As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Online addict dies after "marathon" session

1235

Posts

  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Am I the only one who still thinks that this should be approached as a problem with the specific person who died? Seriously, there are existing systems for taking personal responsibility away from people who obviously can't take care of themselves, I think this person fits that category.

    If we were talking about someone who had killed themselves by obsessively crash-dieting but still hitting the treadmill for eight hours a day nobody would even think to suggest that "clearly, treadmill use needs to be regulated." People are capable of making extremely stupid decisions about their personal welfare, and more to the point, they should be allowed to. Responsibility for a person's self is one of the cornerstones of modern liberal democracy. I accept that certain spheres of activity are regulated, but such regulation usually, or at least should, take the form of education and gentle discouragement.

    To go to the ridiculous lengths suggested based on the deaths of a handful of people is utterly ludicrous. I would like to see greater research into the issue, similar to the State of Nevada's research into gambling addiction, as suggested above. Then, assuming that there is found to be a link between addictive behaviour and MMO playing, regulation can be crafted that minimises risk without fundamentally affecting the activity itself.

    japan on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    japan wrote: »
    Am I the only one who still thinks that this should be approached as a problem with the specific person who died? Seriously, there are existing systems for taking personal responsibility away from people who obviously can't take care of themselves, I think this person fits that category.
    No, you aren't. ege is a retard. Actually, he's basically a conservative retard.

    electricitylikesme on
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    I glance at the page indiscriminately:

    1. affect

    2. why is ege02 arguing against himself

    3. no ad homs.

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • CalciumCalcium Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    It's because of arguments like this that our ancestors are spinning in their graves, thinking "If we'd spanked these people more as kids, they wouldn't cry to the government to help them every time things got out of hand at home."

    If by the time you're an adult you still haven't gotten basic hygiene and self-control down pat, the parents fucked up somewhere. If by the time you're an adult you haven't figured out how to live even a remotely functional life, the parents fucked up somewhere.
    If anyone is to regulate the time spent playing games, it's the parents, not the government. The government isn't your nanny, it should be spending time on more important things, like things that affect more than 1 person in the world per month, for instance.

    Oh, and I also don't get the attitude going around that "Well, he/she is an adult, the parents can't do anything anymore to influence that poor fellow."
    Decent parents try to do something anyway. Ask decent parents.

    Calcium on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Calcium wrote: »
    Oh, and I also don't get the attitude going around that "Well, he/she is an adult, the parents can't do anything anymore to influence that poor fellow."
    Decent parents try to do something anyway. Ask decent parents.

    He was twenty-six. How long do you think parents should be obligated to chase after their adult children? What if they were no longer on speaking terms? What if he (hypothetically) had no parents?

    This is even more of a "man, what?" moment than ege's proposed solution.

    EDIt: clarity

    japan on
  • CalciumCalcium Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    I guess I went too far on that one, then. :P
    My main point is that government regulations shouldn't be the substitute for what parents or guardians really should be dealing with themselves.
    Surely if someone at the age of twenty-six thinks its a good idea to play a game for a week straight they haven't really been taught much in the way of self-discipline throughout their life.

    Calcium on
  • AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    If it's somewhere between 3-4 hours, how would a 4 hour limit affect you?

    This is assuming we went through with a straight-forward 4 hour daily limit plan in the first place, of course, and not something far more detailed.

    I'm not entirely sure why it should be the government's business or purview in regulating someone's personal leisurely activity, especially with an arbitrary time limit. Aside from the fact that you seem to be arguing that playing video games for longer than 4 hours (using 4 hours since you introduced your time limit idea with that limit set as an example) correlates with an internet addiction (of which I disagree), my question is that if someone is truly addicted, why is it the government's problem or even duty to protect them?

    If someone has a problem (and is not otherwise mentally substandard that they would be incapable of logical rationalization), they either fix it or not. It's their choice whether to seek help, want to seek help, or continue with whatever addiction they may have. As long as this choice is not harming the wellbeing of others around them, why isn't the onus upon the person experiencing this addiction to get themselves treatment?

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    I've played games for a week straight before. I see no reason why playing games for a week straight should be considered a bad thing. The problem this guy had is that he neglected every other aspect of his life during that time.

    I think this guy had some fairly severe psychological problems, which can't necessarily be explained away with "well, his parents obviously didn't raise him right." That strikes me as intellectually lazy scapegoating.
    Calcium wrote:
    My main point is that government regulations shouldn't be the substitute for what parents or guardians really should be dealing with themselves.

    Again, we're talking about a legal adult here. In what way should his parents be "dealing with it?"

    japan on
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    I think ege's discourse is perfectly reasonable in this thread. Also, to play devil's advocate:
    Calcium wrote: »
    Surely if someone at the age of twenty-six thinks its a good idea to play slot machines for a week straight they haven't really been taught much in the way of self-discipline throughout their life.

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    If it's somewhere between 3-4 hours, how would a 4 hour limit affect you?
    Maybe I want to play more than four hours. Maybe.

    Maybe you should play less so you have something other than WoW to talk about when you try to start conversations with girls.

    Oh snap!

    :lol:

    Sorry that was cheap.

    Not really. Stupid, though.

    Fencingsax on
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    If it's somewhere between 3-4 hours, how would a 4 hour limit affect you?
    Maybe I want to play more than four hours. Maybe.

    Maybe you should play less so you have something other than WoW to talk about when you try to start conversations with girls.

