Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Bad Movies => Topic started by: Mr_Vindictive on July 14, 2005, 05:58:46 PM



Title: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on July 14, 2005, 05:58:46 PM
Ok.  

I'm not sure if everyone knows who Jack Thompson is so I'll start with that.  The man is a trial attorney in Miami and has taken it upon himself to try and ban any and all games that he deems unacceptable.  He has tried to do so with the various Grand Theft Auto games and now with 25 To Life.  Today I read that he has joined in a campaign with Hillary Clinton to ban, or atleast give an AO (adult only) rating to GTA: San Andreas.

I'm an avid gamer, and I honestly do not believe that violence in video games make people do violent acts.  This guy is completely bats**t crazy.  When countered on his points in most interviews, he turns into a red faced raving ape.  

Now, I'm a democrat, but that has nothing to do with my hatred of Thompson.  My hatred of Hillary is at the same level right now.

Thompson posted an open letter to the ESRB today, which is the video games rating group.  He blasted them for violence in games and so forth.  At the top of the letter was his personal address, so I threw an email immediatly.  I'll admit it was a bit harsh.  Here is what correspondence we have had since then:

From: "George C."
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:53 PM
Subject: (no subject)


Mr. Thompson,

You are an arrogant prick.

Just thought you'd like to know.


Sincerely,

George Cook


His response:

Jack Thompson wrote:

Nice toilet mouth on a gamer.  Kind of makes my point.  


I then decided to actually try to talk sense to the guy:

----- Original Message -----
From: George C.
To: Jack Thompson
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: (no subject)

Do you honestly believe that games make people violent, or is this just a ploy to get more of your own religious and moral ideals out there?

Video games do not make people violent.  If you want to find the real cause of violence in children, you should look at the family life.  I agree that children should not have access to violent video games such as Grand Theft Auto.  That is exactly why the ESRB is there.  If a game is rated M, then it can not be sold to anyone under the age of 17.  If children are getting their hands on these games then you should go after the retailers that are selling these games to minors just to make money.

Just because you believe that violence in video games is wrong, doesn't mean that everyone has to believe it.  Taking up the position that video games make children violent is an absurd and fear mongering way to push your agenda.

Take  Brooks Brown  (http://d-fens.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=5179966&publicUserId=5629740) for example.  The guy was at Columbine the day of the shootings and knew the shooters quite well.  He has quite a bit of balanced insight into violence in video games that you should take into consideration.

I will admit though that my earlier email was a knee jerk reaction, but I still hold to the opinion.

George Cook



His final response was:

You have too much free time on your hands.  Of course what you fill your head with affects you.  Honestly, where do you people come from?





I'm seeing this as a win for me.  The guy didn't respond to anything I said in the previous email, just spouted the same crap he's been spouting.  

"Of course what you fill your head with affects you."

I'm raging right now.  I'm not mad at what he said, I'm mad that someone who is so narrowsighted and stupid is actually on TV as an "EXPERT" in this matter!  I can't believe it!  This kind of blind ignorance makes me sick.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Dolph Lundgren on July 14, 2005, 06:42:46 PM
I'm surprised the guy actually wrote back in the first place ... although what he said could barely be considered a response.  

Didn't congress try to pull this same crap a long time ago with the "controversial" video game Night Trap?  I know things have gotten a lot more risque since then, but I really don't think much of anything is going to come of this.  They'll find something else to get their panties in a bunch about and move along.  

The thing is, I think people are more up in arms about GTA because supposedly some hackers released an add-on to the game or something that allows the main character to have "graphic" sex with female characters.  I haven't seen the footage of this, but I was watching the news tonight and the guy said that it was "so graphic we can't even show you pictures."  Whatever.  No need to "ban" the games, just have these jackasses at Gamestop stop selling to people under the legal age.


Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Dolph Lundgren on July 14, 2005, 06:45:49 PM
By the way, good arguments, Skaboi.


Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on July 14, 2005, 06:56:00 PM
Yeah, Night Trap was the game to start the ESRB if I'm not mistaken.

As for the "hot coffee" mod, it is exactly what you said - an add on or "mod".  Apparently, the creators say they unlocked the sex act in the game, and Rockstar says the mod creators added it in and that it was never there before.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: ulthar on July 14, 2005, 07:33:45 PM
Skaboi wrote:

>  I'm not mad at what he said, I'm mad
> that someone who is so narrowsighted and stupid is actually on
> TV as an "EXPERT" in this matter!  I can't believe it!  This
> kind of blind ignorance makes me sick.
>

Most of the so-called 'experts' on tv, especially news programs, are full of garbage.  I've been in the consulting game a few years now, and I've been approached by tv shows.  I also know a true expert who was asked by ABC News to give comments when the jet exploded just off the US coast a few years back. When he declined to comment, they misquoted some info and attributed it to him!!

The thing is, they (the newsies) want this info for free, and they seem to care more about entertaining than real information.  Real experts, or even some shlub like me who is trying to make a living off my education, don't particularly want to give away what we usually sell in responsible contractural arrangements.  Eh-hem.  Anyway, especially on matters like building bombs from ordinary household chemicals (one of the five or so phone calls I got from the producers of CSI-Miami dealt with this), I'm careful who I talk to and what I say, and CSI-M wanted me to outline this stuff sight unseen over the phone.  Truly Nuts.

Sooo, they get what they pay for.  They pay nothing, they get very low expertise.  Please consider this when you see all those 'experts' commenting on war strategy (not making a political comment here, just no the military strategy aspect of executing the war), or a space craft accident, etc. (caveat: some of their experts may be paid; I'm sure some are).

In the case of this guy, he probably has learned how to be the squeaky wheel.  The fact that he is aligned with Hillary on such an issue tells me all I need to know (I trust her about as far as I can throw a house using only my pinky finger - liberal or conservative, you gotta admit, she is the consummate politician).

