Jail Time for German Gamers?

Hoz

Jürgen Hubert wrote:

Silpheed wrote:

Freezie KO wrote:

Hey, cool. Fascism returns to Germany.

Guess the Krauts missed it. Letting people decide what to do for themselves is after all such an unfashionable thing.

Only in Bavaria, as current political affairs unrelated to this prove.

And possibly in parts of the American South, or so I've heard.

Fascism in the American South? What the fuck? Southerners maybe retarded but they're probably the most anti-government people that exist in the world.

corcorigan

No one forces even Bavarians to stay in Bavaria now. The EU fails once again.

Kartan

The amusing thing is, it doesn't apply to shooters. they termed it so broadly you could ban everything from World of Warcraft to Settlers II with it. Hell, I could even make a case to ban The Sims with it.


Thank god they aren't in the position to pass these laws, only the federal gouverment is, and they remain rather silent on the issue.

Daedalus

Alfred J. Kwak wrote:

You can't deny that there is a loosy connection between the increasing number shooting rampages in schools and violence in media.

Violent crime rates (at least in the US) have plummeted since 1994.

(for reference, Doom was released in '94, and games have been getting steadily more violent since)

So yes, we can deny that.

edit: source is US Dept. of Justice, by the way, so I think these statistics are, y'know, not bullshit.

Juergen Hubert

corcorigan wrote:

No one forces even Bavarians to stay in Bavaria now. The EU fails once again.

Well, I've moved to Northrhine-Westphalia two years ago for job-related reasons...

Librarian

Jürgen Hubert wrote:

corcorigan wrote:

No one forces even Bavarians to stay in Bavaria now. The EU fails once again.

Well, I've moved to Northrhine-Westphalia two years ago for job-related reasons...

And Northrine-Westphalia, or Nordrhein-Westfalen as the cool kids say, totally rocks.
Too bad I will probably have to move for job-related reasons soon, hopefully not to Bavaria.


But to be more on topic, yes, they should totally ban WoW, just imagine how many people you kill on your way to lvl 60.

The best statement in this whole discussion came from Christian Democrat Wolfgang Bosbach, who was asked if he knew what his kids played on their PC and then said that he discusses things like that very openly in his family and his family never felt the urge to go and buy a killing simulator.

Because that's what other families do, they decide to go and get the latest mass-murderer in training game for little Timmy.

CyberJackal

Librarian wrote:

Silpheed wrote:

Freezie KO wrote:

Hey, cool. Fascism returns to Germany.

Guess the Krauts missed it. Letting people decide what to do for themselves is after all such an unfashionable thing.

Actually I started a thread on the very same topic 1 month ago in D&D, which might have been a wise decision since none of the input over there was as retarded as the statements I quoted above...

Unless D&D has changed quite a bit since I was last there, I find that very difficult to believe.

quibblebarf

AbsoluteZero wrote:

Marlor wrote:

mcc wrote:

If we outlaw imaginary guns, only outlaws will have imaginary guns.

Imaginary outlaws.

...

Imaginary guns don't kill people, imaginary people kill imaginary people.

I think the imaginary gun helps. I think if an imaginary person stood in an imaginary crowd yelling "BANG! BANG!" I don't think too many imaginary people would die.

Nice.... nnniiiiicccceee. I love obscure references to transvestite stand-up comedians.

mrcheesypants

I think we should move the imaginary gun control debate to D&D.

Technicality

The Warlock wrote:

Alfred J. Kwak wrote:

You can't deny that there is a loosy connection between the increasing number shooting rampages in schools and violence in media.

Violent crime rates (at least in the US) have plummeted since 1994.

(for reference, Doom was released in '94, and games have been getting steadily more violent since)

So yes, we can deny that.

edit: source is US Dept. of Justice, by the way, so I think these statistics are, y'know, not bullshit.

I don't even believe that the media is getting more violent. There was simply a technology threshold beyond which violent games became successful, and their numbers jumped. Since then the proportion of violence in games has been pretty steady.

People just forget about a lot of the older violent games because a lot of them sucked. Just like a lot of them do today.

Juergen Hubert

Hoz wrote:

Jürgen Hubert wrote:

Silpheed wrote:

Freezie KO wrote:

Hey, cool. Fascism returns to Germany.

Guess the Krauts missed it. Letting people decide what to do for themselves is after all such an unfashionable thing.

Only in Bavaria, as current political affairs unrelated to this prove.

And possibly in parts of the American South, or so I've heard.