    Oh snap!

    :lol:

    Sorry that was cheap.

    Figure out how vaginas work yet?

    irt alcohol; as you stated after I already stated, alcohol consumption is leagues more dangerous than playing MMOs. Since you think MMOs are a great enough threat to warrant a time-limit, you presumably think there should be an enforced limit on the number of drinks anyone can consume ever rather than just before driving, as you state that your core-reasoning to be the pro-lifers' slogan. You don't seem to understand the implications of the side you're supporting and this is what's called an example that you can relate to. You're arguing that something so trivial as playing a videogame has to be regulated on a time-limit even given the kind of extreme breeches in personal privacy that would be required to enforce such a law. Clearly something as serious as alcohol demands at least as strict of enforcement. It doesn't have all that strict enforcement now. There's no law against sitting on the couch all day drinking Beast and smoking Doral Lights, literally all day, every day. It's gonna kill whoever's retarded enough to do it. Why is their life not as important as the life of some level 45 Troll?

    ViolentChemistry on
  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    I think ege's discourse is perfectly reasonable in this thread. Also, to play devil's advocate:
    Calcium wrote: »
    Surely if someone at the age of twenty-six thinks its a good idea to play slot machines for a week straight they haven't really been taught much in the way of self-discipline throughout their life.

    Good point, as devil's advocate. Alcohol is a bit of a poor comparison, but slots/gambling in general is more appropo.

    saint2e on
    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • ÆthelredÆthelred Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Too late, it's all kicking off now!
    A man who dressed up as Buho, a female elf, has been convicted by a jury at Belfast Crown Court of taking underwear from a shop in a knifepoint raid.

    Robert Boyd, 45, from Broadlands in Carrickfergus, held up staff at the Orchid shop in Belfast disguised in a wig, hat and glasses.

    He told the court he had been in a role-playing game at the time and may have blurred reality and fantasy. Boyd was released on bail. Sentencing was adjourned for probation reports.

    In court on Thursday, ten jurors dismissed Boyd's defence and two believed it.

    During the three-day trial, the jury heard that Boyd wore a disguise of a blonde curly wig, reading glasses and a beany hat. He armed himself with a knife before stealing two sets of bras, pants, suspender belts and stockings from the lingerie shop on the Lisburn Road. The Queen's University senior lab technician was arrested within moments of the robbery on 14 December 2005.

    In his defence, Boyd claimed that due to pressures that he was suffering in his work and marriage and his indulgence in a role-playing game called "Shadow Run", he thought he may have been playing the part of criminal elf Buho when he threatened the lone female shop owner at knifepoint after asking for a discount.

    He claimed he had gone to the upmarket lingerie shop to buy the two sets of red and black undies as a Christmas box for his wife. Describing how Buho was a character he had assumed while playing the game, Boyd further claimed that he had blurred the lines between fantasy and reality and did not intend to rob the shop.

    "I didn't mean it to happen," he later told detectives. His claims were supported by consultant psychiatrist Dr Jane O'Neill who told the court she thought that Boyd may have been dissociated from reality. However her opinion was directly contradicted by consultant psychistrist Dr Frederick Brown. He said he could find nothing to suggest that Boyd was suffering from a mental disorder that prevented him from distinguishing between fantasy and reality.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/6430683.stm

    Æthelred on
    pokes: 1505 8032 8399
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited March 2007
    No, I think your point is irrelevant. China pursues totalitarian state policies against it's citizenry in order to govern their moral and social outlook and interactions. They maintain the largest state firewall in the world purely for the purpose of censorship, routinely engage in the arrest and oppression of minorities including but not limited to their pursuit and harassment overseas (Falun Gong members). Of these policies governing individuals lives, the online gaming time-limit is one of many, and is a drastic invasion of individual privacy and freedom of action, as well as imposition of a social dynamic upon a populace.
    This is hysterical - not like ha ha hysterical but like overwrought hysterical. Every law, be it in a democracy or autocracy, seeks to "impose a social dynamic upon a populace". Mandating safety and health standards for saleable products is something that every first world nation does. Imposing diminishing returns on playtimes in MMOs is not really equitable with persecution of the Falun Gong.

    While I don't think that people dropping over dead after marathon play sessions will ever be a statistically significant problem, I think the social and financial repurcussions to MMO addiction very likely will, and I would support sensible regulations on the product to help decrease addiction.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    No, I think your point is irrelevant. China pursues totalitarian state policies against it's citizenry in order to govern their moral and social outlook and interactions. They maintain the largest state firewall in the world purely for the purpose of censorship, routinely engage in the arrest and oppression of minorities including but not limited to their pursuit and harassment overseas (Falun Gong members). Of these policies governing individuals lives, the online gaming time-limit is one of many, and is a drastic invasion of individual privacy and freedom of action, as well as imposition of a social dynamic upon a populace.
    This is hysterical - not like ha ha hysterical but like overwrought hysterical. Every law, be it in a democracy or autocracy, seeks to "impose a social dynamic upon a populace". Mandating safety and health standards for saleable products is something that every first world nation does. Imposing diminishing returns on playtimes in MMOs is not really equitable with persecution of the Falun Gong.

    While I don't think that people dropping over dead after marathon play sessions will ever be a statistically significant problem, I think the social and financial repurcussions to MMO addiction very likely will, and I would support sensible regulations on the product to help decrease addiction.

