
In 2006, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D)
threw her support behind a proposal to legislate video game sales. What she said then was:
Parents today face new challenges that we didn't have when our children were younger. Video games and music lyrics promote violence...
The bill ultimately failed to win enough legislative support to pass.
That was then and this is now, however. These days, the Guv's 23-year-old son John, a student at the Rhode Island School of Design, is marketing a board game called
Don't Drop the Soap. From an
Associated Press report:
The governor's spokeswoman, Nicole Corcoran, said both parents "are very proud of their son John's creativity and talent."
John Sebelius is selling the game on his Internet site for $34.99... The contact information on the Web site lists the address of the governor's mansion.
Here is a brief description of what happens in the game:
Fight your way through 6 different exciting locations in hopes of being granted parole... Escape prison riots in The Yard, slip glass into a mob boss' lasagna in the Cafeteria, steal painkillers from the nurse's desk in the Infirmary.
The game includes five tokens representing a bag of cocaine, a handgun and three characters: wheelchair-using 'Wheelz," muscle-flexing "Anferny" and business suit-clad "Sal 'the Butcher..."'
"This game is intended for mature audiences -- not children -- and is simply intended for entertainment," Corcoran said.
GP: So... sorta like Grand Theft Auto, then?
UPDATE: Here is the
Don't Drop the Soap website.
Comments
Crazy...
[I should've known it was a joke]
The two next paragraphs are not directed at you, jds, but to people who with a straight face go about saying stuff like what you said in jest.
Well, yes, if you had been serious about what you said (and a lot of people are), what that "opinion" would've stated is that you're a complete simpleton. I'm sorry, but I don't hold such "opinions" in very high regard. I don't tolerate idiots very well.
And, your freedom of speech doesn't preclude me from calling such opinions idiotic and people who say things like that mindless idiots. I, too, have freedom of speech, even to call idiots as such.
You need to make your point clearer in future. You seem to be the only person who thinks this article is about John (past the point he made a boardgame).
As for the site. GamePolitics. This story is about a Govenor and her hyopcritical stance on adult entertainment. How does this not fit in with the sites theme?
Goon = Troll
There... I'm done with my coding for today ;)
But when it is a company making a violent video game, she is outraged.
Sounds about right.
Although with digs like a guv's mansion, I guess I can see why.
He's no victim and I'm sure he's had an easy life, but I'd be bursting at the seems for offensive humor if I were to be surrounded by political parents.
I love me some board games, too, so I like him already.
I lived with my parents until I was 26. Sometimes stuff happens.
It comes in handy when you are going to callege locally.
John Sebelius, 23, has the backing of his mother and father, U.S. Magistrate Judge Gary Sebelius. The governor's spokeswoman, Nicole Corcoran, said both parents "are very proud of their son John's creativity and talent."
You can bet they'll change their tune as soon as a teenager buys the game...
Mindless idiot.
It's not just democrats. Isn't JT republican?
Wow. If that isn't a hypocrite then I don't know what is. She states that videogames promote violence. Then when her 23 year old son makes a "Don't Drop the Soap" game, she says she's proud of her son's "creativity and talent"? XD
Hey, Republicans are not immune from this crap either. Just so happens this lady is a Democrat, and the Democrat's logo is an ass; hence, the small line about her being a democrat.
I was making a joke. And if that was enough for you to call me a mindless idiot... well... you need to get a hobby or something.
T'was a joke. All politicians are hypocrites. Alluvem.
Assuming you are a Democrat of some sort, you aren't very tolerant of my opinion and freedom of speech. Maybe you should change parties.
Good on you, mate.
Ah, okay. Didn't get it there at first.
And to because it came up, and should be relevant to this topic somewhat I add a quote(probably heavily butchered since I can't find the original):
"Free Speech is debating and arguing against one another, to the point of open hatred, but then defending to the death your opponents right to say it."
This is partisan hackery at its finest. So this lady is responsible for the game her son made? And then she's supposed to whip him in the town square for it?
Hey this reminds me of something:
Someone throwing blood on someone's fur coat..
Someone yelling at a young girl outside of an abortion clinic..
Oh! how about just another member of a special interest group?
I think you are missing the point. This woman cried foul at game developers for making violent video games. She called for legislation on them.
Now her son has made a violent board game. She is proud of her son's creativity.
Just because one is a board game does not make it any more "artistic" or "creative" than the other.
The story should be about the fact that her son - who is cast in a bad light BTW in this story - has joined our ranks.
I'm just saying there should be a dislaimer on this site that it is a special interest. It's gotcha journalism and he knows it.
I thought I was imagining this article...
