Why does the government have a responsibility to protect people "from themselves"? What do they gain by doing this
A healthier more productive populas with a reduced burden on public health services.
That's only true if it is a big problem.
What does the government have to gain by protecting WoW addicts from themselves?
Pretty much nothing since there are so few people who are addicted to WoW to the point that their health and productivity are severely decreased.
Honestly there's nothing special about WoW or MMOs to make them worth singling out anyway. The internet in general is just as psychologically addictive, and you'll see more general internet-addicts than all the MMO's addicts put together.
What I do in my free time is no concern of the government's, and should not be regulated. The moment you try to tell me I am not responsible for my own well being is the moment I give you a resounding 'fuck you!'
If you are responsible for your well-being you better act responsibly. If you don't, maybe somebody needs to step in to protect you from yourself. Saying shit like "I'm responsible for my own well-being so I can do whatever I want lolo" is pretty fucking stupid.
On what grounds, if any, do you make this silly assertion?
I don't believe in freedom for the sake of freedom. I believe that with freedoms come the responsibility to use those freedoms reasonably. And by "reasonably" I mean "in a way that will not end in your death."
What does that have to do with anything, and what right do you have to force people to stay alive if they don't want to? You haven't answered the question. If you think you have, then my reply is "I don't believe that your opinion matters because I believe that you're a poopy butt all covered in poop", because it's exactly as valid an argument which is backed up with exactly the same amount of logic. Since you didn't post any logic, just your personal beliefs.
They aren't dying because they WANT to die. I doubt that woman who died while playing that MMO thought, "I hate my life, I think I'll just sit in front of my computer and play all day and night and forget to eat and drink".
Next, you are gonna hope the government comes in to get rid of fatties and controls what foods we eat, how much we eat, what foods on what day, things of this nature.
That's too much, but for the record I am all for the government banning unhealthy foods such as trans fats. Props to NY.
Why does the government have a responsibility to protect people "from themselves"? What do they gain by doing this
A healthier more productive populas with a reduced burden on public health services.
And so that comes before people's right to do with their free time what they please?
The government puts up restrictions on pretty much every self-destructive and addictive behavior. There's not exactly a legislative or moral bright line surrounding video games.
Why does the government have a responsibility to protect people "from themselves"? What do they gain by doing this
A healthier more productive populas with a reduced burden on public health services.
And so that comes before people's right to do with their free time what they please?
The government puts up restrictions on pretty much every self-destructive and addictive behavior. There's not exactly a legislative or moral bright line surrounding video games.
Except eating yourself to death. Or getting morbidly out of shape by watching TV all day, every day. Or gambling your family fortune away. Or being an alcoholic (you just can't drive while being one). Or tanning to the point of skin cancer. Or...
There are plenty of self-destructive behaviors that are not restricted by the government. Personally, I don't like the insinuation that people can't care for themselves if they play an MMO, or heck even if they're addicted to an MMO.
My dad has been addicted to Everquest for years, but he doesn't do any of the shit you guys hear about on the news. Putting government regulations on this stuff is making sure we are one step closer to a totalitarian state.
Why does the government have a responsibility to protect people "from themselves"? What do they gain by doing this
A healthier more productive populas with a reduced burden on public health services.
And so that comes before people's right to do with their free time what they please?
The government puts up restrictions on pretty much every self-destructive and addictive behavior. There's not exactly a legislative or moral bright line surrounding video games.
Give me an example that's neither marijuana nor physically-addictive.
irt ege; And to the rest of the arguments posed to you, Hell even just the rest of that post, you say what?
I don't have any moral obligations towards strangers.
Ah, things taken out of context can be wonderfully amusing, no?
Let me know when you stop being a dipshit and decide to actually contribute to the thread.
Unless the context consisted of "haha just kidding!" that doesn't even matter. Let me know when you're going to learn how logic works and think before you say retarded shit.
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Except eating yourself to death. Or getting morbidly out of shape by watching TV all day, every day. Or gambling your family fortune away. Or being an alcoholic (you just can't drive while being one). Or tanning to the point of skin cancer. Or...
