The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
A 14 Year olds emails to Jack Thompson
Colt
.45ColoradoRegistered User regular
.45ColoradoRegistered User regular
Yes, more Jack feeding but I found this quite interesting...
I like it how he acts more like a child then the 14 year old.
I wrote:
I found a link to your site, www.stopkill.com, through an online forum. I looked over it, and although I think that there is some genuine concern over the effect of violent media on kids, many of your statements on that site were made in ignorance. What I plan to do in this email is to help you gain a better understanding of video games, and to show you that while your intentions are good, your current course of action is a mistake. I'm going to present my arguments calmly and logically, and you're welcome to write a rebuttal if you wish. First off, let me tell you a little about myself. I'm 14, and I've been playing video games avidly since I was 8. I'm pretty knowledgeable about the subject of video games as a whole, and I've played my fair share of Halo 2 and other shooters, including the Ghost Recon series, which is regarded as one of the most realistic FPSs (first-person shooters, in case you aren't familiar with the terminology). I also enjoy strategy games, in which the death toll is often far higher than what you'd encounter in a FPS. I'm an archer, a martial artist (Tae Kwon Do), and I was taught how to operate a gun by my grandfather, who's an experienced hunter. And, oddly enough, I've never felt the urge to kill, or even seriously injure, anyone. I imagine that killing in self-defence would be extremely difficult for me, despite my alleged desensitization. Now I'd like to dismiss a misonception (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and not assuming that you're twisting the truth) you have about games like Halo, which are called FPSs. These are not "sniper games." They are games presented in first person, in which you shoot enemies, manage ammunition, and explore levels. You may fail to see the distinction between "sniper" and "first person" based on that description alone, but if you ever take the time to play any of these games, you'll understand that there is no comparison between playing a FPS and operating a rifle. Which brings me to my next point- games can't accurately "train" you to commit violent acts, despite your claims. First off, games are innacurate by their very nature, and they give you less practical knowledge on operating firearms than watching a few hours of History Channel would. Secondly, I'm going to walk you through a typical scenario of me playing Halo 2, which is probably the best FPS available right now1) I rotate the right control stick slightly, then hold down the right trigger. There is no violent intent towards my enemy, wether it's an AI-controlled bot or a human opponent I'm facing online- it's a simple challenge in the case of the former and a friendly competition in the case of the latter.(2) On screen, a series of polygons which emulate bullet trails appear. Those polygons collide with the polygons rendered to represent my enemy, and those same polygons then emulate my opponent dying.The important distinction here is that there is no gun, no bullets, and no enemy. There is a rotation of the control stick and a pull of the controller's trigger, resulting in a change of the onscreen display. Anyone who can't see the difference between this and the act of firing a gun at a human being is clearly unfit to be playing these games and, frankly, is an idiot. Which, once again, leads me to the next point I'm going to make. No one in their right mind would ever do the things that you blame on video games. A quick glance at such actions shows that there are far bigger, far more serious causes than violent media behind them. Now, you may wonder, "Why would someone kill a person in a video game if they think it's wrong to do in real life?" Well, the truth is, no one gets hurt when you kill a video game character. There are corporeal consequences to commiting acts of violence on real living things, but the difference is that real living things are just that, real. Well, that's my case against your Anti-Violent Games crusade. I support efforts to get parents more informed about the type of games their kids are playing, but it doesn't take some kind of genius to look at the back of the box of the game your kid wants to buy. If that doesn't tell you enough, there are many popular, respected websites that can give parents reliable information on the content of games. There is no evil conspiracy to turn America's youth into killers going on here- developers are people too. It should be noted that any federal interference with the video game industry would go down in my book as a violation of freedom of speech, which is something I dissaprove of under all circumstances. PS: On the topic of the 'Hot Coffee' mod for GTA: San Andreas, I get the feeling that you don't know what a mod is. Mods are code written by third parties, which adds to or modifies the game code, thereby adding or changing gameplay features. Also, you should keep in mind that this game is rated Mature(17+), and it's clearly displayed on the box that GTA contains sexual content, so any parent who walks in on their kid playing Hot Coffee shouldn't be at all shocked, in my humble opinion.
Jack Thompson wrote:
Of course they can train you to kill. The games suppress the inhibition to kill, which is why the military uses them for that purpose. Thanks for writing.
I wrote:
That's a half-truth. The games used by the military are not the same as the games available to the public, and they're far more akin to simulators than to entertainment systems. There is only one game that I know of which was used by the military and is now available to the public, Full Spectrum Warrior, and the civilian version was modified for faster gameplay and improved graphics. Things such as making the grenades go off quicker, for example, to give it more pick-up-and-play, entertainment value. Even then, anyone can tell you that killing in a game is not at all comparable to killing in reality, because killing in a game is, in fact, not actually killing.Flight simulators aren't used to suppress the inhibition to fly, they're used to give the pilot-in-training technical skills needed to operate a plane. The military uses video games in the same way.