I don't know if games, movies, music and tv "cause" people to commit violent acts or not; I highly doubt it, but there is SOME evidence that there is an influence (and influence is far from cause).  I think the crux of the whole argument is where does one believe responsibility lies.  IMO, the only person responsible for committing a crime is that person, no matter what.  As soon as we get back to that, I think we will all be much better.

(I'll add parenthetically, though, that I believe there are entire industries in place to support the 'x made him do it' camp; psychiatrists, lawyers, drug companies, not to mention PACs and other lobbyists...)



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Susan on July 14, 2005, 08:24:41 PM
post his email address on a gamers message board ;-)



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on July 14, 2005, 08:56:18 PM
Ulthar,

Well said.  

I'm quite surprised that he is aligned with Clinton actually.  Thompson is a staunch republican, a crazed one even, so I'm quite surprised that he has any dealings with her.  

But then again, I'm beginning to see less difference between Conservatives and Liberals.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on July 14, 2005, 08:57:06 PM
Well, here is the latest email:

I've debated all the usual suspects on national tv, junior.  I do just fine.  doug lowenstein is afraid of me, and he should be.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: George Cook
    To: Jack Thompson
    Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:06 PM
    Subject: Re: (no subject)

    I must say that I'm surprised by your response.  No counters to any of the valid points that I made, just:

    "Of course what you fill your head with affects you."

    What exactly makes you an expert in the way that video game violence affects the player?  If I'm not mistaken, you are only a trial lawyer.  If that is the case, then I feel that I have just as much of a right to a highly publicized opinion as you have.  You should honestly have no say in the issue.  You are no psychologist, just someone who wishes to impose their morals/beliefs on others.

    I would absolutely love to see you in a debate with a gamer and a psychologist that has studied people and violent games.  I do believe that it wouldn't be a good experience for you.

    It is sad that you have shot to slight fame just by preying on the fear and ignorance of the masses.  It's also sad that you won't even attempt to counter valid points.

    George Cook



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: BeyondTheGrave on July 14, 2005, 09:54:00 PM
Good old Jack Thompson hated by gamers everywhere. I read a article about his in a game magazine about his video games views and well they are pretty weak. I never really saw a good point made by him. He was shot down a couple times already by the Supreme Court to ban violent games. Granted I am a avid gamer but I am not narrow minded. Games are becoming more violent . To blame the company  and banning them is dumb. Its up to parents to know what their kids are buying and up to video games stores not to sell to the wrong age and ID (just like R movies or beer to minors).

This might be off topic alittle but here something that I always found interseting: I was watching montel and a parent was talking about how her daugther was killed. Two  boys did it. Apparently she was killed because they heard in a Slayer song to sacifice a blonde hair blue eyed virgin and they would get into hell. Something along those lines (Don't listen to much Slayer). Montel went on and on about how musics bad etc.

I don't want to make light of the poor mother situation but I felt it was a excuse. The two boys I felt were going to kill anybody anyway but decised to use the song as a scapegoat. Just like kids who blame video games.

Other thing this is also a very small number of people who blame games or music for that matter for their behavior.

Well thats my 2 cents.

_____________________________
"We Greeks created democracy! You also created homos!"-Ghost World



Post Edited (07-14-05 23:13)


Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: BeyondTheGrave on July 14, 2005, 10:26:54 PM
This was the statment Jack Thompson wrote to Skaboi:

You have too much free time on your hands. Of course what you fill your head with affects you. Honestly, where do you people come from?"

The "what fills your head" is BS. I am a big Guns N Roses fan. I don't have want to get drunk off "Night Train"(well I do want to taste it) or take "Mr. Brownstone" (Heroine) or kill my ex girl like in "Used to love her". I don't want to kill cops like in GTA. The only thing that effects me is the clothes I wear that reflects that I like rock and roll and wear biker jacket and G N R  t- shirt.

With that I think I do have much to much free time and I do have strange craving for brains.......

_____________________________
"We Greeks created democracy! You also created homos!"-Ghost World


Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Deej on July 15, 2005, 01:53:48 AM
Everyone on this board who knows me, knows that I'm a police officer. I'm not offended by the "cop killing" in GTA, in fact, when I have to kill time during the game, I like to find some high ground and do a little sniping.

 It's just like the fuss raised over the THE SHIELD a few years back. There were FOP and PBA guys all over the news talking about how offensive the show was to police officers, yet all the guys I know regularly watch that program.

The current gripe in OKC is the pot-flavored suckers. There are "WARN YOUR CHILDREN!!" type news reports on local tv, state legislators are frothing at the mouth...over a lollipop!! Is there a such thing as a gateway-candy? Seems to me, people just need something to be outraged about, something to confirm their moral superiority....I swear, when I save some cash...I'm buying an island....you're all invited...just no b***hING!!



Post Edited (07-15-05 01:54)


Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Jim H on July 15, 2005, 04:24:56 AM
"up to video games stores not to sell to the wrong age and ID (just like R movies or beer to minors)."

One thing I feel is worth mentioning: there is no legal obstacle to selling mature or adult rated games to minors.  A lot of people think there is, but nope, there isn't.


Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Fluffy CatFood on July 15, 2005, 06:19:17 AM
Good Job Skaboi. That prick needs to be put in his place.
                          Being that I'm a big gamer myself and am studying videogame development at university, I really hate this guy.
Games are what I want to do for a living, and this guy  wants to take that away because he doesnt approve. Where does he get off trying to force his way on everybody else? The guys just looking for a scape goat to try and blame societies ills on.

Anyway he's a friggen Lawyer, he profits from human misery.


Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: dean on July 15, 2005, 06:51:25 AM

'Too much free time on your hands?'

What is that supposed to mean? That spending time to debate an issue that he obviously has spent alot of time on is a waste of time??