There are plenty of self-destructive behaviors that are not restricted by the government. Personally, I don't like the insinuation that people can't care for themselves if they play an MMO, or heck even if they're addicted to an MMO.
My dad has been addicted to Everquest for years, but he doesn't do any of the shit you guys hear about on the news. Putting government regulations on this stuff is making sure we are one step closer to a totalitarian state.
Alcohol sales are regulated heavily by the state, food-based regulations and taxes are everywhere, gambling is heavily regulated, and there's a very fluid and grey line in terms of the state's power to commit someone in the case of mental illness likely to cause "harm to self". The judicial system can essentially force people into rehab and treatment programs. Hell, pornography is regulated.
I'm not saying that the government swoops in on every case of addiction. What I'm saying is that the government has the power to, and generally does, enact high-level legislation dealing with issues of addiction and harm to self. I understand that ones' own personal hobby might seem sacrosanct, but it just ain't so.
MMOs are new enough phenomenon that we've not yet seen larger-scale effects, but we do see disturbing trends.
I don't have any moral obligations towards strangers.
Ah, things taken out of context can be wonderfully amusing, no?
Let me know when you stop being a dipshit and decide to actually contribute to the thread.
Unless the context consisted of "haha just kidding!" that doesn't even matter. Let me know when you're going to learn how logic works and think before you say retarded shit.
Explain to me how me saying "I don't have any moral obligations towards strangers" in a sex and relationships thread has anything, anything at all, to do with me being in favor of the government imposing regulations on MMO playing.
You'll have to stretch the boundaries of "logic" quite a bit. Good luck.
ege02 on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I don't think the government taxes stuff like alcohol or cigarettes in order to prevent or discourage addiction to those things, but rather because they know people are going to buy them anyway, because they are addicted, so they can get more money that way.
How is porn regulated? Is there a tax on pornographic materials?
Except eating yourself to death. Or getting morbidly out of shape by watching TV all day, every day. Or gambling your family fortune away. Or being an alcoholic (you just can't drive while being one). Or tanning to the point of skin cancer. Or...
There are plenty of self-destructive behaviors that are not restricted by the government. Personally, I don't like the insinuation that people can't care for themselves if they play an MMO, or heck even if they're addicted to an MMO.
My dad has been addicted to Everquest for years, but he doesn't do any of the shit you guys hear about on the news. Putting government regulations on this stuff is making sure we are one step closer to a totalitarian state.
Alcohol sales are regulated heavily by the state, food-based regulations and taxes are everywhere, gambling is heavily regulated, and there's a very fluid and grey line in terms of the state's power to commit someone in the case of mental illness likely to cause "harm to self". The judicial system can essentially force people into rehab and treatment programs. Hell, pornography is regulated.
I'm not saying that the government swoops in on every case of addiction. What I'm saying is that the government has the power to, and generally does, enact high-level legislation dealing with issues of addiction and harm to self. I understand that ones' own personal hobby might seem sacrosanct, but it just ain't so.
MMOs are new enough phenomenon that we've not yet seen larger-scale effects, but we do see disturbing trends.
Okay, I see your point. I think that we disagree on what 'regulations' means though. Yes, these industries all have government regulations on them. But the government does not regulate how much we participate in these activities. As stated previously in the thread, unless you can show that video games differ from any other activity you can become addicted to (such as working out, eating, pornography) I see no reason why anyone would single out video games over any one of these.
Spawnbroker on
Steam: Spawnbroker
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I don't think the government taxes stuff like alcohol or cigarettes in order to prevent or discourage addiction to those things, but rather because they know people are going to buy them anyway, because they are addicted, so they can get more money that way.
How is porn regulated? Is there a tax on pornographic materials?
Pornographic sales are limited to adults, industry groups (MPAA, ECRB) regulate media content, and the FCC regulates the public airwaves heavily when it comes to pornographic content. To my knowledge, there's no tax on it.