Fascism in the American South? What the fuck? Southerners maybe retarded but they're probably the most anti-government people that exist in the world.

"Anti-government" does not equal "anti-fascism". I mean, the myriad right-wing militias of the Weimar Republic era were also "anti-government", but they did love to tell people how to behave...

Echo

Bionic Monkey

TM2 Rampage wrote:

"Proposed legislation targets pixelated mayhem and virtual violence;"

How come whenever there's an article about video game violence or video game movies or something anywhere, people always have to try to sound clever and pull phrases out of their Stan Lee Thesaurus?

Welcome to journalism. They try to do that with any news story, not just ones regarding video game violence.

Bionic Monkey

Alfred J. Kwak wrote:

You can't deny that there is a loosy connection between the increasing number shooting rampages in schools and violence in media.

Also, you shouldn't take Stoiber any serious.

I'd say there's a greater connection between retarded parents and the number of shooting rampages in schools. Also, they've been decreasing. The media hysteria only makes it seem like it's increasing.

Hoz

Jürgen Hubert wrote:

"Anti-government" does not equal "anti-fascism". I mean, the myriad right-wing militias of the Weimar Republic era were also "anti-government", but they did love to tell people how to behave...

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about but you certainly don't know shit about the American South so don't compare it to something unrelated to prove a point.

Couscous

Bionic Monkey wrote:

TM2 Rampage wrote:

"Proposed legislation targets pixelated mayhem and virtual violence;"

How come whenever there's an article about video game violence or video game movies or something anywhere, people always have to try to sound clever and pull phrases out of their Stan Lee Thesaurus?

Welcome to journalism. They try to do that with any news story, not just ones regarding video game violence.

Someone needs to tell them it just makes them sound stupid.

Juergen Hubert

Technicality wrote:

I don't even believe that the media is getting more violent. There was simply a technology threshold beyond which violent games became successful, and their numbers jumped. Since then the proportion of violence in games has been pretty steady.

People just forget about a lot of the older violent games because a lot of them sucked. Just like a lot of them do today.

Though admittedly, a decent first-person perspective is relatively new - and even newer is the ability to render the blood and gore and flying organs in all their high-resolution glory.

But of course, this doesn't excuse this dumb law. I mean, I don't even like 3D shooters all that much, but this law makes me want to go and play one as a sign of protest...

Juergen Hubert

Hoz wrote:

Jürgen Hubert wrote:

"Anti-government" does not equal "anti-fascism". I mean, the myriad right-wing militias of the Weimar Republic era were also "anti-government", but they did love to tell people how to behave...

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about but you certainly don't know shit about the American South so don't compare it to something unrelated to prove a point.

Well, I wasn't the one who compared banning violent computer games to fascism...

And "not letting people decide what to do for themselves" isn't in itself fascism, either - or else the refusal of many American states (including, I believe, most of the American South) to let homosexuals marry can also be seen as "fascist".

Hoz

Jürgen Hubert wrote:

Hoz wrote:

Jürgen Hubert wrote:

"Anti-government" does not equal "anti-fascism". I mean, the myriad right-wing militias of the Weimar Republic era were also "anti-government", but they did love to tell people how to behave...

I don't know what the fuck you're talking about but you certainly don't know shit about the American South so don't compare it to something unrelated to prove a point.

Well, I wasn't the one who compared banning violent computer games to fascism...

And "not letting people decide what to do for themselves" isn't in itself fascism, either - or else the refusal of many American states (including, I believe, most of the American South) to let homosexuals marry can also be seen as "fascist".

In America protecting violent video games isn't about people having the freedom to do what they want, it's about people having the freedom to say what they want. We'll ban being cross-eyed if it makes us comfortable but freedom of speech is protected.

Juergen Hubert

Hoz wrote:

In America protecting violent video games isn't about people having the freedom to do what they want, it's about people having the freedom to say what they want. We'll ban being cross-eyed if it makes us comfortable but freedom of speech is protected.

Well, in theory the same is true in Germany. Violent games are available for sale, they just can't be legally sold to minors (and placing restrictions on what minors can buy isn't the same as restricting freedom of speech in general).

And I fully expect this law to be struck down once it is seriously challenged in a court.

Hoz

Well, if the right to listen isn't recognized then the right to speak means nothing.

Rook

Technicality wrote:

The Warlock wrote:

Alfred J. Kwak wrote:

You can't deny that there is a loosy connection between the increasing number shooting rampages in schools and violence in media.