'Of course what you fill your head with affects you'  

Poppycock!  I think it all comes down to personalities: those people whose minds cannot distinguish properly between right and wrong, or those who are too easily influenced by quite obviously morally wrong texts are the ones to worry about.

How many people do you know who play violent video games act that way normally?

That being said, there are some valid points to be had towards the influence of games over the mind: A while ago I was at a friends place and we were playing Need For Speed Underground, and afterwards on the drive home, I sped quite alot [or at least more than usual] until I realised: 'hang on a second, you were going really fast just then...'

Has anyone heard of the game "Postal 2"?

In it, [I think, I have only read about it] you can be as violent, or non-violent as you want to be.  You can play fetch with people's heads and other quite violent acts, or go around signing petitions.

I think there's one part where you can go to a anti-violent gaming place and shoot the hell out of all the people there.  

It sounds like the kind of game Mr Thompson would absolutely love...



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on July 15, 2005, 07:07:36 AM
Dean,

Good point about Postal 2.  I own a copy for my PC  and you hit the nail on the head.  

Each day (level), you are given certain chores by your wife.  You can either complete them non-violently or you can go crazy and do anything you want.  The game is full of racial slurs and violence but it's all up to you what you make of it.

The part you are referring about Dean, is where the player goes to pick up the check from his workplace which is Running With Scissors Games who developed the game.  As soon as you get your check, anti-game-violence protestors break in and start shooting the place up.  Pretty funny.

As for the game itself, it doesn't offer much more than novelty.  Although, throwing gasoline on a marching band and lighting the match is entertaining once.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: trekgeezer on July 15, 2005, 07:49:33 AM
This kind of crap goes all the way back to the 50's when pinhead psychiatrist Fredric Wertham wrote a book called 'Seduction of the Innocent' about the evil influence of comic books. This got the Senate involved, which lead to the industry setting up the Comics Code Authority.

In the 60's the started jumping on television about being too violent. Hell, they  took Marshall Dillons gunfight off the beginning of Gunsmoke. I was an impressionable teen then, so I guess they saved me from a duel in the streets.

In the 80's they started up with pornography turning people into sex offenders. Why? Because sex offenders were likely to have a lot of porno laying around their home. Duh?!

The only people that are likely to be incited to act on something they see in entertainment  (video games, movies, or TV) are people who have no grounding in reality to begin with. This is another attempt at relieving parents of their responsibility and handing it over to the government.

Cable TV is next on the agenda for censorship. There are groups now  putting pressure on Congress to give the FCC authority over cable content like they have with broadcast TV.

On a lighter note, you should read this little article (http://www.onceuponadime.com/hist/comicscode.htm) about the Comics Code which includes the Code itself, some parts of which are downright hilarious..


Skaboi, keep up the good fight.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: odinn7 on July 15, 2005, 08:30:39 AM
I recall when Judas Priest was being hung out because of 2 mental midgets attempting suicide because of "Stained Class". I had that album and never thought it was one of Priests better attempts but I did listen to it many times over...guess what? I'm still here. Never tried to off myself on purpose.
I listen to metal (SLAYER(!!!!!!!) and Overkill are my favorites BTW) and haven't killed anyone...yet.
I used to play Dungeons & Dragons and Top Secret as a kid (yep, geek) and I recall that D&D was turning people into wicked and crazed killers and suicidal maniacs...or so it was said. Never killed anyone...yet.
I watched Bugs Bunny, Road Runner (pretty violent cartoons), horror movies, violent movies...I could go on but the point is that although these have all in some way influenced who I am now, they haven't had a negative effect and they haven't turned me into a sociopath. Could I kill someone intentionally? Sure I could. If I ever felt that my family was in danger, I wouldn't hesitate to pop someone. Does this mean that all the things listed above have caused me to be like this? Does this mean that I'm going to run around and commit random violent acts? Let's be serious. I have no doubt that games, movies, tv have a negative influence on a very, very small percentage of the population but these people are off balance anyway and any reason would be enough for them.
People that want to ban things because they may have a negative impact on the weak minded are ridiculous. Do me a favor, don't try to save me from myself and don't determine that I am too weak minded to view or listen to things. I can make that decision and until my daughter is old enough, my wife and I can make that decision for her. We don't need some outsider deciding this for our own good.
Keep it up Skaboi, the guy is obviously an ass.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Zapranoth on July 15, 2005, 08:32:41 AM
Skaboi, keep up the good fight...

... but remember that you're arguing with a fanatic.  I looked at this site (nokillzone or whatever it is) and he's definitely not someone who can be told anything, by what I can tell.  Would 10,000 emails from different people convince him that his totally bats**t stand against this "issue" is just that?  

Your argument would be useful if it occurred in a larger sense (a place where people not certain about the issue could follow it), but as it is I know you are mainly here for moral support (ha!) which you know we'll give.

I'm not trying to put you down.  Your argument is very good.  But this guy seems a like foaming carpet-chewer.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on July 15, 2005, 08:34:27 AM
I'm happy to see the support on this board.  I sort of had the feeling that it might misconstrued as political.

Here's the latest:




wow, you must be the Goebbels of the video game industry in your town

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: George C.
    To: Jack Thompson
    Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 9:21 AM
    Subject: Re: (no subject)

    You know there was another government that tried to impose their beliefs on their people and restrict what they see/do.

    They were called The Nazis.

    Just a thought.