Also, to say that sin taxes are simply funding vehicles misses the point that not only are these products explicitly regulated by various government agencies above and beyond taxation, but it also overlooks the fact that these are able to be independently taxed because they're regarded largely as social ills.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Okay, I see your point. I think that we disagree on what 'regulations' means though. Yes, these industries all have government regulations on them. But the government does not regulate how much we participate in these activities. As stated previously in the thread, unless you can show that video games differ from any other activity you can become addicted to (such as working out, eating, pornography) I see no reason why anyone would single out video games over any one of these.
I don't know what kind of regulations we're likely to see. It probably won't be like China's. However, most of the gamers' rationale against government regulation of their hobby really rests on the concept that the government is simply unsohpisticated and ignorant of the complexities of gaming. Don't expect this to always be the case. Gambling is very precisely and sensibly regulated, and the state of Nevada has at times shown a lot of insight to the addictive nature of gambling.
Hell, I'd personally love to see the MMO industry self-regulate a little with respect to drawing down the implicit time requirements of those things.
I don't have any moral obligations towards strangers.
Ah, things taken out of context can be wonderfully amusing, no?
Let me know when you stop being a dipshit and decide to actually contribute to the thread.
Unless the context consisted of "haha just kidding!" that doesn't even matter. Let me know when you're going to learn how logic works and think before you say retarded shit.
Explain to me how me saying "I don't have any moral obligations towards strangers" in a sex and relationships thread has anything, anything at all, to do with me being in favor of the government imposing regulations on MMO playing.
You'll have to stretch the boundaries of "logic" quite a bit. Good luck.
I won't have to stretch anything. You said you don't have any moral obligations towards strangers, yet you vote for a nanny-state. If you have moral obligations to strangers you shouldn't have said you didn't. It's not our fault you don't have a consistent value-system.
Gambling is regulated because Jesus doesn't like it, not because it destroys lives (note how the regulation applied to it doesn't stop people from using it to destroy their lives). Trans-fats aren't regulated very well or very broadly. Mental health is regulated? Shit, I'd better watch out for the men in white coats since I'm pretty much crazy as far as the government is concerned. Credit is regulated as part of interstate commerce. Pornography is regulated because it offends people, not because it destroys lives (note how the regulation applied to it doesn't stop people from using it to destroy their lives).
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I won't have to stretch anything. You said you don't have any moral obligations towards strangers, yet you vote for a nanny-state. If you have moral obligations to strangers you shouldn't have said you didn't. It's not our fault you don't have a consistent value-system.
Having no personal moral obligation to strangers doesn't mean that he doesn't feel that the state is similarly non-obligated.
More to the point, ege's statement about obligation really was in the context of that relationship thread.
I won't have to stretch anything. You said you don't have any moral obligations towards strangers, yet you vote for a nanny-state. If you have moral obligations to strangers you shouldn't have said you didn't. It's not our fault you don't have a consistent value-system.
Having no personal moral obligation to strangers doesn't mean that he doesn't feel that the state is similarly non-obligated.
More to the point, ege's statement about obligation really was in the context of that relationship thread.
So then he has an obligation to force people to live their lives to his standards to protect them from themselves, but no obligation not to expose them to whatever nasty might be living on his wang without their knowledge? This isn't any less inconsistent, and if anything it's a far less positive picture of his character.
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Gambling is regulated because Jesus doesn't like it, not because it destroys lives (note how the regulation applied to it doesn't stop people from using it to destroy their lives). Trans-fats aren't regulated very well or very broadly. Mental health is regulated? Shit, I'd better watch out for the men in white coats since I'm pretty much crazy as far as the government is concerned. Credit is regulated as part of interstate commerce. Pornography is regulated because it offends people, not because it destroys lives (note how the regulation applied to it doesn't stop people from using it to destroy their lives).
1) Everything federally regulated is officially regulated as part of interstate commerce.
2) Gambling is partially regulated in Nevada with rtegard to its life-destroying capacity. Moreover, it's banned in most states exactly because of this.
3) Trans-fats are a recent phenomenon, but all foods have to be cleared through the FDA prior to being sold, and many foodstuffs are banned or regulated on health, disease or toxicity grounds. Standards of sale for almost all foodstuffs are determined and heavily regulated by the FDA.