    And I'll reply to that argument as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court echoes the decision of the Illinois district judge I linked earlier. Because until then my argument won't count because it's not official enough.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited March 2007
    And I'll reply to that argument as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court echoes the decision of the Illinois district judge I linked earlier. Because until then my argument won't count because it's not official enough.
    The Illinois decision centered on "indecency" and "obscenity" and whether or not first amendment protections should extend to the content of video games, and I agree with that decision.

    Something like a regulation of game mechanics would be something else entirely, and aren't really covered by that case.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    And I'll reply to that argument as soon as the U.S. Supreme Court echoes the decision of the Illinois district judge I linked earlier. Because until then my argument won't count because it's not official enough.
    The Illinois decision centered on "indecency" and "obscenity" and whether or not first amendment protections should extend to the content of video games, and I agree with that decision.

    Something like a regulation of game mechanics would be something else entirely, and aren't really covered by that case.

    Much in the same way that a regulation on use of the electric bass in songs would not really be covered?

    Edit: Because people have come up with all kinds of studies showing how the brain responds to certain arrangements of sound and stuff. That's where pop-music comes from. One single formula, all of it. Pop-rock, pop-country, pop-rap, pop-hip-hop, pop-R&B, pop-punk, pop-emo, and pop-pop are the evidence I cite for certain patterns and arrangements of sound being addictive (can't get that shitty Britney Spears song out of your head even though it's shitty, right?) and you'd be a fool to claim there haven't been economic rammifications to these songs that are deliberately engineered to hook people with only minimal exposure. Why hasn't the government stepped in to save The Question from himself and his horrible teen-pop addiction?

    I'm sure that sounds absurd to you, but frankly being told I have to deliberately weaken my game's mechanics to protect people who are too stupid to go grab a sandwich and a glass of water every few hours from themselves so that they can continue to be alive and continue to consume resources and vote despite being retarded sounds pretty absurd to me.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited March 2007
    Much in the same way that a regulation on use of the electric bass in songs would not really be covered?

    Edit: Because people have come up with all kinds of studies showing how the brain responds to certain arrangements of sound and stuff. That's where pop-music comes from. One single formula, all of it. Pop-rock, pop-country, pop-rap, pop-hip-hop, pop-R&B, pop-punk, pop-emo, and pop-pop are the evidence I cite for certain patterns and arrangements of sound being addictive (can't get that shitty Britney Spears song out of your head even though it's shitty, right?) and you'd be a fool to claim there haven't been economic rammifications to these songs that are deliberately engineered to hook people with only minimal exposure. Why hasn't the government stepped in to save The Question from himself and his horrible teen-pop addiction?

    I'm sure that sounds absurd to you, but frankly being told I have to deliberately weaken my game's mechanics to protect people who are too stupid to go grab a sandwich and a glass of water every few hours from themselves so that they can continue to be alive and continue to consume resources and vote despite being retarded sounds pretty absurd to me.

    If the rock music really was directly causing addiction-based social harms, then I guess I'd have to look at that. And, again, it's not the statistical aberrations like the dude who died while on a multi-day binge that is the specific reason I'd suggest looking into regulation. It's the other harms that anyone even tangentially acquainted with an MMO has seen a great deal of - kids failing out of college, people losing their jobs, marriages failing, etc.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Much in the same way that a regulation on use of the electric bass in songs would not really be covered?

    Edit: Because people have come up with all kinds of studies showing how the brain responds to certain arrangements of sound and stuff. That's where pop-music comes from. One single formula, all of it. Pop-rock, pop-country, pop-rap, pop-hip-hop, pop-R&B, pop-punk, pop-emo, and pop-pop are the evidence I cite for certain patterns and arrangements of sound being addictive (can't get that shitty Britney Spears song out of your head even though it's shitty, right?) and you'd be a fool to claim there haven't been economic rammifications to these songs that are deliberately engineered to hook people with only minimal exposure. Why hasn't the government stepped in to save The Question from himself and his horrible teen-pop addiction?

    I'm sure that sounds absurd to you, but frankly being told I have to deliberately weaken my game's mechanics to protect people who are too stupid to go grab a sandwich and a glass of water every few hours from themselves so that they can continue to be alive and continue to consume resources and vote despite being retarded sounds pretty absurd to me.

    If the rock music really was directly causing addiction-based social harms, then I guess I'd have to look at that. And, again, it's not the statistical aberrations like the dude who died while on a multi-day binge that is the specific reason I'd suggest looking into regulation. It's the other harms that anyone even tangentially acquainted with an MMO has seen a great deal of - kids failing out of college, people losing their jobs, marriages failing, etc.

    You've never had a group of friends who were in a band, have you? And you don't seem terribly familiar with the animal they call the "scene-star".

    ViolentChemistry on
  • flamebroiledchickenflamebroiledchicken Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Your individual liberty won't be affected if you're reasonable and responsible about it.

    If you play for 2 hours a day, why would you care if there was a 4 hour limit on playing? It doesn't affect you.

    Are you serious?

    This is like people who don't care about the Patriot Act and the fact that the government has the right to check your library records, because "they're not checking out any weird books anyway so it doesn't affect them." Or people who don't care if cops just randomly search people's houses and cars without warrant because "they have nothing to hide so it doesn't affect them"

    It doesn't matter of my own personal liberty is being affected, what matters is the liberty of the population in general.

    flamebroiledchicken on
    y59kydgzuja4.png
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Your individual liberty won't be affected if you're reasonable and responsible about it.