Irooonyyyy.
The son of this pro-censorship governor has not "joined our ranks" as you so insinuate. The offspring of an anti-video game politician is not automatically a friend of the industry just because he sells a violent themed board game on a website.
I call bullshit on you. What the fuck is your problem?
All this article was doing was pointing out that Kathleen Sebelius thinks that violent video games need legislation however a board game about feeding people glass is "creative".
Why is pointing out a possible case of hypocrisy suddenly partisan hackery? And exactly how does this compare to your examples?
Stop fucking trolling.
As opposed to all those other games, marked "Mature", obviously intended for children to use as murder training rather than entertainment?
Seconded.
This article is not picking on her son. It is picking on her. She is the hypocrite. Not her son.
We don't care that her son made the game. We care that she supports this violent board game, but not violent video games.
We care because the only reason she supports it seems to be that it was made by her son and it is not a video game.
One has to wonder what she would say if he made an actually video game using the same content.
@ Goon
I call bullshit on you. What the fuck is your problem?
And I say:
And I call triple dog bullshit on you, Mr. Yes man for being a lemming and not listening to my point at all.
This site is supposed by about not letting government infiringe on people's free speech (i.e. game developers, publishers) and here we have some guy who has nothing to do with anything being dragged into the light because of his mom and because he created something. Yeah way to promote his first amendment rights to creativity.
Yeah his mom's a hyocrite. We get that. The point is what did he do to deserve this?
Partisan hackery.
Or the republican who is against gay rights, but solicits sex from men in bathrooms.
This nations if full of hypocrites.
".....intended for mature audiences — not children — and is simply intended for entertainment,”, whilst at the same time attempting to censor and control the very same thing in digital format. It's a game, it's got bigoted and stereotypical undertones, it's got crime of all descriptions in it, it could almost, almost be called a comic version of Manhunt by the storyline, whilst I don't comment on the game because I haven't played it, I can most certainly comment on the hypocrisy of his parents' response to him creating it.
Goon, I think the real hippocrisy comes from the fact that this person’s parent can be proud of a game which is,
--
Finally a voice in the wilderness :)
I agree with you on that, I guess i'm just not happy to see someone pulled out into the light for not doing anything at all.
So i'll shut up but I did get the point that the lady is a hypocrite and we all know the natural progression is usually from board game to game developer. Then this would be a REAL story IMO.
Gold Star for Kathy! Nitwit.
i dont care even if its her son
WTF,R
I have to agree, there's nothing specifically wrong with making the game, I might well enjoy it if I played it to be honest, so it's unfair to point the finger at the maker in any way, but yes, I do think that his mothers reaction is somewhat hypocritical when you take into account her law passing attempts, but we do, in all fairness, also have to take into account that a parent, particularly one in a public position, would preserve an image of family harmony, even if, in truth, she loathed the very idea of the game :)
I must admit, I do think it would make a great story if it got made into a video game ;)
-P
It is interesting to consider, however, that one of the accusations being aimed at the gaming Industry, as ridiculous as it sounds, is that they are using credit cards as proof of age (which the FTC accepts as a satisfactory measure). I would assume that this would also be the case on this man's site, though, in all honesty, I have to visited to confirm that.
It's the case of 'Sauce for the Goose' in that respect, it means that it's ok to release 'risqué' material in a format that is usually associated with kids, it's ok to use web-based methods to confirm age, and it's ok to draw satirical or stereotypical situations involving criminal actions as long as you are not part of the Video Game Industry.
I don't have a problem with either using the material associated with children to present a concept, or using Web-based methods to confirm age, and neither apparently does this politician with regards to her son, but it embodies everything that we are arguing in our favour, that it's ok to create adult-based stuff for adults, and that just because it can be bought over a Web-page, that doesn't mean it's being 'marketed to kids'.
I think this was reported not so much as an attack on this particular Politician, but to point out the inherent hypocrisy throughout the entire political spectrum when it comes to video games even when compared to other forms of children's entertainment. Yes, there are other adult board games, but the generic 'board game' is a child's game in most people's eyes, just like a generic 'video game', and yet apparently, to make an adult game on a board is 'creative and ingenious', whereas making an adult game on a computer is 'depraved and sick'.
"You don't throw a fellow designer under the bus."
You do if he's serving his own interests at the cost of the industry's (like, say, T2/R*). This is coming from a professional video game designer.
BUT...the only person who is saying that this article casts John Sebelius in a negative light is you. He made a game. Fantastic. It's a board game. That's a medium marketed to children more often than not, but okay, as long as he's being responsible with distribution and notifies potential customers that it's a mature game, he should be free to do whatever he wants with it.