4) Credit interest limits and the like are established and enforced by the federal government (at too-high levels IMO) because they're destructive to peoples' lives - even though the act of soliciting a loan is a free action.
5) The government has at many times fought to ban pornography. After many court cases, it's available, but only narrowly. You don't find it on broadcast TV.
Areas appropriate to regulation by the government are not defined by a bright legal line, as I stated earlier, and computer games have never, insofar as I know, been legally established as "free speech". Because the industry refuses to police itself adequately, it is unlikely to remain free of regulation for long.
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I won't have to stretch anything. You said you don't have any moral obligations towards strangers, yet you vote for a nanny-state. If you have moral obligations to strangers you shouldn't have said you didn't. It's not our fault you don't have a consistent value-system.
Having no personal moral obligation to strangers doesn't mean that he doesn't feel that the state is similarly non-obligated.
More to the point, ege's statement about obligation really was in the context of that relationship thread.
So then he has an obligation to force people to live their lives to his standards to protect them from themselves, but no obligation not to expose them to whatever nasty might be living on his wang without their knowledge? This isn't any less inconsistent, and if anything it's a far less positive picture of his character.
This thread's not about ege's character. And there are plenty of facets of life where I feel the government is obligated, but I am not except insofar as I pay taxes.
I'm curious, to those who believe there is a case to be made for regulation in this case, would you look at the situation differently if the game in question wasn't an MMO? Hell, I've done nothing but play Civ for days at a stretch, and Civ 4 was even advertised as being ridiculously addictive.
I don't see how you could construct a regulatory framework around something like gaming addiction. It would be like trying to regulate away Anorexia, Body dysmorphia, damaging obsessive behaviour or any other activity that only becomes problematic in people with a psychological predisposition. There are powers that the State has to intervene if a person is placing themselves at risk, but they already cover this kind of thing, gaming is not a special case.
I won't have to stretch anything. You said you don't have any moral obligations towards strangers, yet you vote for a nanny-state. If you have moral obligations to strangers you shouldn't have said you didn't. It's not our fault you don't have a consistent value-system.
Having no personal moral obligation to strangers doesn't mean that he doesn't feel that the state is similarly non-obligated.
More to the point, ege's statement about obligation really was in the context of that relationship thread.
So then he has an obligation to force people to live their lives to his standards to protect them from themselves, but no obligation not to expose them to whatever nasty might be living on his wang without their knowledge? This isn't any less inconsistent, and if anything it's a far less positive picture of his character.
This thread's not about ege's character. And there are plenty of facets of life where I feel the government is obligated, but I am not except insofar as I pay taxes.
It's what he's trying to defend more than his arguments. At least that's what I have to assume since he still isn't actually positing arguments so much as claims and beliefs and remarks that he mistakenly believes to be snappy-comebacks. Although I see what you mean about the government and individuals having different responsibilities; in ege-land people are not responsible for their lives, but the government is. To such an extent even that the government is expected to monitor all of the people in their homes at all times.
Okay, I see your point. I think that we disagree on what 'regulations' means though. Yes, these industries all have government regulations on them. But the government does not regulate how much we participate in these activities. As stated previously in the thread, unless you can show that video games differ from any other activity you can become addicted to (such as working out, eating, pornography) I see no reason why anyone would single out video games over any one of these.
I don't know what kind of regulations we're likely to see. It probably won't be like China's. However, most of the gamers' rationale against government regulation of their hobby really rests on the concept that the government is simply unsohpisticated and ignorant of the complexities of gaming. Don't expect this to always be the case. Gambling is very precisely and sensibly regulated, and the state of Nevada has at times shown a lot of insight to the addictive nature of gambling.
Hell, I'd personally love to see the MMO industry self-regulate a little with respect to drawing down the implicit time requirements of those things.
Fair enough, but how can anyone (game industry or government) regulate something that is done in the privacy of one's own home?
