Discussion Paper Responses Heavily in Favor of R18+

Responses to the Australian Discussion Paper—designed to foster public conversation on whether or not an R18+ rating category for games should be created—have been overwhelmingly in favor of adding the new category.

A Copyright and Classification Policy Branch member, as reported by GameSpot, claimed that as of February 1, 2010, 6,239 responses to the Discussion Paper had been received. While only 1,084 of those had been processed so far, just 11 responses out of the 1,084 were against adding an R18+ category.

South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson has been vocal in his position that only gamers care about this specific issue, perhaps setting himself up for a win-win situation as he can now say he saw this coming and that all the pro-R18+ responses were from the gaming population.

Responses to the Discussion Paper are being accepted until February 28.

Adding the R18+ rating category would require a unanimous vote in favor of the action by all Australia’s Attorney Generals.

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


  1. TBoneTony says:

    I would rather consider what the OTHER Attorney Generals will still think of Atkinson if they heard the lies and bullship that comes from him.

    Considering there is only just one man against many others who are more rational than he is in the Attorney Generals meating, maybe the attorney generals will just refuse Mr Atkinson at all, but then how would they have the balls to do that? I don’t think they can.


  2. Adamas Draconis says:

    Which is why you never set it up where one person can hold that kind of power over a law.


    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  3. count23 says:

    Guys, how many times to I have to explain why Atkinson has this power?

    bullet points cause i’m tired of writing it longhand.

    – OLFC is a federal level organization

    – 2007, Phillip Ruddock (Fed. AG) couldn’t be arsed handling it anymore

    – Transferred control to all state AGs, assuming that all 6 AGs saying "yes" was the same as ruddock saying "yes"

    – 2010, Atkinson is a lunatic saying no.


    (This was meant for longjocks and co discussing this earlier up, the reply put it in the wrong place)

  4. hellfire7885 says:

    Those who don’t play video games will be effected in the long run once Atkinson and people like him go after other forms of media, and they will.

  5. Mr.Tastix says:

    "South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson has been vocal in his position that only gamers care about this specific issue, perhaps setting himself up for a win-win situation as he can now say he saw this coming and that all the pro-R18+ responses were from the gaming population."

    Exactly, only gamers care because gamers are the majority of people affected. There is going to be an extreme bias because, as aforementioned, gamers are by and large the vast majority of the ones being affected by this restriction.

    Someone who doesn’t play video games doesn’t give a crap if there is an R18 rating on them or not, why would they? They don’t play games, it doesn’t affect them. I also feel that those who don’t play video games (eg., Atkinson, Jack Thompson) have no right to tell those who do that playing them makes them more likely to be violent.

    How would these people know it feels to play a video game if they’ve never played it? How would they feel if they were accused of being excessively violent because their hobby involves violence? The arguments been made time and time again but being violent and watching violence are two completely different things and no studies have proven that violent videos games are the sole reason for a players violence. And they never will, because that’s just absurd.

    So yes, this discussion paper is incredibly biased but the only people who will ever be involved in the discussion in the first place are those most likely to be affected by the paper in the first place, aka: gamers.

    — Randi Tastix

  6. TBoneTony says:

    Which makes me think, perhaps all those people who are so desperate to live in a country without violent videogames and violent movies would may as well live in Iran and China, where real life violence happens but you are protected from it because it is not shown on your TV screens.

    Sounds allot like living in the 50s for these people.


  7. chadachada321 says:

    That’s why rating systems are best left to the industry. Governments rating anything is a no-no, because they’ve been shown time and time again to just "refuse classification" to anything that they dislike. It’s straight-up censorship in its worst form. No better than China or Iran.

    -Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

  8. Adamas Draconis says:

    Sometimes all it takes is a credible threat to a bastion to cause a surrender. I assume thats what your thinking, yes?

    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  9. hellfire7885 says:

    That’s what the Gamers4Croydon thing is about I think. It’s not about taking the seat, it’s to try and show Atkinson he won’t be safe up there forever

  10. Adamas Draconis says:

    Which doesn’t work on most 2 year olds. So how in the universe does he actually expect that to work with adults?


    Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

  11. Longjocks says:

    I doesn’t necessarily mean the general populace doesn’t care, although I’d surely agree that most would not. It’s more likely at this point in time that awareness is the main issue. Once awareness has been raised we can then lump people into the ‘I don’t care’ category.

