Oh there are a LOT of competent lawyers with actual evidence that aren't fuckwits waiting to take up the cause.
I'd rather whacko jacko keep the torch.
What evidence? Why should there be anyone prosecuting the hobby to begin with? There's nothing inherently wrong with gaming or its enthusiasts. Gaming is not a crime. Gaming is not a sin. Gaming should not be the scapegoat for society's problems.
Well there is evidence that interactive media can affect people in both a positive, and negative way.
Scape goat or not other countries are moving to moderate it. I think a large portion of why that hasn't been done here is due to the fact that people realize Hillary Clinton and Thompson are idiots.
Would you really rather have a competent charasmatic lawyer take up the cause and start using actual studies and tests? I sure as hell don't want that.
hey guess what. if the lawyer competent, charismatic, and well-informed, that will be good for us. he would take the process in a direction that helps everyone. and if he doesn't, then he's not competent, charismatic, or well-informed.
The thing is, a more coherent lawyer might manage a more useful "offensive", but they're also more likely to engage with actual facts and make actual reasoned arguments and stuff, rather than just the sensationalist horseshit that Thompson pumps out and the media laps up. I see the "better the devil you know" argument, but I'm not sure I buy it.
Pro tip: read the goddamn discussion.
There's nothing stopping this supposed Omega-Lawyer from coming to the forefront now. The idea that Thompson is keeping the competant people at bay is pure fantasy.
I'm attacking the fantasy, not the reality. I fully acknowledge the "nothing's holding anyone else back" point, but even without it the "we're better off with JT" argument doesn't hold up, IMO.
Ah, sorry. I missed the "I'm not sure I buy it" part.
If Jack is disbarred, there need to be some parades in the streets! And fireworks! And a giant Jack Thompson float, complete with frothing mouth! Seriously though, I hope we can finally be rid of him once and for all.
So Thompson will finally eat a law suit, and hopefully lose his lisence to practise law.
...
WHAT TOOK SO FUCKING LONG?
...
On another point; him being disbarred WILL remove all or most of his influence with officials, but it won't stop him making an impact on the more impressionable people. Ah well, better than nothing. At least he'll find his insane crusade set back a lot. And on the subject of him becoming a senator: chances of it happening are pretty much zero. Who would be crazy enough to vote for a lawyer who got disbarred and had a fairly massive reputation for making trouble?
You know what will probably happen is if he gets disbarred he will probably go to some backwards state and become a senator.
I would be MOST displeased... I can't even imagine the levels of stress hormones that would be released should this ever happen.
If he does get his license revoked, it's basically over for him in the world of MAJOR influence.
Anything he could do would be tainted by his disbarment, and ANY of his opponents would just have to go "Hey, weren't you BANNED from being a lawyer due to being a total fuckwit?"
He can't even play up the position of martyr for the same reasons. All people have to do is mention his antics and it's all over. Whether it be in the court room, or any of his various shenanigans on the internet. The man basically nailed himself to the tree.
The only people who will listen to him are the hyper-reactive soccer moms.
B.C. on
Friend code for Pokemon fiends everywhere: Arch 0447-6824-1112
It´s about time. And not just from a gaming perspective. Can you imagine how much tax money that guy has plucked down the toilet? Yes, dear Americans; Jack is a good show, but you are paying for it.
It´s about time. And not just from a gaming perspective. Can you imagine how much tax money that guy has plucked down the toilet? Yes, dear Americans; Jack is a good show, but you are paying for it.
You know? That's got a nice ring to it..."The Jack-Jack Show"
You know, about the whole stupid "Jack is holding back the really good lawyers" argument - I would think that even if that came to pass, wouldn't we want a good, responsible lawyer being critical of video games? It seems to me that the kind of crazy things Jacko wants like pulling all M games from shelves and highly restrictive laws etc., are just that: crazy. A responsible lawyer wouldn't go after the outlandish things he does. To be totally honest, the gaming industry probably could use a bit of a legal makeover, maybe a reorganization of the ESRB, that sort of thing. Actions do need to be taken to strengthen our side and make us fit within reasonable expectations. Even if you think we're already set, I wouldn't object to a reasonable lawyer finding a reasonable fault with gaming and helping to fix it.