    If you play for 2 hours a day, why would you care if there was a 4 hour limit on playing? It doesn't affect you.

    Are you serious?

    This is like people who don't care about the Patriot Act and the fact that the government has the right to check your library records, because "they're not checking out any weird books anyway so it doesn't affect them." Or people who don't care if cops just randomly search people's houses and cars without warrant because "they have nothing to hide so it doesn't affect them"

    It doesn't matter of my own personal liberty is being affected, what matters is the liberty of the population in general.

    electricitylikesme on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    No, I think your point is irrelevant. China pursues totalitarian state policies against it's citizenry in order to govern their moral and social outlook and interactions. They maintain the largest state firewall in the world purely for the purpose of censorship, routinely engage in the arrest and oppression of minorities including but not limited to their pursuit and harassment overseas (Falun Gong members). Of these policies governing individuals lives, the online gaming time-limit is one of many, and is a drastic invasion of individual privacy and freedom of action, as well as imposition of a social dynamic upon a populace.
    This is hysterical - not like ha ha hysterical but like overwrought hysterical. Every law, be it in a democracy or autocracy, seeks to "impose a social dynamic upon a populace". Mandating safety and health standards for saleable products is something that every first world nation does. Imposing diminishing returns on playtimes in MMOs is not really equitable with persecution of the Falun Gong.
    The point is exactly that however. China doesn't regulate MMO's for any sensible reason other then it has decided to morally police it's populace as a higher priority then their personal liberties. The point of my rant was to make the case that China doesn't do this because there's any reason or evidence to, it does it "just because" more or less and this is essentially where the entirety of ege's argument in all it's manifest forms leads - "just because. You're normal though, so don't worry, it won't effect you" etc.
    Irond Will wrote: »
    While I don't think that people dropping over dead after marathon play sessions will ever be a statistically significant problem, I think the social and financial repurcussions to MMO addiction very likely will, and I would support sensible regulations on the product to help decrease addiction.
    Define "sensible" though, because thus far every regulation I've seen expressed would do essentially fuck-all to stop people wrecking their bodies and needlessly infringe on the rights of individuals who are at exactly 0 risk.

    I mean, case in point, gambling laws exist because real monetary transactions take place and are directly related to the amount of gambling and pay-by-the-hour MMOs are long dead. At some level (i.e. this level) people have to take responsibility for their own actions as is the case here, and without properly controlled statistical evidence I would oppose any other invasive legislation equally as fervently.

    electricitylikesme on
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    China doesn't regulate MMO's for any sensible reason other then it has decided to morally police it's populace as a higher priority then their personal liberties. The point of my rant was to make the case that China doesn't do this because there's any reason or evidence to, it does it "just because" more or less and this is essentially where the entirety of ege's argument in all it's manifest forms leads - "just because. You're normal though, so don't worry, it won't effect you" etc.

    You're fucking kidding, right? You must be.

    No country enacts laws "just because".

    I don't know if you have ever been to China (the ignorance of what you said leads me to believe you haven't), but online gaming is serious business there, and so is the addiction to it, so much so that they were forced to open several clinics that focuses specifically on online gaming addiction.

    They didn't wake up one morning and said "I think we're gonna impose a limit on online gaming today".

    ege02 on
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    No country enacts laws "just because".

    hee





    also cool it

    edit: all of you

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    Paladin wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    No country enacts laws "just because".

    hee

    That's not "just because".
    "The Ministry of Information and Communication has also predicted that every South Korean household will have a robot by between 2015 and 2020."

    "Imagine if some people treat androids as if the machines were their wives,' Park Hye-Young of the ministry's robot team told the AFP news agency."
    "Others may get addicted to interacting with them just as many internet users get hooked to the cyberworld."

    "Key considerations would include ensuring human control over robots, protecting data acquired by robots and preventing illegal use."

    What is funny is that what they did is what I am advocating here: they foresaw a problem, and they enacted laws to prevent it.

    ege02 on
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Alright fine, how about the statute that makes it illegal to undress in front of a painting of a man

    I'm pretty sure I read that that was an actually actual legal law.


    And "just because" wasn't the meat of the argument. You should be attacking "excessive policing" over "civil liberties" since that's much more pertinent.

    Paladin on
    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    China doesn't regulate MMO's for any sensible reason other then it has decided to morally police it's populace as a higher priority then their personal liberties. The point of my rant was to make the case that China doesn't do this because there's any reason or evidence to, it does it "just because" more or less and this is essentially where the entirety of ege's argument in all it's manifest forms leads - "just because. You're normal though, so don't worry, it won't effect you" etc.

    You're fucking kidding, right? You must be.

    No country enacts laws "just because".

    I don't know if you have ever been to China (the ignorance of what you said leads me to believe you haven't), but online gaming is serious business there, and so is the addiction to it, so much so that they were forced to open several clinics that focuses specifically on online gaming addiction.

    They didn't wake up one morning and said "I think we're gonna impose a limit on online gaming today".

    Hi, I'm the meat of the argument. I can be found in those sentences describing the Chinese stance towards intervention in the lives of private citizens, and also the description of the actual social rationale in this.