    If we don’t get to make a change this time around with Gamers4Croydon and this discussion paper, at least more people are being educated on the issue and more gamers are discovering options to band together to have their voice heard. Failure this time still means next time we stand a better chance.

  12. Longjocks says:

    One of the reasons that you only have about 50 people at such a protest is that protesting isn’t a big part of our culture. Most protests of size here usually deal with major issues and are well organised with people attending being passionate about the cause. We don’t tend to rally at the drop of a hat. Whether this is a good or bad thing is another topic.

    I think that the spread of the gaming populace over long distances is a problem. In my relatively small town you’d be lucky to get 50 adult gamers walking down the streets in protest at the best of times. Only about five of my friends are adults with gaming as a major hobby. It’s 500km+ to Sydney or Melbourne where such protests might normally be held and travel/accommodation isn’t cheap.

  13. hellfire7885 says:

    Now Atkinson needs to just drop his "Because I said so" attitude, which I plant between a snowball’s chance in hell and an embers chance in Hell Michigan

  14. lizardinmycoffee says:

    Maybe I missed something, but what is this discussion paper really going to accomplish? Even if an overwhelming majority of responses support the addition of an R18+ rating (from the gaming community or otherwise), won’t it still require the support of all of the AGs to pass? And if that is the case, won’t it still really be all for naught if Michael Atkinson is there?

    I still think it’s great that out of what they’ve processed only a small handful are against the change!

  15. Beacon80 says:

    Even assuming all 1,084 people are gamers, this still has meaning.  Only 11 people voted against it.  This means that the general populace doesn’t care!  Any sane man would realize that if all of Group A wants Item B, and everybody outside of Group A doesn’t care about Item B, then there’s no reason not to give Item B to Group A.

    This, of course, assumes that Attkinson is a sane, rational man, and not the archaic backwash he is.

    It would be one thing if he paraded around fake studies claiming that voilent video games are harmful, like certain ex-lawyers, but as far as I can tell, he’s not even claiming that.  He stance seems to be "we don’t need them."

  16. Rodrigo Ybáñez García says:

    I remember that the rallies just atraccted about 50 persons in favor of R18+. Then, we have this document and many persons are in favor of the R18+. I think the rest of the persons are parents who think the rating is a good idea. I really hope so.

    Let´s see how Atkinson screw it this time.

    My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

  17. Magic says:

    I have to agree, there is the possibility that those responding are gamers, so this isn’t necessarily useful. If it leads to some proper polls to indicate whether Australians want an 18 rating or not, then great.

  18. Murdats says:

    it made sense at the time, to create a national rating system they required each state agreed to what was allowed in their state, because there is free trade between states if one state banned something and another didnt, people could just cross the border, it would also make things more confusing.


    so to make a national rating system they decided all states had to agree to it so they could all control what was allowed in their state.


    it made sense at the time, just no one could predict someone being as big a dick as atkinson getting into such a safe seat of power

  19. Cerabret100 says:

    I still don’t understand who thought it was a good idea to make it mandatory for ALL of them to have to vote yes on stuff like this.

    Seems like it gives a single person (atkinson) way too much power for a democratic government.

  20. Murdats says:

    his position is "only those who really care will write in, but they are a minority" so he obviously believes policy that effects everyone should be based on the opinion of those who dont care

  21. HarmlessBunny says:

    "…setting himself up for a win-win situation as he can now say he saw this coming and that all the pro-R18+ responses were from the gaming population."

    Of course majority are those are from the gamer population. They are the ones affected by a backwards and archiac man refusing to submit to democracy. People not affected by this, for the most part, won’t care. That is obvious.

    So Michael Atkinson now will have to hear a familiar tune from gamers; he’ll reply with an all too familiar response. He’ll respond with deceit, bile, and outright lies to defame his "foes" and attempt to keep games from having an R-18 rating.

    Here is hoping that the opposition continues to put pressure on Premier Rann to sack Atkinson. After all the latest controversies Atkinson has been causing lately, the man certainly deserves it.


  22. DarkSaber says:

    Atkinson Mode: OF COURSE it’s heavily in favor, the only people responding are gamers after more cruel sex and violence!"!11


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

Comments are closed.