Violent crime rates (at least in the US) have plummeted since 1994.

(for reference, Doom was released in '94, and games have been getting steadily more violent since)

So yes, we can deny that.

edit: source is US Dept. of Justice, by the way, so I think these statistics are, y'know, not bullshit.

I don't even believe that the media is getting more violent. There was simply a technology threshold beyond which violent games became successful, and their numbers jumped. Since then the proportion of violence in games has been pretty steady.

People just forget about a lot of the older violent games because a lot of them sucked. Just like a lot of them do today.

People should stop quoting that graph. Of all the factors affecting violent crime, media violence and computer game violence is only one of them. So videogames could still be causing an increase in the levels of violence, whilst other factors such as lowering levels of poverty or increasing the standards of education might be having a much greater effect in the opposite direction. That graph shows absolutely nothing about the effects of video games

Couscous

Rook wrote:

Technicality wrote:

The Warlock wrote:

Alfred J. Kwak wrote:

You can't deny that there is a loosy connection between the increasing number shooting rampages in schools and violence in media.

Violent crime rates (at least in the US) have plummeted since 1994.

(for reference, Doom was released in '94, and games have been getting steadily more violent since)

So yes, we can deny that.

edit: source is US Dept. of Justice, by the way, so I think these statistics are, y'know, not bullshit.

I don't even believe that the media is getting more violent. There was simply a technology threshold beyond which violent games became successful, and their numbers jumped. Since then the proportion of violence in games has been pretty steady.

People just forget about a lot of the older violent games because a lot of them sucked. Just like a lot of them do today.

People should stop quoting that graph. Of all the factors affecting violent crime, media violence and computer game violence is only one of them. So videogames could still be causing an increase in the levels of violence, whilst other factors such as lowering levels of poverty or increasing the standards of education might be having a much greater effect in the opposite direction. That graph shows absolutely nothing about the effects of video games

It shows that videogames are at the very least not a great enough cause of violence to make much of an effect on the victimization rate.

Freezie KO

Rook wrote:

People should stop quoting that graph. Of all the factors affecting violent crime, media violence and computer game violence is only one of them. So videogames could still be causing an increase in the levels of violence, whilst other factors such as lowering levels of poverty or increasing the standards of education might be having a much greater effect in the opposite direction. That graph shows absolutely nothing about the effects of video games

At least it's something. I don't see anything coming from the opposing argument. Except maybe a study funded by the Concerned Parents Who Fear VideoGames, which of course is not biased at all.

agoaj

mrcheesypants wrote:

I think we should move the imaginary gun control debate to D&D.

Don't you mean imaginary D&D?

Rook

Freezie KO wrote:

Rook wrote:

People should stop quoting that graph. Of all the factors affecting violent crime, media violence and computer game violence is only one of them. So videogames could still be causing an increase in the levels of violence, whilst other factors such as lowering levels of poverty or increasing the standards of education might be having a much greater effect in the opposite direction. That graph shows absolutely nothing about the effects of video games

At least it's something. I don't see anything coming from the opposing argument. Except maybe a study funded by the Concerned Parents Who Fear VideoGames, which of course is not biased at all.

I think all those articles published in peer reviewed scientific journals count as something.

Couscous

I have yet to see any experiments on the effects of violent video games that don't have any serious flaws.

Rook

titmouse wrote:

I have yet to see any experiments on the effects of violent video games that don't have any serious flaws.

and yet you said this:

titmouse also wrote:

It shows that videogames are at the very least not a great enough cause of violence to make much of an effect on the victimization rate.

Yeah, this is why I'm not taking your views as serious. Seriously, you can't draw that conclusion from that graph. About the only thing you could say was that a potential increase in violence caused be videogames wasn't greater than every single other factor effecting the rates of violent crime.

StriderEdge

The Warlock wrote:

Alfred J. Kwak wrote:

You can't deny that there is a loosy connection between the increasing number shooting rampages in schools and violence in media.

Violent crime rates (at least in the US) have plummeted since 1994.

(for reference, Doom was released in '94, and games have been getting steadily more violent since)

So yes, we can deny that.

edit: source is US Dept. of Justice, by the way, so I think these statistics are, y'know, not bullshit.

Well clearly your graph is made to hide the fact that all violence is commited by 11 year olds after 1994.