    EDIT:
    The OP wrote:
    An obese 26-year-old man in northeastern China died after a "marathon" online gaming session over the Lunar New Year holiday, state media said on Wednesday.
    The 150-kg (330-lb) man from Jinzhou, in Liaoning province, collapsed on Saturday, the last day of the holiday, after spending "almost all" of the seven-day break playing online games, the China Daily said, citing his parents.
    Xu Yan, a local teacher, said the "dull life" during the holiday prompted many people to turn to computer games for entertainment.

    OH SNAP! YOU MEAN THIS HAPPENED IN CHINA? AND PROBABLY HAD VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH MMOs?

    EDIT 2:
    ege02 wrote: »
    I don't know if you have ever been to China (the ignorance of what you said leads me to believe you haven't)
    Oh, and I suppose we should all bow to the years you've spent in China absorbing their culture and living under their laws. What's their education system like? I've always imagined it would be similar to the Japanese system in emphasis but I guess the difference would largely lie in the rural/city divide. You would of course have been a member of their online game guilds, I hear they have some epic grudgematches - pretty much ripped EVE China apart with them. Any word on the political situation? I imagine it must have been difficult talking about where you were from when discussion of democracy is fairly heavily regulated - probably felt a little oppressive but I suppose you have to respect them while you're there.

    electricitylikesme on
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    China doesn't regulate MMO's for any sensible reason other then it has decided to morally police it's populace as a higher priority then their personal liberties. The point of my rant was to make the case that China doesn't do this because there's any reason or evidence to, it does it "just because" more or less and this is essentially where the entirety of ege's argument in all it's manifest forms leads - "just because. You're normal though, so don't worry, it won't effect you" etc.

    You're fucking kidding, right? You must be.

    No country enacts laws "just because".

    I don't know if you have ever been to China (the ignorance of what you said leads me to believe you haven't), but online gaming is serious business there, and so is the addiction to it, so much so that they were forced to open several clinics that focuses specifically on online gaming addiction.

    They didn't wake up one morning and said "I think we're gonna impose a limit on online gaming today".

    Hi, I'm the meat of the argument. I can be found in those sentences describing the Chinese stance towards intervention in the lives of private citizens, and also the description of the actual social rationale in this.

    So you admit that your "just because" argument is complete bullshit? Good, that's a start. :roll:

    If you're against the Chinese stance on the intervention in the lives of private citizens, fine. Admittedly there really is nothing I can say to change your mind on it (it is a fundamental stance). I have already explained my stance: that given a good, sensible reason (i.e. growing addiction to MMOs, and this addiction having a serious adverse effect on people's private lives as well as the national economy, among other things), the government should be allowed to step in and regulate this "hobby", because I am of the opinion that it will do more good than harm, especially in the long run. Unfortunately I cannot point at any sources to support my claim (for the case of the USA) because online gaming has not become as popular in the United States as it has in Asia (yet). However, judging from the growing number of research cases as well as anecdotal evidence that point to the increasingly adverse effects MMOs are having on people, it seems inevitable that it will become a serious problem worth recognizing within the next decade.

    The main thing that makes me unwilling to continue this debate is that you're against any sort of government interference simply because it would technically infringe on your liberties. I suspect if I proposed a 50-hour per week limit, you would be against it too (even though the limit on your liberty would be minimal). Because of this liberal extremism, you are unwilling to discuss any reasonable approaches the government might take in terms of regulation - non-draconian approaches that could minimize the impact on our personal liberties while effectively addressing the problem.
    EDIT:
    The OP wrote:
    An obese 26-year-old man in northeastern China died after a "marathon" online gaming session over the Lunar New Year holiday, state media said on Wednesday.
    The 150-kg (330-lb) man from Jinzhou, in Liaoning province, collapsed on Saturday, the last day of the holiday, after spending "almost all" of the seven-day break playing online games, the China Daily said, citing his parents.
    Xu Yan, a local teacher, said the "dull life" during the holiday prompted many people to turn to computer games for entertainment.

    OH SNAP! YOU MEAN THIS HAPPENED IN CHINA? AND PROBABLY HAD VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH MMOs?

    It happened in China. Doesn't mean it can't happen here (which is the message you're trying to drive across, I assume).

    And considering how wide-spread and popular MMOs are there, I suspect the term "online gaming" is almost synonymous with playing MMOs (in most media sources the two are used interchangably).

    ege02 on
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    EDIT 2:
    ege02 wrote: »
    I don't know if you have ever been to China (the ignorance of what you said leads me to believe you haven't)
    Oh, and I suppose we should all bow to the years you've spent in China absorbing their culture and living under their laws. What's their education system like? I've always imagined it would be similar to the Japanese system in emphasis but I guess the difference would largely lie in the rural/city divide. You would of course have been a member of their online game guilds, I hear they have some epic grudgematches - pretty much ripped EVE China apart with them. Any word on the political situation? I imagine it must have been difficult talking about where you were from when discussion of democracy is fairly heavily regulated - probably felt a little oppressive but I suppose you have to respect them while you're there.

    I am familiar enough with Chinese culture to know that online gaming is considered almost a national sport there. Even more so in S. Korea. Don't try to divert the attention from the stupidity of what you said about "just because" with your retarded mockery.

    ege02 on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    EDIT:
    The OP wrote:
    An obese 26-year-old man in northeastern China died after a "marathon" online gaming session over the Lunar New Year holiday, state media said on Wednesday.
    The 150-kg (330-lb) man from Jinzhou, in Liaoning province, collapsed on Saturday, the last day of the holiday, after spending "almost all" of the seven-day break playing online games, the China Daily said, citing his parents.
    Xu Yan, a local teacher, said the "dull life" during the holiday prompted many people to turn to computer games for entertainment.