You know, about the whole stupid "Jack is holding back the really good lawyers" argument - I would think that even if that came to pass, wouldn't we want a good, responsible lawyer being critical of video games? It seems to me that the kind of crazy things Jacko wants like pulling all M games from shelves and highly restrictive laws etc., are just that: crazy. A responsible lawyer wouldn't go after the outlandish things he does. To be totally honest, the gaming industry probably could use a bit of a legal makeover, maybe a reorganization of the ESRB, that sort of thing. Actions do need to be taken to strengthen our side and make us fit within reasonable expectations. Even if you think we're already set, I wouldn't object to a reasonable lawyer finding a reasonable fault with gaming and helping to fix it.
Honestly, I don't think it really needs anything resembling a makeover.
The ESRB's ratings make sense 99% of the time, all that needs to happen is simple contracts between distributors and retailers regarding the sale of M-rated titles to minors.
If the retailer fucks it up, they've breached the contract and pay a reasonable fine, do it enough and the distributors pull the contract and the retailer is left without the ability to sell those products anymore. It's simple, elegant, and involves no fucking legislature whatsoever.
Which, of course, means it won't happen, it makes too much goddamn sense.
It´s about time. And not just from a gaming perspective. Can you imagine how much tax money that guy has plucked down the toilet? Yes, dear Americans; Jack is a good show, but you are paying for it.
You know? That's got a nice ring to it..."The Jack-Jack Show"
I don´t think a perfect solution can exist. Even if everyone would follow through with the ratings, how reliable are the ratings? They are based on basically someone´s gut feeling, not science. On top of that, no two people are alike and media has different effects on each individual. Children develop differently. A 10-year-old kid can get traumas from a movie scene that doesn´t affect another 5-year-old kid. I know adults who won´t watch any violent movies because they´ll get nightmares. From my point of view, the attempt to make the ratings even more "accurate" is foolish, because in the end, the only person who could determine what kind of material an individual child should have access to, is the child´s parent. I see the current rating system good enough guideline for that. And that´s how they should be seen as: guidelines, not God´s word, 'cause they are not.
It´s about time. And not just from a gaming perspective. Can you imagine how much tax money that guy has plucked down the toilet? Yes, dear Americans; Jack is a good show, but you are paying for it.
You know? That's got a nice ring to it..."The Jack-Jack Show"
Awww, what a cute widdl -- HOLY FUCK IT'S ON FIRE! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Imagine JT being able to spontaneously combust -- I mean physically speaking rather than metaphoically...
...
I wouldn't mind more Incredibles films, by the way...
I don´t think a perfect solution can exist. Even if everyone would follow through with the ratings, how reliable are the ratings? They are based on basically someone´s gut feeling, not science. On top of that, no two people are alike and media has different effects on each individual. Children develop differently. A 10-year-old kid can get traumas from a movie scene that doesn´t affect another 5-year-old kid. I know adults who won´t watch any violent movies because they´ll get nightmares. From my point of view, the attempt to make the ratings even more "accurate" is foolish, because in the end, the only person who could determine what kind of material an individual child should have access to, is the child´s parent. I see the current rating system good enough guideline for that. And that´s how they should be seen as: guidelines, not God´s word, 'cause they are not.
I feel like the ratings are pretty perfect...even if the final E/T/M rating isn't perfect, the extra details on the back of the box give enough info for most people.
I can find two M games, and even if I weren't already intimately familiar with their content, the details on the back give you an idea of what to expect, so you can avoid buying the "realistic blood and gore" game, but be ok with the "some adult themes" game, or something to that effect.
Really, the only ESRB fuck-up I can think of was Oblivion, which was obviously an M game from day one, and I still don't understand why they rated it T at first.
It´s about time. And not just from a gaming perspective. Can you imagine how much tax money that guy has plucked down the toilet? Yes, dear Americans; Jack is a good show, but you are paying for it.
You know? That's got a nice ring to it..."The Jack-Jack Show"
Awww, what a cute widdl -- HOLY FUCK IT'S ON FIRE! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Imagine JT being able to spontaneously combust -- I mean physically speaking rather than metaphoically...
...
I wouldn't mind more Incredibles films, by the way...
As long as Brad Bird is still writing and directing, we're in complete agreement.
Really, the only ESRB fuck-up I can think of was Oblivion, which was obviously an M game from day one, and I still don't understand why they rated it T at first.
I believe that stems from that they're not "humans" but rather fantasy creatures. Also, is there blood from inflicting wounds? (Never played Oblivion) In general showing blood == M.
Really, the only ESRB fuck-up I can think of was Oblivion, which was obviously an M game from day one, and I still don't understand why they rated it T at first.
I believe that stems from that they're not "humans" but rather fantasy creatures. Also, is there blood from inflicting wounds? (Never played Oblivion) In general showing blood == M.