Couscous

Rook wrote:

titmouse wrote:

I have yet to see any experiments on the effects of violent video games that don't have any serious flaws.

and yet you said this:

titmouse also wrote:

It shows that videogames are at the very least not a great enough cause of violence to make much of an effect on the victimization rate.

Yeah, this is why I'm not taking your views as serious. Seriously, you can't draw that conclusion from that graph. About the only thing you could say was that a potential increase in violence caused be videogames wasn't greater than every single other factor effecting the rates of violent crime.

How does the first part contradict the second part? Most of the factors effecting the rates of violent crime remained stable during te years in which crime decreased. However, the number of violent videogames increased dramatically during those years. This should show that violent videogames have less of an effect on children than the few other factors that effected the rate of violent crime that changed much during those years.

Morninglord

Might not be able to prove that connection, but a big part of the bias against gamers is the media and governments constant assertion that violent crime is on the rise when it hasn't even levelled out since 1994 until 2004. That's ten years of decrease.
Poof goes their hysteria. That's why I like the graph.

Food

Remember that video where the German kid goes crazy playing UT? He will never see the light of day again.

core tactic

It's not like there was ever violence before videogames you know.


Then again, who can forget the great Pacman massacre?

Silent Zero

Food wrote:

Remember that video where the German kid goes crazy playing UT? He will never see the light of day again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBVmfIUR1DA

Taramoor

Food wrote:

Remember that video where the German kid goes crazy playing UT? He will never see the light of day again.

So this law is a good thing?

Einhander

So will German gamers have to wear little yellow pac-man symbols on their sleeves now?

AbsoluteZero

Bavaria huh... sounds like food.

Bearcat

How do you get caught shooting imaginary people?

jothki

Bearcat wrote:

How do you get caught shooting imaginary people?

Same way you get caught with porn, I guess.

Rook

Morninglord wrote:

Might not be able to prove that connection, but a big part of the bias against gamers is the media and governments constant assertion that violent crime is on the rise when it hasn't even levelled out since 1994 until 2004. That's ten years of decrease.
Poof goes their hysteria. That's why I like the graph.

Funnily enough, it is on the rise.

CBS News

The overall increase in violent crime was modest, 2.5 percent, which equates to more than 1.4 million crimes. Nevertheless, that was the largest percentage increase since 1991.

Time Magazine

. Not only did crime suddenly begin to rise in 2005, but the most violent crimes led the trend. Homicides shot up 3.4%. Robberies, 3.9%. Aggravated assaults, 1.8%. Hardest hit were not metropolises like New York City and Los Angeles but cities with populations between 400,000 and 1 million--such as Baltimore, Md.; Charlotte, N.C.; St. Louis, Mo.; and Oakland, Calif.--and this year looks to see similar rates of increase, if not worse.

Or course blaming this rise on video games would be silly. But there you go.

---

titmouse wrote:

Rook wrote:

titmouse wrote:

It shows that videogames are at the very least not a great enough cause of violence to make much of an effect on the victimization rate.

Yeah, this is why I'm not taking your views as serious. Seriously, you can't draw that conclusion from that graph. About the only thing you could say was that a potential increase in violence caused be videogames wasn't greater than every single other factor effecting the rates of violent crime.

How does the first part contradict the second part? Most of the factors effecting the rates of violent crime remained stable during te years in which crime decreased. However, the number of violent videogames increased dramatically during those years. This should show that violent videogames have less of an effect on children than the few other factors that effected the rate of violent crime that changed much during those years.

The problem is you can't say that because you've got too many other factors to be be able to pick out changes caused by one thing, unless it was horrendously massive. e.g. let's say violent games cause a 10% increase in violent crimes. But a booming economy drops crime by 20%. Overall you just see a 10% decrease. Looking at the figures alone you can't pink out a single item because it's masked by too many other factors.

As for things staying the same in the 90's

These are the kinds of crimes American cities expected never to see in high numbers again. In the 1990s police departments nationwide began applying the so-called broken-windows theory: arrest the bad guys for minor offenses, and they wouldn't be around to commit more serious ones. This zero-tolerance approach--combined with more cops on the street to enforce it, a strong economy and a fortuitous demographic change that reduced the population of young men who typically cause the most trouble--lowered the rates of murder, robbery and rape for 10 consecutive years.

So we're probably going to have a massive down swing in the rates of violent crime. Now giving the likelihood of any video game related change being relatively minor compared to these effects you can't really say much about it. Can't tell what direction it's going to shift things. Which is why using that graph as proof that videogames don't affect crime statistics is a bit silly.