    OH SNAP! YOU MEAN THIS HAPPENED IN CHINA? AND PROBABLY HAD VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH MMOs?
    It happened in China. Doesn't mean it can't happen here (which is the message you're trying to drive across, I assume).

    And considering how wide-spread and popular MMOs are there, I suspect the term "online gaming" is almost synonymous with playing MMOs (in most media sources the two are used interchangably).

    But wait a minute! I thought MMOs in China had a 3 hour limit on their effective playtime! How could this have possibly happened otherwise!

    electricitylikesme on
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    EDIT:
    The OP wrote:
    An obese 26-year-old man in northeastern China died after a "marathon" online gaming session over the Lunar New Year holiday, state media said on Wednesday.
    The 150-kg (330-lb) man from Jinzhou, in Liaoning province, collapsed on Saturday, the last day of the holiday, after spending "almost all" of the seven-day break playing online games, the China Daily said, citing his parents.
    Xu Yan, a local teacher, said the "dull life" during the holiday prompted many people to turn to computer games for entertainment.

    OH SNAP! YOU MEAN THIS HAPPENED IN CHINA? AND PROBABLY HAD VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH MMOs?
    It happened in China. Doesn't mean it can't happen here (which is the message you're trying to drive across, I assume).

    And considering how wide-spread and popular MMOs are there, I suspect the term "online gaming" is almost synonymous with playing MMOs (in most media sources the two are used interchangably).

    But wait a minute! I thought MMOs in China had a 3 hour limit on their effective playtime! How could this have possibly happened otherwise!

    I am not sure. As far as I know, the limit is quite new (enacted in 2006 iirc), and there probably are a variety of ways for getting around it (such as having multiple accounts). Also, only some games are under the effect of the limit.

    ege02 on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    ege02 wrote: »
    EDIT:
    The OP wrote:
    An obese 26-year-old man in northeastern China died after a "marathon" online gaming session over the Lunar New Year holiday, state media said on Wednesday.
    The 150-kg (330-lb) man from Jinzhou, in Liaoning province, collapsed on Saturday, the last day of the holiday, after spending "almost all" of the seven-day break playing online games, the China Daily said, citing his parents.
    Xu Yan, a local teacher, said the "dull life" during the holiday prompted many people to turn to computer games for entertainment.

    OH SNAP! YOU MEAN THIS HAPPENED IN CHINA? AND PROBABLY HAD VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH MMOs?
    It happened in China. Doesn't mean it can't happen here (which is the message you're trying to drive across, I assume).

    And considering how wide-spread and popular MMOs are there, I suspect the term "online gaming" is almost synonymous with playing MMOs (in most media sources the two are used interchangably).

    But wait a minute! I thought MMOs in China had a 3 hour limit on their effective playtime! How could this have possibly happened otherwise!

    I am not sure. As far as I know, the limit is quite new (enacted in 2006 iirc), and there probably are a variety of ways for getting around it (such as having multiple accounts). Also, only some games are under the effect of the limit.

    So to summarize. First of all, you basically feel individual liberties are bunk - we should walk over them pre-emptively because "you can't be trusted to not kill yourself".

    Then, you propose a limit which would hurt just about every moderate player of an MMO, in response too: a death, probably not related to MMOs. You assume it's an MMO, because it's in China. Which has...

    ...a limit, on MMO playtimes. Relatively recent...oh snap - just like this incident!

    Then propose this same limit for the US and claim we should follow China as a model of it's enforceability...except! Oh SNAP! It was in place in China and didn't work.

    Oh, and the icing on the cake, which I still haven't heard a reply to is a quip about whether or not I've been to China. So come on ege, when have you been to China? For how long? In fact, other then the fact you sound like a Republican telling us the time for individual liberty is over, is there any part of your argument that makes the remotest sense?

    electricitylikesme on
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    So ELM has already brought up the idea that attempting to ban something that the most powerful totalitarian state can't manage to suppress might not be the wisest course.

    The most obvious ways of avoiding the ban (multiple accounts) are only going to encourage more addictive behavior. My experience with MMOs is that you start out and get into that positive reinforcement loop of leveling, max out, start to just do some maintenance stuff then finally burn out. By limiting the amount of time that can be spent on a single account you're just encouraging people to have multiple accounts. With the multiple accounts they'll be able to prolong the grinding/positive reinforcement step longer. That sounds more unhealthy to me than our current plan. (Yes, only an addictive personality is going to take things that far but this law is all about dealing with addictive personalities.)

    DevoutlyApathetic on
    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    So to summarize. First of all, you basically feel individual liberties are bunk - we should walk over them pre-emptively because "you can't be trusted to not kill yourself".

    Strawman. I never said individual liberties are bunk; they are valuable, but not as valuable as to have the government allow us kill ourselves while exercising them.
    Then, you propose a limit which would hurt just about every moderate player of an MMO, in response too: a death, probably not related to MMOs.

    Not one death. Many deaths. Have you heard about the baby that died due to starvation because the couple was too busy playing WoW? Or the guy murdering some other guy because of a virtual sword? You would be a complete and utter fool to think the shit we hear here in the West is the only shit that goes on over there.

