few idiots.  If the gaming community as a whole were sending him death threats, that is, a majority of gamers had sent a death threat at some time or another, then he would be receiving hundreds a week, not a few every 2 weeks or so.  I'm sure as hell not going to apologize for someone elses mistakes either, thats their business, and Atkinson needs to make his arguments a little more mature.

He doesn't want to change, and this is just him using the article as an opportunity to take a shot at us.

His first comment is also just plain wrong.  He talks like the content of the game should actually be used as a basis of whether or not to allow it at all.  Maybe an R18 game will be full of blood, decapitations, and good ol' entrails, and certainly isn't for kids, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist in the first place.  Thats not for him to decide for us.

The Continental Cretin of Australia should quit lying about being "threatened" since it sounds like he got his ideas from the movies. There has been civil discourse from the community, however, Atkinson continues to find ways to weasel out of it like the chicken shit that he is. Grow up, get some testicular fortitude, and get a life, Atkinson, and give Australians what they've been wanting for a while. Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.

"I'll consider changing my mind about all this when the gaming community decide to behave in a civil fashion and apologise for the theats to me and my family."

Sure, pal.  We'll have a discussion about that at the next Gaming Community meeting.  *eyeroll*  Get real.  The gaming community is not some cohesive organization, with the ability to control its members or make a meaningful apology.  It's just a bunch of people who like games, some of whom are immature douchebags (just as some politicians are immature douchebags).  There is no way for us to make the nutbags stop harassing him.  Of course, he knows this.  This is his way of sounding like he's being reasonable, while what he's actually saying is that he'll change his mind when hell freezes over.  He's using the few wackos to justify dismissing all the rest of us.  Typical of his ilk.

"I'll consider changing my mind about all this when the gaming community decide to behave in a civil fashion"

Yes, some gamers  who lack the ability to convince people to their side of an argument and indulge to insults and death threats give the gamers who are rational and are willing to discuss things in a such a manner a bad name, but you should do the same.

Courage is not the absence of fear, but the strength to overcome it.

I'm a little skeptical that you get death threats every day so post some of them and then we (or I at least) will consider an apology. Your move.

Seriously though, apologizing on behalf of idiots in return for R18 seems like a good deal (yes I know how fucked up that is). Although I'm a little skeptical he'll go through with his end and that instead he'll pull a jack thompson 'modest proposal' of 'oh you didn't fulfill my exact demands' and not do anything.

----------------------------------------------------

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.

Atkinson is not after a civil discourse, if he was, he would have already concurred with every other AG who is either ambivalent about R18+ or for it.  He is the only stop from a unanimous consensus of the AG's.

There has also been a lot of reasoned discourse, Wyld off games.on.net forums (which is hosted by Internode, an ISP in South Australia) has done some great work, the submissions to the R18+ rating review (including my own), various blogs/commentaries/open letters have all been very civil and state the facts, staying away from the typical internet anonymous 'ZOMG YOU SUCK CHODE, I KEEL JOO!!!'.

But as EZK noted, it's the handful of nutjobs that give the rest a bad name.  It also gives Atkinson a viable excuse for stubbornly holding his ground in the face of overwhelming evidence/opposition, when he never intended to give ground any way.

Not only are death threats not acceptable at all, you have to worry about the reasoning behind a fool that thinks such threats help instead of hinder the issue. However, as said in several comments before me it's equally ridiculous that Atkinson presume the majority aren't persuing civil discourse. (I'm making the assumption that it may be a gamer and that it even happened at all)

I find it somewhat hypocritical that someone who remains ignorantly defiant in his dogmatic opinions should criticise the discussion paper for not being fair and balanced. I'd also like to know how inserting violent images out of context could be considered fair and balanced?

So, he wants civil discourse? Well I would like discourse based on sound logic and reasoning, but it's certainly not happening from his camp.

*facepalm* Why must immature gamers speak for us?! The only thing that pisses me off more than people like Atkinson or Jack are the gamers who gave and continue to give us a bad name!!!

Fine Atkinson, I guess you want Fallout 3, GTA4, and Fear 2 in the hands of 15 year olds instead of only 18+.

 

[my latest death threat] was like something out of a Hollywood film--letters cut from magazine headlines arranged together on a page. I receive abusive emails from anonymous senders on a daily basis.

 

I'm pretty sure that was due to your recent stance on R18+ movies rather than your stance on games.

岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」

Atkinson, speaking to GameSpot, thinks that responses to the discussion paper will be overwhelmingly positive because only gamers are weighing in on the subject, not the public at large.

So, if 20% feel strongly about something, and 80% just doesn't care at all, the proper course of action is to screw over the 20%?

His arguments that violent video games are harmful would justify this, if there was any actual evidence supporting this.

I'm going to end this by pointing out that the US system, however flawed it may be, is far better than the Australian system because it only requires a majority, or a 2/3rds majority, instead of unanimous votes, which prevents a lone, backwards thinking prick from having his own way.

Only people who are actually affected by this issue are participating in the discussion so he'll just disregard it? That makes sense.

Someone who is willing to screw millions of people over to get to a few people he dislikes has no business in a public office. I can fully understand, why he gets hate mail.

The more he says, the more obvious it is that he believes the world should live by his standards, a few people write threatening Emails, and he leaps on this as though his getting nasty letters is somehow justification for his position rather than condemnation of it, only a Politician could pull that trick out of the hat.

 " I think the majority of the population are unfamiliar with these games and without images, they won’t be able to imagine them in their mind's eye. They’ll have no idea how violent or sexually depraved they are, and what kind of torture, drug use, and blood spatter they include."

So... two possibilities here I guess. a: He's completely wrong in what he's saying and most games are not "depraved". or b: He's right the people who are all adamant about a R18+ rating and have no knowledge about the subject because its not included in this one discussion paper. Which of course begs the question, if no one else can get accurate information then how in the hell does he get his?

Can I get a round of "world's smallest violin?" The guy refuses to be civil, he gets a death threat and a bunch of hate mail, and he blames us? Yeah, no dice.

"I don't think the discussion paper presents a fair and balanced view of the issue..."

The only sensible thing the man has ever said, too bad the rest of the sentence screws it up.

As I've said about the discussion paper none of the cons are valid excuses. I'm discounting the fourth on the list mainly becacuse I'm not sure what it even means.

*facepalm* He's a Jack Thompson with political power alright.

He gets one death threat that we know of, ONE, and somehow no one i nthe gaming community at all is being civil.

Many among gamers actually are civil, intelligent people who will debate in a mature manner. Of course Atkinson evidently wishes to use the crazies as an excuse to not discuss the matter of a possible R18 rating at all.