Jack Thompson wrote:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07...s_6129301.html
I wrote:
Well, I'll admit defeat on Hot Coffee issue, but my point about violence still stands. I'd hardly call that article an effective rebuttal to my statements. And just for the sake of debate, let's hypothetically say your theory is true, and violent games do indeed reduce the inhibition to kill. Does that neccessarily mean that a gamer would have any more desire to kill? It would simply remove a roadblock for someone who already has violent urges and tendencies, caused by other, more serious factors, would it not? A rational, peaceable person who's inhibition to kill was reduced still would lack the violent urge to even contemplate murder.
Jack Thompson wrote:
In the UK an M game can't be sold to a minor, which is the only restriction I seek here. Smarten up. Your ignorance is showing.
I wrote:
Oh, really? Seems to me that you're attempting to draw negative attention to a major game company, spread false information that suggests that violent media creates killers, and continually changing the subject during this discussion. I'd like to bring your attention to the replies you allegedly sent to a few other gamers who have emailed you:
"I am not interested in 'gamer's thoughts,' as that constitutes the latest oxymoron." "Screw off" These are people who I have never known to lie, especially on matters of politics. Perhaps you're being so curteous to me because you don't want Mommy and Daddy upset? Don't worry about that, Mr. Thompson, because I like to fight my own battles. You're spreading ignorance, taking advantage of others' misfortunes, attempting to destroy a well-established industry, and using technicalities to evade my arguments, which you seem to be incapable of refuting. Your two-faced, ambulance-chasing nature is showing. If you want to convince me otherwise, respond to my arguments instead of changing the subject. I'm not as naive as you think.
Jack Thompson wrote:
check into the nearest mental health facility
I wrote:
Mental institution? Whatever for? Did I hit a soft spot with that last email? That reply had a clear tone of finality to it, but you haven't gotten rid of me yet. Personally, I enjoy verbally destroying your "beliefs" and watching your petty attempts to shut out the truth. So, tell me... what exactly are your motives for professing these beliefs that you make no effort to defend? Really, I'm curious. I've never understood how people like you find it so easy, so satisfying, to uphold beliefs that aren't your own. That clearly aren't your own. If you want to insult me, find something witty next time. Being called insane isn't very deragatory, nor is it very clever. PS: I was going to include a joke pertaining to me allegedly having no inhibition to kill, but as you are a lawyer I opted against anything that could be considered a threat in even the most liberal terms.
Jack Thompson wrote:
Not interested.
I wrote:
Well, I've had fun antagonizing you. Also, I think I should tell you that I've posted this entire conversation on a public forum. You're unlikely to garner any support from my little corner of the web.
Jack Thompson wrote:
Post that, junior.
I wrote:
With pleasure. I know some people who'd get a real kick out of it.
Jack Thompson wrote:
I bet you do. While you gamers are all autostimulating yourselves with hopefulness that all of this is going nowhere, I'm in the current Reader's Digest and working with US Senators. You all ought to be concerned.
I wrote:
Reader's Digest? How ironic that they once had an article poking fun at frivolous lawyers. Funny ol' world, ain't it? Well, you never know what crazy things politicians will do, but if people critically examine your viewpoints as I have, then I doubt that you'll get far. A great deal of disdain towards you is growing in the gaming community, and there are a LOT of voting-age gamers in this country. Who are some of the senators you're currently talking to? I think I'd like to contact them as well.
He hasn't responded since the last e-mail I sent him.
I like it how he acts more like a child then the 14 year old.
Colt on
0
Posts
Got it from another forum. They did not provide a link regretably, else I would have.
Yeah, this is from July last year. Welcome to the internets.
Edit: Wait? Last year? TWO years ago.
NEVAR FORGET
> turn on light
Good start to the day. Pity it's going to be the worst one of your life. The light is now on.
It's not.
*shurg* Sue me. Missed it.
And dude, I saw Tub Girl once, I dont need to see it again.
That was very painful.
PSN/XBL: dragoniemx
0431-6094-6446-7088
Tarnok, you PM them.
I still think this is a sensible restriction. Sorry guys.
Eh. I don't care if M games are restricted, and I'm fifteen. I just hope it doesn't pass until I'm eighteen, not so I can be around it, so I don't have to hear whining about it from other duders my age.
If he wasn't such a divisive ass, he could have accomplished that already. He hurts his cause more than he helps it.
And yes, treating M-rated games like R-rated movies seems like a reasonable step to me too.
> turn on light
Good start to the day. Pity it's going to be the worst one of your life. The light is now on.