If you do the right questlines there is fucking tons of blood in Oblivion. I mean there' blood sprays and that, but the Dark Brotherhood are nasty.
Really, the only ESRB fuck-up I can think of was Oblivion, which was obviously an M game from day one, and I still don't understand why they rated it T at first.
I believe that stems from that they're not "humans" but rather fantasy creatures. Also, is there blood from inflicting wounds? (Never played Oblivion) In general showing blood == M.
Yes, there is blood from wounds; when you hit somebody there is a reasonable blood splatter. Plus, if you keep on hitting somebody, your weapons gets this nice red paint job...
Jon 118 on
0
Options
Zxerolfor the smaller pieces, my shovel wouldn't doso i took off my boot and used my shoeRegistered Userregular
Really, the only ESRB fuck-up I can think of was Oblivion, which was obviously an M game from day one, and I still don't understand why they rated it T at first.
I believe that stems from that they're not "humans" but rather fantasy creatures. Also, is there blood from inflicting wounds? (Never played Oblivion) In general showing blood == M.
See, that's my problem with, for example, Republic Commando's rating. I thought it was a pretty violent game, with blood being spewed on your visor and bodies literally being ripped apart. But it got a T rating, simply because none of the gore was red and you were killing aliens. It seemed pretty off to me. On the other hand, you get something like Smash Bros. Melee or Twilight Princess, which has nowhere near that level of violence, with the same rating.
The ESRB has some rating mishaps, many times. Don't get me started on the whole Hot Coffee bullshit.
Really, the only ESRB fuck-up I can think of was Oblivion, which was obviously an M game from day one, and I still don't understand why they rated it T at first.
The problem is when the ESRB starts retroactively re-rating games after release. Look, if you made a mistake, live with it. If you decide on a whim to change a game's rating after it hits shelves, costing retailers and publishers money for reprints and stickers and what have you, you'll find yourself about as relevant as the Comics Code Authority.
Q. When should a game be re-rated?
A. When views on how bad it's contents are have significantly changed (like the way that some old films that were 18's would probably only rate 15 now)
Hmm... interesting thought; would Jack Thompson be rabid enough to start a campaign against a game if it's rating is questionable (not obviously wrong, just in the hard to judge section)?
Q. When should a game be re-rated?
A. When views on how bad it's contents are have significantly changed (like the way that some old films that were 18's would probably only rate 15 now)
Hmm... interesting thought; would Jack Thompson be rabid enough to start a campaign against a game if it's rating is questionable (not obviously wrong, just in the hard to judge section)?
Well, I think JTs thought is that pretty much every game should be AO
Q. When should a game be re-rated?
A. When views on how bad it's contents are have significantly changed (like the way that some old films that were 18's would probably only rate 15 now)
Hmm... interesting thought; would Jack Thompson be rabid enough to start a campaign against a game if it's rating is questionable (not obviously wrong, just in the hard to judge section)?
Well, I think JTs thought is that pretty much every game should be AO
Yeah, good point. Lets hope he loses his case.
Jon 118 on
0
Options
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
Q. When should a game be re-rated?
A. When views on how bad it's contents are have significantly changed (like the way that some old films that were 18's would probably only rate 15 now)
Hmm... interesting thought; would Jack Thompson be rabid enough to start a campaign against a game if it's rating is questionable (not obviously wrong, just in the hard to judge section)?
Well, I think JTs thought is that pretty much every game should be AO
Yeah, good point. Lets hope he loses his case.
I'm pretty sure Ol' Jack wants all video games, developers, gamers, and gaming memorabilia put on an island in the pacific and nuked from low orbit.
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
Q. When should a game be re-rated?
A. When views on how bad it's contents are have significantly changed (like the way that some old films that were 18's would probably only rate 15 now)
Hmm... interesting thought; would Jack Thompson be rabid enough to start a campaign against a game if it's rating is questionable (not obviously wrong, just in the hard to judge section)?
Well, I think JTs thought is that pretty much every game should be AO
Yeah, good point. Lets hope he loses his case.
I'm pretty sure Ol' Jack wants all video games, developers, gamers, and gaming memorabilia put on an island in the pacific and nuked from low orbit.
Hey, here's an idea; how about instead of Jack suing people over incidents supposedly caused by video games we sue him over the death of every gamer who dies, claiming that they commited suicide because he insulted their favourate games. And since he keeps trying to get games banned, how about we try to get his name and personality banned.
Posts
I mean seriously
Why it took this long is beyond me
Wii: 5024 6786 2934 2806 | Steam/XBL: Arcibi | FFXI: Arcibi / Bahamut
Because everyone was like "Oh lets ignore him he'll go away."