    George Cook



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Derf on July 15, 2005, 10:13:59 AM
First of all, let me say that I agree with the points you are making, Skaboi. Like Odinn7, I played the violent and deadly games and watched the horribly violent cartoons and such (sorry, though--I never was into metal music much), but I have no socially violent tendencies whatsoever. As has been said, I believe that these "negative influences" affect only a tiny minority of already weak-minded individuals. I abhor censorship of any kind (although I would like to tell some people to shut up and go away forever), be it over comic books, books, TV, movies, video games, etc. I believe to an extent in the free market system (i.e.--if there is no market for something, it will go away), so that if there were no market for violent video games or whatever, there would be no violent video games on the market. I also believe (is this turning into a creed yet?) that you cannot legislate morality on anything other than very basic levels (e.g. murder, kidnapping, rape, etc.), and that censorship of TV and video games and such does NOT fall under that "very basic" category. Truth be told, I'm very nearly an anarchist, except that I know that anarchy doesn't work when more than three people are involved.

That said, and please don't take this as a defense of Jack Thompson or of Hillary C., please remember that most of the people who support regulations on ultra-violent video games or music or TV are simply regular people trying to make things better for their children, or trying to assure that their children won't be the unfortunate victim of some weak-minded fool who does fall prey to these "evil influences." Lawyers and politicians may take an issue like this and try to elevate themselves in the eyes of others by going on a crusade (as seems to be the case with Thompson and certainly with Hillary C.), but don't assume that everyone who favors restrictions is trying to "impose his views on everyone else." That may be the effect, but more often, as I said, it is just someone who is trying to better the world for his kids. These "crusades" rarely work beyond something like the voluntary rating systems now in place (thankfully), and this one is almost certainly doomed.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on July 15, 2005, 10:36:35 AM
Derf, I understand what you are saying 100%.  

I have no problem with people who want to regulate the rating/sale of these games to children.  That is fine by me, but some of them (as in Thompson's case) take it too far.  Some do become a fanatic, as this guy has.

As I stated in an email to Thompson - he shouldn't be trying to ban the games.  Stop selling the games to minors, but don't ruin it for everyone.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Derf on July 15, 2005, 11:00:58 AM
I didn't mean to sound preachy or anything (something I do quite a lot); it's just that I see too much name calling and stereotyping and too little actual discussion going on in my classrooms (I teach English, which is, in part, persuasive writing) and in the "real world," and I tend to go overboard when I hear "fanatics" or "Nazis" or words to that effect. It's too easy to fall into the trap of labelling, thereby forgetting that most people aren't as fanatical as the leaders of a group. I'm going to stop now; I'm starting to sound like a hippie or something. . . not to label myself or anything.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: AndyC on July 15, 2005, 12:35:11 PM
I do believe everything we are exposed to affects us. I mean, how many people in Hollywood think beating us over the head with messages will steer us toward doing the "right" thing, but absolutely deny that movies could have a negative effect as well.

That said, I don't think the games are the problem here. The problem is the idiot parents who let the kids play games that are inappropriate for their ages, and don't put any limits on the game playing. I know one family that has a small son who comes home, plunks down in front of the game console and stays there for hours every day. His younger brother doesn't even care enough to play. He just sits and watches. They told me this as though it were just an interesting bit of behaviour. This is what their kids like to do, and it keeps them quiet and out of the way, so what the hell?

I think it's apalling. Of course, these are also parents who take a lot of backtalk (and think it's funny and cute), let their kids tell them what to do, never stand firm on anything, and never seem to follow through on threats of punishment for bad behaviour. As far as I can tell, they don't even make the family eat dinner together.

That is the problem.

Yes, I get disturbed when I see a lack of great games like we used to have, many of which required skill but weren't particularly violent. It bothers me when I hear small kids talking about really violent games, and how they don't like games that aren't violent. But it is the fault of lazy parents. And even good parents have to be concerned that their kids have friends with lazy parents.

I do think games have a bad influence on many kids, but it is only one more thing added to a lot of other things that are messing them up. It is up to parents to keep inappropriate games out of their hands, and give them a proper grounding in right and wrong, real and fantasy. If they're raised right to begin with, stuff like this won't hurt them.

The marketers of the games are also to blame, to some degree. The games might have mature ratings on them, but I see them advertised in prime time, when kids are watching.



Post Edited (07-15-05 16:19)


Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Fearless Freep on July 15, 2005, 05:05:35 PM
I think Madison Ave makes a living...and a very good one, under the assumption that we are affected by what we watch....



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: 2xSlick on July 16, 2005, 11:32:16 AM
Skaboi, the man doesn't even read the emails you send him. Check this out:

From: jddunn
Date: 07/15/05 12:10:51
To: jackpeace@comcast.net
Subject: Researching available evidence
 
 
Mr. Thompson,
     I am doing a statistics project this summer and I would like to report on the evidence available confirming that violent programing (in movies, music, and especially video games) can lead to violent behavior. I am trying to find reported studies linking learned behavior with violent video games. Could you please reply to this email with a list of studies and where I can obtain the complete reports? The little information I have been able to find only gives brief outlines of the studies and haven't been very helpful.
 
Thank you,
Jeremiah Dunn

*note, my email isn't bogus, I am doing a statistics based project*
*His response*

From: Jack Thompson
Date: 07/16/05 07:40:34
To: jddunn
Subject: Re: Researching available evidence
 

If I be retarded, then ye gamers hath to worry, Ahh, but methinks you
all doth protest too much.  You doth worry that I am right, and if right,
then travail shalt ensue for all those who worship the pixelated beast.  To
mod or not to mod.  That is the question. For it is a far, far better thing
you do when you doth put down the controllers and get lives.  But parting is
such sweet sorrow.   Jack Shakespeare Thompson

PS:  Buy a book and dare to read it.  Such dost grow back even the
groundlings' frontal lobes.  I come not to bury Doug Lowenstein but to
praise him!

That response makes absoluetely no sense. I believe he has a software filter for his email address and only those that have the phrases "I am a parent" or "class-action lawsuit" are actually read by him. The rest get a canned  autoreply of "nani-nani-boo-boo-stick-your-head-in-doo-doo."