Would I play it? Probably not, unless someone put it in front of me and asked me to, but I'm not going out of my way for it. Does it bother me that he made it? Not at all.
But his mother's stance, as has been established, is indeed quite hypocritical, and that DOES bother me. Particularly since board games are indisputably a medium that is marketed more towards children than video games.
Average age of a video gamer is about 29 today. I don't know what the average board gamer age is, but I'm pretty damn sure it's notably younger than that.
Also, regarding the legitimacy of this story... what is your problem? NO ONE IS CALLING OUT JOHN SIBELIUS. No one is "throwing blood on his fur coat" or "shouting at him outside an abortion clinic". No one here is speaking ill of him, or his game, in any way here.
This article is about his mother, a politician (note the similarity to the word politics) who tried to legislate violent video games (and again), but now is nothing but proud that her son made a violent board game.
That's a textbook case of hypocrisy, and it's coming from a politician who has already thrown her hat in the video game politics arena. That makes this story perfectly qualified for this site.
There are entire industires dedicated to marketing non-family board games to adults.
And you don't throw someone under the bus to make a point about first amendment free speech. And mr. developer, with all due respect, if it was you in this story you'd be crying foul.
No, not all board games are marketed towards kids, in fact lumi only suggest that the AVERAGE might be slightly lowered, is it the absolute truth? no, not unless someone comes on with statistics showing that it is, and even then, I would take it with a grain of salt. However, would it really surprise you? You don't see too too many adult board games out there as opposed to video games. Of course that doesn't mean they aren't out there. The whole point of this story is to show that the politician thinks it is ok to legislate video games when they are violent, but marketed towards adults, although she apparently has no problem when its a violent board game marketed towards adults. Hell, I would be that if her son had made a video game (violent mind you) she still would have been proud of him. No of course thats not a bad stance for a parent to take, I hope when I break into the industry that my parents are proud of my games, but once again it comes around to the fact that she is ok with her son does it, but when anyone else does, all the sudden its a bad thing.
"Oh really ? So all board games are marketed for kids now? (yeah isn’t that what the other side says about videogames - even when they aren’t? Hmmm.)"
Being a bit loose with your interpretations there. Lumi was just pointing out that of the two mediums (videogames and board games) boardgames are much more likely to be played by children.
This is at odds with the Governors differentiation between videogames and her sons board games.
It was a valid point you chose to misinterpret rather than address.
One could almost consider that trolling.
As for board games being marketed to children, it should be clarified that I'm talking about common political perception here, which should never be confused with reality. Yes, both Video and Board games have their adult variations, the hypocrisy exists in the political reaction to them. We aren't saying that their reaction to the board game is the problem, it has every right to exist, the problem is the unequal treatment that Video-Games receive.
Regarding the age of video gamers I read on another site (ARS - I think) that the most current research shows the average gamers age to be 33.
The double standard she seems to have on this is what is brought to light. There is nothing at all condemning or attacking her son's game or her son either. It is merely pointing out that *she* is wishy-washy on the issue, mainly because its her son, and not some random, nameless game developer.
"Oh really ? So all board games are marketed for kids now? (yeah isn’t that what the other side says about videogames - even when they aren’t? Hmmm."
I'm really not inclined to argue with someone who's obviously trolling with selective interpretation, but what the hell, here we go. Show me where I said ALL BOARD GAMES are marketed for kids?
I'll wait. Go ahead. Anything? No, because I didn't. I said they're marketed MORE towards kids THAN VIDEO GAMES. Which is not an opinion, and not false. It's a fact, and it's true. Are you seriously disputing that 1) the average age of a board gamer is lower than that of video gamers, or 2) that board games are not more frequently marketed to children?
"And you don’t throw someone under the bus to make a point about first amendment free speech. And mr. developer, with all due respect, if it was you in this story you’d be crying foul."
Wow. Are you kidding? It's not about making a point, it's about protecting our own rights to first amendment speech, from someone who is callously putting them at risk for personal profit (and again, I'm NOT saying this is what John Sibelius did; it's the sort of actions I frown upon from T2/R*). And yeah, you're damned right that they deserve any buses they catch for stunts like Manhunt, etc.
If this were me, I would most certainly not be "crying foul". I'd be embarrassed by and apologizing on behalf of my mother. But way to speak on my behalf, it's appreciated.
Jackass.
CUNT.
Last Word
Goons Unite! You all got played. I don't care about any of this stupid shit.
The internet is serious business!
Hey, good to see we can agree on stuff.
You should come back to GP. Both the Religion and Evolution vs. Creationism threads (they were split after you left) have died a lonley death since you left.