Years ago when we were 16, my friend could not get ahold of a copy of Half-Life until his 17th birthday. He tried like, 5-6 different retailers. Seems to me like the system works pretty well. I realize my evidence is anecdotal, but would making it a state/federal law really accomplish so much?
PSN/XBL: dragoniemx
It's a sensible idea yeah, but most of the time he's likening video games to the anti-christ so the point kind of gets swallowed.
The problem still comes from stupid parents buying 8-year old timmy a copy of GTA and then saying that games should be banned when he downloads a mod which someone made which unlocks content which was blocked in the first place..
And yes, JT does absolutely nothing to help his cause by being a childish, raving jackass.
Making M rated games restricted to youths is inevitable. When it does finally become law, he will take all the credit. That's why we need to quit talking about him.
Switch - SW-3699-5063-5018
Why is it inevitable? It hasn't happened with movies in, what a hundred years now? Or books at all. So why is it inevitable with games?
0431-6094-6446-7088
Well, damn. I thought it was law with movies already. Has there never been pressure on the video selling industry?
It is illegal to sell porn to minors, is it not?
Switch - SW-3699-5063-5018
That is because it is Jack Thompson's safety net. When he realizes he is about to lose an argument and runs out of personal insults, he falls back on the safe sane gesture that all he wants is a similar system to the UK.
When he starts winning the battle, he wants it to be more like the system in Germany +1.
Switch - SW-3699-5063-5018
That's not really the point though. It would just be great to shut these fuckers up, at least on that point, by making selling to minors illegal.
Whenever I used to go into my EB/Futureshop/Walmart/ABSOLUTELY ANYWHERE (In Canada, where it is in fact illegal to sell M games to Minors) before I was 17, I NEVER got IDed (Well, I had one case in a futureshop where I got IDed, but showed my license saying I was 16, as a joke as I knew I'd been caught, and got a "Oh well we'll just ignore the month there shall we?;)" and they sold it to me, so meh) But anyway, so the day I turn 17 I go vidja game shopping, get ID'd at every store I went to. and I haven't been ID'd since. See, it seems most stores ask something along the lines of "Would you be horribly offended if I asked you for ID?" and then if you say Yes, thats their hint that you're underage and they dont ask so you can buy it anyway.
XBL/PSN/Steam: APZonerunner
I don't know, when I was 15 I thought it was pretty neat that I could go and buy Mortal Kombat by myself. I wouldn't want any law getting in the way of that. If a law passes I'm not going to fight it. I won't help it along either.
XBL/PSN/Steam: APZonerunner
Any that contains vast amounts of violence/sex though must be submitted to the bbfc whereby if it's slapped with a 15 or 18 certificate it's illegal to sell that game to anyone under that age.
However if your parents know you've got a level head on your shoulders (as mine did when they bought me the -shock- 15 rated Mortal Kombat on the Amiga) then I'm sure most wouldn't object to purchasing you such games. Mine never did and I turned out ok.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
With this ass clown being the figurehead for the campaign to protect children from violent / mature themed games no one will take it seriously. If he was out of the picture this whole mess woulda been solved years ago by more competent people.
Well, thats just what I think. Years from now when we all have kids in high school or whatever they'll be puzzled over why this was such a big deal. Like Elvis, Rock n' Roll, Comics, and DnD.
It's kind of hard to fight against something and call it immoral when you were given adequate warnings that have been present on movies for years, and broke the law to make it happen in the first place.
It works like this: It goes to PEGI. They are voluntary ratings, but it's an industry standard - EVERY game goes to them. Many stores (like GAME) won't sell stuff that hasn't been PEGI rated. They're the square black and white ratings you see with a simple age. Unlike many think, this is not a difficulty rating.
If there is excessive amounts of anything bad, PEGI flags it up and sends it off to the BBFC. They give it a proper rating. That rating is enforced by law. Shop assistants are the ones who get the blame if they sell a game to a minor, not the store or the chain - the sales assistant could get up to 2 years in prison and several thousand pounds of fines for multiple offences.
Here's an interesting fact: Movie games are automatically rated the same as the movie if they include a clip from the movie. For example, the Batman returns game wasn't very violent - no blood or anything - but it's still rated 12 because it has clips from the (12 rated) movie in. It doesn't matter what those clips are - even if they amount to one line of dialogue from the movie - the game has to be the same rating.
Example - if they re-released rogue squadron now, it would have to have a proper PG rating on the front because the menus have clips of Star Wars in the background.
Also, music is actually being rated now, too. Need for Speed Carbon is not violent in any way or deserving of a 12 rating. However, because of EA's soundtrack choice (lots of fucking rap, with the emphasis on the fuck and all the other swearing), the game is 12 rated.
XBL/PSN/Steam: APZonerunner