Post Edited (07-16-05 11:34)


Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: dean on July 16, 2005, 10:53:03 PM

>>>>The rest get a canned autoreply of "nani-nani-boo-boo-stick-your-head-in-doo-doo."


This is by far a better argument than some of the earlier replies to Skaboi.  Much more entertaining.

Why am I not surprised...



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: daveblackeye15 on July 17, 2005, 12:29:33 AM
Way to go Skaboi. I play a lot of video games too and I am honestly the last guy that wants to get in a fight (unless somebody has offened or injuried one of my friends then it's "enemy" time)

I'd add more but I'm a little tired from a long air plane flight so I'm going to sleep.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Neville on July 17, 2005, 08:20:44 AM
Funny. I play every single violent game I can afford, and yet, instead of becoming a maniachal serial killer, I have trouble to express my anger. Somehow I must be using that stuff the wrong way...

And a pity those responses are automatic, I was just about asking Skaboi to thank Jack Thmpson, because if it wasn't for him I wouldn't even know the Hot Coffee mod existed.

Needless to say, I think the whole real violence - VG violence realtion is bulls**t. Reminds me of an old John Carpenter interview in which he mentions that back in his youth it was believed that european movies, with their anti-heroes and pessimistic endings were ruining the children. Guess that every generation those people need to find a different dragon to fight.

Whenever somebody tells me about criminals playing violent games or similar things (and often this is plain false), I use to remind them that 100% of criminals breath air, and yet somebody has to ban it.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Susan on July 18, 2005, 10:31:05 PM
i hate it when people assume that if you play video games or watch movies you don't read books and are uneducated. Also don't play video games and get a life? It's a recreation, the same as watching movies, READING or even playing golf. maybe you should tell him to put down his golf club and get a life.

On Book Burning:
>>Book burning is the practice of ceremoniously destroying by fire one or more copies of a  book or other written material. In modern times other forms of media, such as  (Click link for more info and facts about gramophone record) gramophone records,  CDs and  video tapes, have also been ceremoniously burned or shredded. The practice, often carried out publicly, is usually motivated by  moral,  political or  religious objections to the material.<<<

Now the idea of destroying or preventing the public from access to these items is a form of censorship for personal motives. You are trying to impose your moral/ethical beliefs on others who may not share them. When you take the choice away from someone, you take away their liberty. Something our constitution mentions.....



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Neville on July 19, 2005, 12:59:31 AM
Susan wrote: "i hate it when people assume that if you play video games or watch movies you don't read books and are uneducated. Also don't play video games and get a life? It's a recreation, the same as watching movies, READING or even playing golf. maybe you should tell him to put down his golf club and get a life."

Playing VG (even the lamest VG) is actually more intelectually demanding than watching TV, so I don't really understand what people who say things like that are thinking.



Title: Update.....
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on July 21, 2005, 06:43:11 AM
I'm at work most of my day so I usually check the tech blogs quite often - Gizmodo, Kotaku, Joystiq, Engadget - etc.  Last night, while home, I didn't check any of the feeds so I was quite surprised when I came into work this morning.

It seems that Jack has won.  The ESRB slapped Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas with an AO (Adults Only) rating yesterday.  Apparently GameStop, EB Games, WalMart and such were pulling the titles off the shelves until a new version would be released.

This time the controversy wasn't about violence, it was about sexual content.  In the PC and PS2 (and I'm sure XBOX) versions, you can unlock a sex act in the game.  The mini-game isn't very graphic at all, and is no worse than what you would see in a Rated R film.

The scene has to be unlocked with some type of mod.  In the PC version, you have to download a small file that will unlock it for you.  In the PS2 version, you need Action Replay in order to unlock it.

I am sickened by this decision.  The game should not be rated AO in any way.  The games original rating of M was just fine.  Here's the explanation of a rated M game:

MATURE
Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content, and/or strong language.


Here's AO:

ADULTS ONLY
Titles rated AO (Adults Only) have content that should only be played by persons 18 years and older. Titles in this category may include prolonged scenes of intense violence and/or graphic sexual content and nudity.



As I mentioned, from what I've seen of the sex "mini-game", there is no nudity.  I can't honestly believe that the ESRB has changed their rating.  Is this a sign of things to come?



Title: Re: Update.....
Post by: AndyC on July 21, 2005, 11:17:44 AM
Looking at the two definitions, there doesn't seem to be that much difference, except for a year, and the mature rating's rather vague wording (which kind of renders it pointless). Maybe there is some implied difference that one is loaded with sex, violence and coarse language, while the other just has a lot of it.

I don't really have a problem with that decision. It should be restricted to adults. As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as something that 'might' only be suitable for adults. If it's too strong to say it's all right for kids under 17, then it's only suitable for adults, and only adults should have it. No grey area. I wouldn't support banning it outright, but I completely agree with setting limits on who can purchase it. Not that it would actually prevent kids from getting their hands on it, of course.

I don't understand the thinking that anything other than wide-open access is some kind of an attack on people's rights. There is a difference between censorship and deciding whether something is appropriate for sale to minors.



Title: Re: Update.....
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on July 21, 2005, 11:58:59 AM
AndyC,

Understood.  But, it seems the attack is aimed directly at this game.  There are numeorous other games out there with even worse material, the new Lesuire Suit Larry for example, that have much more graphic content but are rated M.  

Hell, even The Guy Game has full video of women taking of their tops and such.  Think of an interactive Girls Gone Wild video and you would have the right idea.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: odinn7 on July 21, 2005, 12:47:35 PM
"Hell, even The Guy Game has full video of women taking of their tops and such. Think of an interactive Girls Gone Wild video and you would have the right idea."

Sign me up.



Title: Re: Update.....
Post by: AndyC on July 21, 2005, 12:51:54 PM
Well, I suppose it's easier to get action on one game than on a bunch, and they have to decide where the effort is best spent. In this case, I think it's a game with violence as well as sex (even if it did wind up being about sex, the violence is probably still the issue), a game that is widely promoted, very popular and more likely to be widely played by kids.