OH NOES!!1!!one!! you are a troll. If we had noticed that already...
Oh... wait...
Maybe I'll just cheer myself up with some comedy goldmine. At least something of worth comes out of that site.
Daily Double!
the hypocrisy i really see is legislating video games and not board games... but really, lets be honest, there is too heavy of a difference between those too mediums... Grant it, another hypocrisy, a much more serious one, is her desire to legislate video games but not Movies and music and so forth; now those mediums she has either put in the same place as video games or are close enough in relation to video games that if she should want to legislate one she should legislate the other... though when it comes to movies, i would ask "is she being a hypocrite, or is she one of many people under the misconception that movies are regulated by law?"
I hate living in Kansas.
Our governer is an uneducated Tipper Gore wannabe.
Ya know for a troll he did make some decent points, dispite them all being for arguements no one had.
No... no he didn't.
Hmm... you may be right. She might not be saying that violent games don't have a right to exist, but that she wants them to stay out of the hands of children, just as she probably wouldn't want her son's game to be purchased by a child.
But one thing I'm curious about: antigame activists talk about keeping games out of the hands of children. Where I come from, a videogame retailer won't let anyone under age 17 to purchase a game without one of the person's parents there to say that it is okay, and they warn the parents that it's a Mature rated game. Do all retailers in all states abide by these guidelines? Because if they do, then their arguments that violent videogames are being sold to children is somewhat hypocritical, considering that parents are the ones allowing children access to these games.
Meant to put the /sarcasm lol
You have rekindled my faith in humanity. It should last until I have to drive home atleast ;)
I would like to thank you for the positive comment in another story eariler on. That comment you said has somewhat inspired me into coming up with something that might surprise some people. I would like to ask you about what you think of that idea. So take a look at it back at the "marhta responds" story's comments. Sorry to ask about this here (really off-topic, and it has alot of text to post here).
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh man, that's great.
Thats serious business guys. Serious FUCKING business.
This is the internet. Anyone who wants to be taken seriously needs to avoid any name that includes "Goon". In any online discussion, its a good idea to avoid discussing something with someone named goon.
It doesn't end well for anybody when you engage a goon.
Well, all stores within the chain have the same store policies... how well they are enforced is bound to vary from place to place as the actual enforcement of the policies is subject to error due to the human factor (if a human doesn't want to or care about policy, then they are not gonna enforce it)... However, based on the FTC reports, the retailers fail to enforce the policy 40% of the time; so no matter how many times you get a carded, on a nation wide scale, it's still not 100% enforcement. As for asking how many minors actually ARE getting through that 40% failure and buying games themselves, that's a different matter, but i'm certain the number is not zero... So saying minors are buying games on their own is technically true; however if you actually look into how many minors that is it really does become a non-issue... espeically when you compare it to the number of minors getting their hands on violent games GIVEN to them by their PARENTS
Well it wouldn't be hypocrisy, it doesn't fit the definition... a case like that would either be a case of shear ignorance (not doing proper research and getting swept up by sensationalistic news and gossip), or agenda pushing, Lying propaganda (outright refusing to do research and/or willingly ignoring any research that contradicts what you want to say in order to sensationalize an issue... usually for vote-pandering)...
So far, unless i hear something really condemning coming from her about video games, i'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and say she's the "honestly concerned but ignorant" type; someone is well meaning, but has probably been listening to too much sensationalistic news to really know any better... to be ignorant is not a good thing, but does put them in a higher place than the agenda-pushing types
Y'know what really might be a hypocrisy though... considering her son's choice in subject matter for his boardgame, i would not at all be surprised if he liked to play violent games back when he was 16 or younger... now there's something that might be interesting to look into =p
I think that's one anti-gaming politician out of the way. She can't very well stab her own son in the back, at least not after supporting him already. So I figure we owe this guy for helping us out.
yeh she is so hypocritical. id lopve to point that out if she ever tries to legislate again
Saying that sales of violent games should be regulated to prevent them falling into children's hands is very, very, very different from saying violent games shouldn't exist.
Gordon Bennett, you people do test a man's patience.
What tests a man's patience is the fact that everything this man has done and been applauded for has been considered a sign of corruption in the Video Game Industry, not talent.
What tests a man's patience is this constant assumption that just because it's a video game, it deserves to be treated differently to this board game.
The true hypocrisy is the fact that there are people who cannot see anything wrong with this.
Good god sir.
What country are you in?
-P
The point idiot gamers fail to get is that regulation doesn't mean censorship. Why is it so hard to want games for adults to only be sold and marketed to adults.