    And no, I didn't propose any specific limits. I don't know what sort of limit would work for us. All I am saying is that I believe some form of regulation is necessary.
    You assume it's an MMO, because it's in China. Which has...

    ...a limit, on MMO playtimes. Relatively recent...oh snap - just like this incident!

    Then propose this same limit for the US and claim we should follow China as a model of it's enforceability...except! Oh SNAP! It was in place in China and didn't work.

    Yes, because some people dying while the limit is in place clearly means it has failed. Clearly. :roll:

    We don't even have to think about how many lives it has saved and how many people it has helped to overcome their addiction. No sir. We don't. Because the Western media not talking about the good the limit has done means it hasn't done any good! All we have to know is that some people died while gaming while the ban was in place, and then we can go ahead and claim the ban is useless. How can it be useful at all? I mean, China is, after all, evil. They are oppressive, authoritarian, and those words are scary so we should just dismiss them and boo at everything they do. It doesn't matter that their government is much more up-to-date about the problems plagueing their society; all it matters that they have taken routes that go counter to our values and thus must be wrong! Because our values are the best and the most right.
    Oh, and the icing on the cake, which I still haven't heard a reply to is a quip about whether or not I've been to China. So come on ege, when have you been to China? For how long? In fact, other then the fact you sound like a Republican telling us the time for individual liberty is over, is there any part of your argument that makes the remotest sense?

    Two years ago. For six weeks. Hong Kong.

    Just admit it: what you said about China enacting laws "just because" was bullshit. You said it because you are ignorant of the extent of the popularity of online gaming in China, and the problems the Chinese society (especially the younger generation) faces in that arena as a direct cause of that popularity.

    Or you can continue to mock me pitifully. It is what you do best, after all.

    Off to bed.

    ege02 on
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Esq. Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited March 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Two years ago. For six weeks. Hong Kong.
    Ah yes, because Hong Kong is clearly a microcosym of China at large. :roll:

    Hong Kong is mostly independent from the PRC at large, having as much as its own legal system and government. Most of the oppressive, totalitarian laws the rest of China has to suffer under do not have equivalents in Hong Kong law. This includes the ridiculously stupid MMO playing time laws. Thus far I've yet to hear of a significant number of deaths related to MMOs come out of Hong Kong.

    Hacksaw on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    So to summarize. First of all, you basically feel individual liberties are bunk - we should walk over them pre-emptively because "you can't be trusted to not kill yourself".

    Strawman. I never said individual liberties are bunk; they are valuable, but not as valuable as to have the government allow us kill ourselves while exercising them.
    Ok, whatever, we apparently disagree on the importance of individual liberties.
    ege02 wrote: »
    Then, you propose a limit which would hurt just about every moderate player of an MMO, in response too: a death, probably not related to MMOs.
    Not one death. Many deaths. Have you heard about the baby that died due to starvation because the couple was too busy playing WoW? Or the guy murdering some other guy because of a virtual sword? You would be a complete and utter fool to think the shit we hear here in the West is the only shit that goes on over there.

    And no, I didn't propose any specific limits. I don't know what sort of limit would work for us. All I am saying is that I believe some form of regulation is necessary.
    You did propose a specific limit, specific because it mimics the Chinese model. Seeing as how just about everyone has pointed out that one of the reasons we don't revoke individual liberties is because it's virtually guaranteed you impose on someone for no good reason, I don't know why you persist with this.

    Also, many deaths? So 3. Total. Is there even a statistic for deaths due to MMOs and online games, or, maybe, just maybe, they're an aberration representative of variance in the intelligence, formative years and influences which affect the population as a whole and are bound to arise when a large group of people partake in the same activity. Somewhat, but perhaps not completely like autoerotic deaths, vending machine related deaths and that big classic one deaths due to obesity - the amazing category into which this very case also fits. Now in fairness this last one is a cheap shot since obesity is a problem, but amazingly not one which would in any way be solved by blanket bans or draconian measures, but one of those funny things that you can fight with education. How about that - ways to help people solve individual problems that don't impinge on our individual rights!
    ege02 wrote: »
    You assume it's an MMO, because it's in China. Which has...

    ...a limit, on MMO playtimes. Relatively recent...oh snap - just like this incident!

    Then propose this same limit for the US and claim we should follow China as a model of it's enforceability...except! Oh SNAP! It was in place in China and didn't work.

    Yes, because some people dying while the limit is in place clearly means it has failed. Clearly. :roll:

    We don't even have to think about how many lives it has saved and how many people it has helped to overcome their addiction. No sir. We don't. Because the Western media not talking about the good the limit has done means it hasn't done any good! All we have to know is that some people died while gaming while the ban was in place, and then we can go ahead and claim the ban is useless. How can it be useful at all? I mean, China is, after all, evil. They are oppressive, authoritarian, and those words are scary so we should just dismiss them and boo at everything they do. It doesn't matter that their government is much more up-to-date about the problems plagueing their society; all it matters that they have taken routes that go counter to our values and thus must be wrong! Because our values are the best and the most right.
    I don't see any bears around so the bear patrol must be working.

    We've banned homosexuality so clearly there's no more homosexuality.

    Not talking about child abuse is the best way to make it go away.

    What do all these statements have in common? Perhaps it's the use of an authoritarian measure to successfully not actually fix a problem, but certainly make it go away in a manner of speaking.