I can't imagine people like Jack Thompson liking Leisure Suit Larry, but I can see why it wouldn't be a priority.

And even doing this to one game can bring change throughout the industry. What manufacturer would want to risk having their own game pulled off store shelves from coast to coast? I'm sure somebody put a lot of thought into this.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on July 21, 2005, 12:54:25 PM
Well, the ESRB has kind of screwed itself over with the ruling.  AO is hardly ever used when rating a game, and companies shy away from creating games that would get such a rating.

But now, when one of the biggest game series of all time gets an AO rating, I wouldn't be surprised to see other companies following through with more extreme content.  I believe that AO might become a major rating in the next few years.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: AndyC on July 21, 2005, 03:54:19 PM
If movies have been any indication, I would expect more game manufacturers to tone their content down, in order to be accessible to the largest possible audience. You don't see that many NC-17 movies around and I have a feeling AO is not going to be any different. This is probably only going to make game manufacturers a little more conscious of where the line is drawn. Of course, if it works like movies, they will continue to try and push that line a little further with every opportunity.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Jim H on July 22, 2005, 01:21:24 AM
They already do tone down their content.  Mature games are relatively uncommon for the same reason many movies get cut cut down to PG-13 (think the Chronicles of Riddick, or many of the PG-13 horror movies of late, like Cursed) - they can reach a much wider audience.  

The difference in what you can show between PG-13 and R can be blurred by some choice editing and cropping (having a dozen people get stabbed to death is ok, as long as you crop out most of the actual penetration and there isn't much blood).  It's a stupid trend, as you get movies which feel like R and probably shouldn't be viewed by younger kids, but feel watered down to more mature people.  A compromise which leaves everyone except for the producers unhappy, who make a lot more money from a wider audience.  Then they release it uncut on DVD and make extra money on people who now want to see it "uncut".  

Games do similar tactics, only it is even easier.  You can kill a billion people in games with swords and guns,  in agonizing looking ways, as long as their bodies stay whole and don't fall apart.  Blek


Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: odinn7 on July 22, 2005, 07:17:46 AM
I really enjoy Soldier Of Fortune and this is quite a wickedly bloody game. Shooting the bad guys in the head will pop it with splatter all over. A leg or arm shot with the shotgun will usually remove the limb with splatter. Throat shots have the bad guy grabbing his neck while blood comes out...I could go on. Suffice it to say, it's loaded with extreme violence. I think it's got a M rating.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: AndyC on July 22, 2005, 07:30:58 AM
Jim H wrote:
> stupid trend, as you get movies which feel like R and probably
> shouldn't be viewed by younger kids, but feel watered down to
> more mature people.

Yep, that's a fair description of many of the movies out there. I miss the days when there were movies that were suitable for families and movies for adults only. Sure, there were some in-between movies, but now the whole thing is one big grey area. Hell, even some of the movies marketed directly to kids have some questionable content, no doubt to broaden their appeal.

Doesn't help that so many parents today don't seem to excercise a whole lot of judgement in what they let their kids watch. The last thing they need is movies that are loaded with sex and violence, but all creatively kept off screen. That's assuming they're even trying.

I think that's why I've gotten a little softer on issues like this than I used to be. Seen too many kids watching things they really shouldn't have been watching, and playing games they shouldn't have been playing.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on July 22, 2005, 08:58:31 AM
Odinn,

Yep, an M rating and if I'm not mistaken it got banned as pornography in Canada.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Derf on July 22, 2005, 09:29:19 AM
I just heard a radio announcement today that many major retailers (Target, Walmart, Best Buy, etc.) were going to pull their copies of GTA:SA off the shelves in light of the now AO rating (or simply because of the controversial scenes). At any rate, that would limit the number of suppliers for the game, and, in my opinion, mean that game manufacturers would be more likely to tone down their content in order to keep their games on these retailers' shelves.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on July 22, 2005, 09:46:36 AM
Well, it has already been taken off the shelves.  WalMart.com does not carry it neither do various other online retailers such as Target, EBgames, etc.

The stores are also empty of the games.  The local Blockbuster has stopped renting it and even has a sign for the employees saying not to take it as a trade in.

Rockstar has also halted production until the content can be blocked and they will be sending out AO stickers to the retailers.

As of this morning, M rated copies of the game are running close to 100.00 on Ebay.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: ulthar on July 22, 2005, 09:49:09 AM
Derf wrote:

> I just heard a radio announcement today that many major
> retailers (Target, Walmart, Best Buy, etc.) were going to pull
> their copies of GTA:SA off the shelves in light of the now AO
> rating (or simply because of the controversial scenes). At any
> rate, that would limit the number of suppliers for the game,
> and, in my opinion, mean that game manufacturers would be more
> likely to tone down their content in order to keep their games
> on these retailers' shelves.
>

What surprises me is that the RATING on a game influences when these stores decide to carry something, not the actual content of the game.  It's the same game today that it was three weeks ago.  Like AndyC pointed out above, there is not a whole of practical difference between M and AO, so this whole thing seems like "symbolism over substance" to me.

If Target, Walmart, et al were intellectually honest, they would either (a) have pulled the game right after the content issue arose publicly (or even better, researched their own products before stocking them) or (b) keep it on the shelf now since if it was good enough to sell last week, it is good enough this week.