M is meant for mature audiences, but that doesn't really mean "adults only." How many kids watch South Park on TV (It has an MA rating)? How many kids go to an R-rated movie? Those are meant for "mature" audiences.
The difference is these game makers say, "we really only mean for adults to play these games." But they fight the AO rating. Get with the freakin' program, the AO rating is equal to NC-17 or X.
How many kids do you see in an NC-17 movie? NONE. They aren't allowed. While a good parent might let their 13 year old watch an R rated film, few GOOD parents would let the same 13 year old watch an X rated film. There is a huge difference.
Also note... the game made by the Governor's son was a BOARD GAME too. There is a difference in the level of violence between a board game and a video game.
5/10
Try again, troll. You'll have to do better than that to piss people off. Go back to /v/.
No one is fighting the AO rating. I am sure that Rockstar would have left the AO rating on Manhunt 2 if Sony and Nintendo would allow those games on their consoles. They probably would have had no problem.
The problem is that cosole manufacturers try so hard to have some symblance of "family-friendly" that they completely disregard anything that is AO.
But how often do you hear politicians screaming for legislation on movies or tv? Never. Noone cares that little 10 year old Timmy can get into Saw IV or American Pie 30. But they seem to be outraged that little Timmy can play Halo or Mass Effect.
When was the last time you saw and NC-17 movie in the theatres? I thought as much. They are extremely rare and only shown in the seedy theatres if at all. They are never successes.
When was the last time you heard an outrage that a movie studio edited their NC-17 movie to get an R rating? Never. No one cares. But they do scream and holler when an AO game gets edited to get an M rating.
So how is his mom supposed to feel when she finds out that little 10 year old Timmy was able to buy the game with no problems? There are no restrictions on any entertainment media, besides what is considered obscene under state law. Anything else is free reign for any content developer.
The makers of video games are trying to establish that video games are not just for kids. But with "industry insiders" such as your self, that effort is being slowed down.
GTA, Manhunt, Halo, Bioshock etc, these games are meant for the adult audiences. It is not the fault of the developer that the console ompanies won't liscense the games without the content being water down enough to get an M rating. i am sure that these companies would love to make the games AO if they could.
Finally:
Your right. It doesn't. Not yet anyway. This is a very slippery slope. It can quickly become censorship if left unchecked. But the best way to fight it is to let the industry police itself. We are doing a fabulous job compared to the Movie industry.
Don't believe me? Check with the FTC.
In their sting operations, only 42% of kids aged 10-16 were able to buy an M rated game. But of that same age group, 71% of those kids were able to buy R rated and unrated(often the equivelent of NC-17) movies. Yet no one is throwing a fit about that.
Why is that?
It's amazing how you managed to challenge every single opinion on the site without, obviously, reading a single one of them.
As you have failed to recognise the tone of my point, assuming you read a single one of my replies, here is the response from the gaming community in general:
'We fully accept this man's creativeness and talent in creating this comedy/satirical board game, he uses credit card checks for age, just like video games, he uses the concept of what is traditionally considered a family media to project a message that is aimed at adults, same as Video Games. We fully endorse and support his liberty to create that game without government interference and the additional damage that would do to the creative freedom of this artist. Those are his rights within the Constitution, his God Given Rights. Now, where the fuck are ours?'
GameIndustryInsider, my arse.
My whole problem with this issue isn't that I'm against games. The publisers, the developers, the retailers and the game console makers are fighting the AO rating. WHY? Because it will hurt sales. I know this, I've studied economics.
The Constitution for the record is not "God Given Rights." Men wrote the Constitution and the issue of free speech is not at question.
I'd also say the success or such of NC-17 movies is not at question. But I do see a problem when retail allows "Unrated" versions of movies to be sold. This essentially goes around the rating system. That is a problem, and another that needs to be addressed.
The point, at least as I see it, is that parents are responsible for what their children watch and see. No argument there. But the ratings should help them make that decision. How do the ratings work when Halo is violent with blood, but Manhunt 2 is in a league all its own. This is where the AO rating should be used.
But what did Rockstar do, they edited it. The ESRB should have stood the ground and said, "unless you start from scratch you're getting an AO." AO could work, AO should work.
I am really a game industry insider. I've been to every E3, I review games. But I also feel this industry is shooting itself in the foot time and time again. Rather than bend to address problems the industry will rally around stupid causes, in the false cry of censorship. And in doing so is going to bleed to death.
If the industry accepted an AO rating, then the politicos wouldn't be able to say, "this trash is being sold to kids." Instead the industry could say, "we truly believe game X is for adults. It was rated accordingly."
Mature? What does mature mean? See a frat house on a Friday night