    Why don't you actually start citing some figures out video game addiction in China? Before and after etc. Then you can do the same for the US and give us a comparison. OH WAIT, that would be evidence and we can't have that.
    ege02 wrote: »
    Oh, and the icing on the cake, which I still haven't heard a reply to is a quip about whether or not I've been to China. So come on ege, when have you been to China? For how long? In fact, other then the fact you sound like a Republican telling us the time for individual liberty is over, is there any part of your argument that makes the remotest sense?
    Two years ago. For six weeks. Hong Kong.

    Just admit it: what you said about China enacting laws "just because" was bullshit. You said it because you are ignorant of the extent of the popularity of online gaming in China, and the problems the Chinese society (especially the younger generation) faces in that arena as a direct cause of that popularity.

    Or you can continue to mock me pitifully. It is what you do best, after all.

    Off to bed.

    I am well aware of the extent of the popularity of online gaming in China, and I'm waiting for you to show me how the rate of addiction and fatalities thereof is in anyway statistically (a) significant and/or (b) greater then other nations and (c) substantially higher proportionally then destructive addiction in other comparable habits such as eating or watching TV.

    Of course, it's easier for you to latch onto my quip of "just because" just because that makes the argument so much easier then trying to deal with the reality that maybe, just maybe, their are solutions to problems which don't involve us building an overbearing nanny-state which will still fail by the metrics you yourself think it should be judged by. Because if laws limiting online MMO gaming time don't work in preventing deaths, well don't worry, apparently we should make them anyway.

    electricitylikesme on
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    Can anyone cite any actual research into the supposed addictive properties of MMOs? I can only find one referenced here. I'm going to have a look through it.

    I'm not finding the "growing number of research cases" to which ege referred. Additionally, given the vast number of people playing MMOs, I think if addiction was a broad-based and serious problem, we would be seeing more of the effects. As it stands, there are a few isolated cases of people taking the game too far, which can be found if one looks closely enough at any activity.

    Finally, history has shown that attempting to regulate the behaviour of individuals is pretty foolish. I honestly can't think of any instance where it's worked. What has worked is regulation of the businesses and industries concerned with the activity (see: Alchohol licensing, Gambling legislation, Food safety legislation, etc.). The time limit for players is fucking stupid, and destined to fail, doubly so because I suspect that most players of MMOs are offended by the suggestion that they have a "problem."

    It is not the role of government to control individual behaviour, despite what ege may say.

    japan on
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited March 2007
    The hell of it is, it's pretty apparent this guy dying has little if anything to do with gaming and a lot more to do with his particular approach to life. It's fairly clear he pretty much lived games - he didn't have many friends, he didn't have good health and this probably contributed to his problem. He wasn't well educated in the limits of the human body - I mean hell, I've pulled the long night of gaming but I also know that somewhere in those days I need to do exercise (easy enough with an exercise bike and some hand weights with most MMOs) and I know that if I'm feeling really tired sleep is in fact a good idea and that their are compelling medical reasons to do this.

    And the question in that context becomes wouldn't it be a more productive use of government resources to in fact target those who aren't capable of healthily managing their lives with community programs and events seeing as, as was stated, a big problem here was everything was closed for this 1 week holiday.

    electricitylikesme on
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS regular
    edited March 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    Not one death. Many deaths. Have you heard about the baby that died due to starvation because the couple was too busy playing WoW? Or the guy murdering some other guy because of a virtual sword? You would be a complete and utter fool to think the shit we hear here in the West is the only shit that goes on over there.

    It's wierd that you see this as a problem but don't want to fix it. I mean, when doctors and mechanics treat the symptom rather than the disease, it at least makes some kind of sense because that way they can charge patients/customers to treat the symptoms repeatedly since the problem doesn't go anywhere. But in this instance, you claim to actually give a shit about these people's lives, but are more concerned with making sure they don't play videogames than with actually helping them or saving their lives.

    ViolentChemistry on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited March 2007
    japan wrote: »
    The time limit for players is fucking stupid, and destined to fail, doubly so because I suspect that most players of MMOs are offended by the suggestion that they have a "problem."

    It is not the role of government to control individual behaviour, despite what ege may say.

    I do thing it's the responsibility of the government to, in some cases and to some extent, protect people from dangerous products and attractive nuisances. Now, as has been mentioned, the verdict's still out as to exactly how dangerous MMOs are compared to things like gambling (and jesus, stop with the "how many people have died" - none of us are using this one death as the fundamental rationale for regulation).

    I played WoW for around a year and ran a guild, and yes I personally knew of a disturbingly high number of cases in which people lost their jobs, failed out of school, had their marriages and relationships fall apart. I knew people with young kids who were clearly spending eight to twelve hours a day grinding. You can say "well it was a character flaw and would have happened even if their hobby was collecting stamps," which is basically facile bullshit - these games are made to ratchet up required playtimes at high levels and require strong constant attention. It's like a goddamned psych 101 experiment with rats and saccharine tabs.

    The position I take, and if I'm reading right, the position ege is taking, is that this is a potentially addictive activity that threatens some level of individual and social harm, and it's absolutely worth studying, and depending on these results, worth considering some form of regulation at some level - limiting play times, maybe, or just fucking asking the developer to ratchet down the incentive for long consecutive playtimes.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
Sign In or Register to comment.