Which, historically speaking, has never fixed anything.
Also, 'lol' at Whacko Jacko.
Also, this news here, today, it's a good thing.
...
WHAT TOOK SO FUCKING LONG?
...
On another point; him being disbarred WILL remove all or most of his influence with officials, but it won't stop him making an impact on the more impressionable people. Ah well, better than nothing. At least he'll find his insane crusade set back a lot. And on the subject of him becoming a senator: chances of it happening are pretty much zero. Who would be crazy enough to vote for a lawyer who got disbarred and had a fairly massive reputation for making trouble?
Don't answer that.
If he does get his license revoked, it's basically over for him in the world of MAJOR influence.
Anything he could do would be tainted by his disbarment, and ANY of his opponents would just have to go "Hey, weren't you BANNED from being a lawyer due to being a total fuckwit?"
He can't even play up the position of martyr for the same reasons. All people have to do is mention his antics and it's all over. Whether it be in the court room, or any of his various shenanigans on the internet. The man basically nailed himself to the tree.
The only people who will listen to him are the hyper-reactive soccer moms.
You know? That's got a nice ring to it..."The Jack-Jack Show"
Honestly, I don't think it really needs anything resembling a makeover.
The ESRB's ratings make sense 99% of the time, all that needs to happen is simple contracts between distributors and retailers regarding the sale of M-rated titles to minors.
If the retailer fucks it up, they've breached the contract and pay a reasonable fine, do it enough and the distributors pull the contract and the retailer is left without the ability to sell those products anymore. It's simple, elegant, and involves no fucking legislature whatsoever.
Which, of course, means it won't happen, it makes too much goddamn sense.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Awww, what a cute widdl -- HOLY FUCK IT'S ON FIRE! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Imagine JT being able to spontaneously combust -- I mean physically speaking rather than metaphoically...
...
I wouldn't mind more Incredibles films, by the way...
I feel like the ratings are pretty perfect...even if the final E/T/M rating isn't perfect, the extra details on the back of the box give enough info for most people.
I can find two M games, and even if I weren't already intimately familiar with their content, the details on the back give you an idea of what to expect, so you can avoid buying the "realistic blood and gore" game, but be ok with the "some adult themes" game, or something to that effect.
Really, the only ESRB fuck-up I can think of was Oblivion, which was obviously an M game from day one, and I still don't understand why they rated it T at first.
I believe that stems from that they're not "humans" but rather fantasy creatures. Also, is there blood from inflicting wounds? (Never played Oblivion) In general showing blood == M.
Yes, there is blood from wounds; when you hit somebody there is a reasonable blood splatter. Plus, if you keep on hitting somebody, your weapons gets this nice red paint job...
See, that's my problem with, for example, Republic Commando's rating. I thought it was a pretty violent game, with blood being spewed on your visor and bodies literally being ripped apart. But it got a T rating, simply because none of the gore was red and you were killing aliens. It seemed pretty off to me. On the other hand, you get something like Smash Bros. Melee or Twilight Princess, which has nowhere near that level of violence, with the same rating.
The ESRB has some rating mishaps, many times. Don't get me started on the whole Hot Coffee bullshit.
The problem is when the ESRB starts retroactively re-rating games after release. Look, if you made a mistake, live with it. If you decide on a whim to change a game's rating after it hits shelves, costing retailers and publishers money for reprints and stickers and what have you, you'll find yourself about as relevant as the Comics Code Authority.
At least, that's how I see it.
A. When views on how bad it's contents are have significantly changed (like the way that some old films that were 18's would probably only rate 15 now)
Hmm... interesting thought; would Jack Thompson be rabid enough to start a campaign against a game if it's rating is questionable (not obviously wrong, just in the hard to judge section)?
Well, I think JTs thought is that pretty much every game should be AO
Yeah, good point. Lets hope he loses his case.
I'm pretty sure Ol' Jack wants all video games, developers, gamers, and gaming memorabilia put on an island in the pacific and nuked from low orbit.
Hey, here's an idea; how about instead of Jack suing people over incidents supposedly caused by video games we sue him over the death of every gamer who dies, claiming that they commited suicide because he insulted their favourate games. And since he keeps trying to get games banned, how about we try to get his name and personality banned.
Why didn't this happen sooner?
"Daddy, please, stop this! We want to eat and buy things!"
"Can't stop. Must fight...VIDEO GAAAAAAMES!"
Don't get me started with the wife's situation, if he's even still married.
The what?