Weenies.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: ulthar on July 22, 2005, 09:55:35 AM
Skaboi wrote:

> Well, the ESRB has kind of screwed itself over with the ruling.
>  AO is hardly ever used when rating a game, and companies shy
> away from creating games that would get such a rating.
>
> But now, when one of the biggest game series of all time gets
> an AO rating, I wouldn't be surprised to see other companies
> following through with more extreme content.  I believe that AO
> might become a major rating in the next few years.
>

My prediction is that the game makers will quickly adapt to "multiple ratings."  Technologically, it should be relatively easy to produce games with different levels of violence and different levels of graphical detail.  Game code is sufficiently complex (and generally proprietary) the producers can hide all kinds of stuff in the "base product," or at least embed hooks to potential third party or aftermarket mods.  So long as the 'version' with the M (or lesser) sticker meets that criterion at time of sale, the "system is working."

With that, cracks and mods on the Internet will abound.  To paraphrase Malcolm in Jurassic Park, "fun will find a way."



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Fearless Freep on July 22, 2005, 10:01:36 AM
I think the makers of GTA:SA screwed themselves over on this one.  By hiding the extra scenes the way they did, it caused a lot of noise when people found it.  This caused the politcos to start putting pressure on the ESRB to do something.  If they had not hidden the scenes the way they did, it woudln't have been a big deal



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: odinn7 on July 22, 2005, 10:15:54 AM
"Weenies."

I like that. I think that one word sums it up rather well.



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Fearless Freep on July 22, 2005, 10:28:08 AM
Just for grins, this came up on my Korean Martial Arts mail list (the discussion had been about kids and violence and teaching Hapkido and such)

"No society that feeds its children on tales of successful violence can expect them not to believe that violence in the end is rewarded."  Margaret Mead, anthropologist (1901-1978)



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: ulthar on July 22, 2005, 11:41:43 AM
I know how to shoot guns; been around them my whole life.  But that does not mean I want to hurt innocent people with them.  Innocent deer? Well, that may be another story...  ;)

In the end, the choice is a private one.  No matter what external influences you have, you have to decide to be a scumbag or not.

That said, this issue is not really about exposing a violent game to kids; the game was already rated "M" and therefore, in theory, not accessible to those under 17.

Personally, I cannot stand this kind of game, and really wish there was no market for it.  That there is does not make it right, either, so I am not saying that.  That there is a market for it is kinda sad to me.  But, one may also argue it is a form of escapism (for adults) and is therefore not different than movies or books.

But I do see your point: if we raise kids on violent games, movies and tv shows, it does little good to try to teach them "violence is not the answer."  (Of course, I would say sometimes, SOMETIMES, violence *IS* the answer, but not as portrayed in a game that 'glorifies' crime).

Boy, did I just walk the fence, or what?



Title: Re: OT: My fight with Jack Thompson
Post by: Fearless Freep on July 22, 2005, 11:46:40 AM
He he...reminds me of a line from one of the "Trancers" movies

Prospero: Killing isn't always the answer.
Jack Deth: No, but it's usually a pretty good guess.



Title: Jack Thompson and The Sims
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on July 23, 2005, 11:28:29 AM
This guy is starting to remind me of Zell Miller....

From Gamespot:

"How do you like your hot coffee? If you're Jack Thompson, you like it scalding game publisher's laps. The Miami attorney and antigaming activist has done his share to see that games don't fall into the wrong hands. And lately, those hands have belonged to almost everyone.

Thompson was among those who spearheaded the recent effort to slap an "Adults Only" rating on Rockstar Games' Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, and he's often been on the forefront of many other gaming issues, several of which have targeted the crime-spree-based GTA franchise. In the past, he's represented defendants who have been the victims of GTA-inspired crimes, including the triple homicide of three police officers by an 18-year-old boy in Alabama.

His beef with San Andreas? Unused code in the game that depicts sexual acts. These minigames can be unlocked by using game-cheat devices or patches available on the Internet.

Thompson is on a roll...and he's not done yet. His latest goat is a game that doesn't involve guns, carjacking, or prostitutes: He's going after Electronic Arts' The Sims 2.

In a manifesto sent today to press outlets, Thompson focuses on dismantling the Entertainment Software Ratings Board and exposing what he calls the industry's "latest dirty little secret." The secret's out now, and it involves nude sims.

In the statement, Thompson says, "Sims 2, the latest version of the Sims video game franchise ... contains, according to video game news sites, full frontal nudity, including nipples, penises, labia, and pubic hair."

The Sims 2 is a "life simulator." In the game, players steer their digital beings around their cyberlives. Actions include everything from the spectacular (getting married, having children, receiving promotions at work) to the mundane (cooking microwaved meals, going to the bathroom, mopping the floor). Such activities, as in real life, sometimes require nudity. EA circumvents inappropriateness by "blurring" out the nether regions, almost to a comical sense.

Knowing that the game is popular among all ages, EA has even taken steps to ensure that Sims fans aren't exposed to indecent depictions. In the recent expansion pack, The Sims 2 University, gamers can send their teenage sims off to college. However, instead of packing the expansion with "keggers" and "reefer," EA chose to use juice and bubble blowers.

Thompson doesn't seem to care. He cites a cheat code that can remove the blur that covers the nether regions. "The nudity placed there by the publisher/maker, Electronic Arts, is accessed by the use of a simple code that removes what is called 'the blur' which obscures the genital areas. In other words, the game was released to the public by the manufacturer knowing that the full frontal nudity was resident on the game and would be accessed by use of a simple code widely provided on the Internet."

It's not just the adults that are liberated from their wardrobes. Sims kids can also be nudified, "much to the delight, one can be sure, of pedophiles around the globe who can rehearse, in virtual reality, for their abuse."

Were this to be true, Thompson would have his smoking gun, and EA would be forced to recall all copies of The Sims 2. However, it's what's under the blur that Thompson's after. And what happens when the blur is lifted? A simple mannequin-esque smooth body, according to EA.

Jeff Brown, vice president of corporate communications at EA, in response to the accusations, told GameSpot, "This is nonsense. We've reviewed 100 percent of the content. There is no content inappropriate for a teen audience. Players never see a nude sim. If someone with an extreme amount of expertise and time were to remove the pixels, they would see that the sims have no genitals. They appear like Ken and Barbie."

Thompson doesn't buy it. "The sex and the nudity are in the game. That's the point. The blur is an admission that even the 'Ken and Barbie' features should not be displayed. The blur can be disarmed. This is no different than what is in San Andreas, although worse."

[UPDATE] Thompson this afternoon updated his earlier statement, saying he is aware certain mods only remove "the blur," but adds that "Electronic Arts has done nothing about this." Thompson's new conclusion: EA is "cooperating, gleefully, with the mod community to turn Sims 2 into a porn offering."

The last time we checked, The Sims 2 was rated T for Teen by the ESRB, which means that anyone 13 years of age, with $50 to spend, can purchase the game. "



Title: Re: Jack Thompson and The Sims
Post by: Neville on July 23, 2005, 01:28:52 PM
Geee... And what if there's hidden nudity on "The Sims 2"? Is he going to blame EA for the frat parties now? The more i hear from this guy, the more I think he's on this because a) he is some kind of zealot or b) plans to earn lots of cash suing the computer entertainment industry.



Title: Re: Jack Thompson and The Sims
Post by: ulthar on July 23, 2005, 08:46:07 PM
Neville wrote:

> I think he's on this because a) he is
> some kind of zealot or b) plans to earn lots of cash suing the
> computer entertainment industry.
>

Your forgot option (c), related to (b), that was clearly stated in the article: he is a criminal defense attorney who represents defendants in violent crimes who use the 'game made me do it' defense.

It seems strange, though: if he dismantles the game industry, won't that kill his cash cow?



Title: Re: Jack Thompson and The Sims
Post by: AndyC on July 23, 2005, 08:46:25 PM
I've known quite a few crusaders. Maybe not as big as Thompson, but just as zealous. Journalists tend to attract them. Some even become them. A former boss of mine has shown up on the news more than once being hauled, kicking and screaming, out of a shareholders' meeting (that's a whole other story).

Anyway, the mistake they all make is that they get so caught up in their fight for the common good, they lose all ability to consider how they must sound to others (or they simply discount those views as unenlightened), and they go too far. They attack everything in sight, rather than carefully choosing their battles. People like this (assuming they are sane) often have some very valid things to say, but the message gets lost in petty attacks on silly targets, obsessive behaviour, outrageous ideas, and the way they talk about everything, large or small, like its the end of the world. Very quickly, people write them off as cranks, and ignore everything they say, even the things that are quite valid.

I find this very unfortunate.



Title: Re: Jack Thompson and The Sims
Post by: ulthar on July 23, 2005, 09:01:18 PM
Skaboi wrote:

>
> In the statement, Thompson says, "Sims 2, the latest version of
> the Sims video game franchise ... contains, according to video
> game news sites, full frontal nudity, including nipples,
> penises, labia, and pubic hair."
>
> EA circumvents inappropriateness by "blurring" out the nether
> regions, almost to a comical sense.
>
> Thompson doesn't seem to care. He cites a cheat code that can
> remove the blur that covers the nether regions. "The nudity
> placed there by the publisher/maker, Electronic Arts, is
> accessed by the use of a simple code that removes what is
> called 'the blur' which obscures the genital areas.
>
> And what happens when the blur is lifted? A simple mannequin-esque
> smooth body, according to EA.
>
> Jeff Brown ... told GameSpot, "This is nonsense ... There is
> no content inappropriate for a teen audience. Players never see
> a nude sim. If someone with an extreme amount of expertise and
> time were to remove the pixels, they would see that the sims
> have no genitals. They appear like Ken and Barbie."
>
> Thompson doesn't buy it. "The sex and the nudity are in the
> game ... The blur is an admission that even the
> 'Ken and Barbie' features should not be displayed. The blur can
> be disarmed.
>

Okay, so now, as I read this, it seems like he is saying the presence of the blur indicates that there must be something there to hide.  EA says there's nothing there to hide.  That should be very, very easy to prove one way or another.  If there is, in fact, nothing there, Thompson is ignoring the fact that EA MIGHT have put the blur there for the effect of having a blur there..to create the illusion that it was hiding something.

If I were a decision maker at EA and I KNEW there was nothing to hide under that blur, I'd go after this guy with both legal barrels.  I'd have his butt before a judge tomorrow am seeking an injuction to "Cease and Desist" all unprovable allegations that slander my company without cause.  If the allegations are false, the only way to fight it is like fighting any other bully...take your lumps, but get in there and hurt him, too.


> Sims kids can also be nudified, "much to the
> delight, one can be sure, of pedophiles around the globe who
> can rehearse, in virtual reality, for their abuse."

Typical play on fear, there.  Again, if there is nothing there being hidden, the best bet is to crush him legally before he gets any more momentum.

I keep saying "if there is nothing there." I don't know if there is or isn't, but the game makers do.  Given his tone, and the willingness to deceive (saying blur == nudity as if that is logical), my vote for credibility on this point lies with EA.  How they act over the next fews days may likely tell more of the story, of course; we should look for signs that they have something to hide.

Anyone played Sims 2 and tried the mod?  If so, what did you see?



Title: Re: Jack Thompson and The Sims
Post by: Mr_Vindictive on July 24, 2005, 10:52:16 AM
Ulthar,

Thompson is jumping to conclusions without ever researching any of the situation.  

In the Sims 2, if you take off the blur, then the characters look like Ken and Barbie dolls.  Just flat surfaces with nubs where the anatomical parts should be.

But, there are also other mods out there, created completely by a third party, that put in the anatomical parts.  It has absolutely nothing to do with EA being as the mod is a skin.

A company should not be forced to change a game because of 3rd party mods.  It's insane to try to take down The Sims, which is one of the biggest franchises ever just because someone makes a nude mod for the characters.  EA is in no way at fault.