Should game companies be held accountable for their games being "too addictive"? Is it on them to ensure their subscriber base isn't spending too much time on their product? And how do you propose they do that? Monitor every user's time spent online and set an arbitrary cut-off point? What about the previously mentionned weekend bender? If I've had a tough week and haven't had a weekend to myself in a while, do I not have the right to go home and decide to play WoW all day Saturday? Does that make me a dirty filthy addict who doesn't know how to take care of himself?
I don't have any moral obligations towards strangers.
Ah, things taken out of context can be wonderfully amusing, no?
Let me know when you stop being a dipshit and decide to actually contribute to the thread.
Unless the context consisted of "haha just kidding!" that doesn't even matter. Let me know when you're going to learn how logic works and think before you say retarded shit.
Explain to me how me saying "I don't have any moral obligations towards strangers" in a sex and relationships thread has anything, anything at all, to do with me being in favor of the government imposing regulations on MMO playing.
You'll have to stretch the boundaries of "logic" quite a bit. Good luck.
I won't have to stretch anything. You said you don't have any moral obligations towards strangers, yet you vote for a nanny-state. If you have moral obligations to strangers you shouldn't have said you didn't. It's not our fault you don't have a consistent value-system.
ege has a value system consistent with oppressing and regulating everything that doesn't effect him, and declaring "weird" "not normal" and "obsessed" people who might enjoy things he doesn't.
Also, really, who wants to let a consistent value system effect your right to bang someone else's wife?
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
I'm curious, to those who believe there is a case to be made for regulation in this case, would you look at the situation differently if the game in question wasn't an MMO? Hell, I've done nothing but play Civ for days at a stretch, and Civ 4 was even advertised as being ridiculously addictive.
I don't see how you could construct a regulatory framework around something like gaming addiction. It would be like trying to regulate away Anorexia, Body dysmorphia, damaging obsessive behaviour or any other activity that only becomes problematic in people with a psychological predisposition. There are powers that the State has to intervene if a person is placing themselves at risk, but they already cover this kind of thing, gaming is not a special case.
I'm not convinced it's completely impossible. There have been, for instance, a lot of studies of gambling addiction which find specific aspects that maximize addiction. Payoff rates is one, and payoff rate is specifically regulated in Nevada to lower addiction.
Let's say some really smart people studied MMOs and the behavior of addicts and other gamers and found key metrics that encourage addiction. Time between save-points, say. Is this substantially different from setting minimum payout levels for slot machines?
Irond Will on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Fair enough, but how can anyone (game industry or government) regulate something that is done in the privacy of one's own home?
Should game companies be held accountable for their games being "too addictive"? Is it on them to ensure their subscriber base isn't spending too much time on their product? And how do you propose they do that? Monitor every user's time spent online and set an arbitrary cut-off point? What about the previously mentionned weekend bender? If I've had a tough week and haven't had a weekend to myself in a while, do I not have the right to go home and decide to play WoW all day Saturday? Does that make me a dirty filthy addict who doesn't know how to take care of himself?
Yes it does, you filthy addict. Roll over and let mamma gummint clean you up.
Really, I don't think that ad hoc systems for protecting individuals would work well, or that they're even generally actualizable or desirable. I don't think, though, that a software developer is or should be exempt from regulation, and I think that targeted regulation on problematic areas of an industry that refuses to self-regulate is probably the best solution.
Look at it this way: either the government studies and regulates this stuff in a sensible way, or else we're going to see eventual success in a big cash-in lawsuit against Blizzard - who is quite aware of the addictiveness of their product and a subpoena would probably dredge up some pretty damning memos regarding cranking up the stickiness of the product.
I don't have any moral obligations towards strangers.
Ah, things taken out of context can be wonderfully amusing, no?
Let me know when you stop being a dipshit and decide to actually contribute to the thread.
Unless the context consisted of "haha just kidding!" that doesn't even matter. Let me know when you're going to learn how logic works and think before you say retarded shit.
Explain to me how me saying "I don't have any moral obligations towards strangers" in a sex and relationships thread has anything, anything at all, to do with me being in favor of the government imposing regulations on MMO playing.
You'll have to stretch the boundaries of "logic" quite a bit. Good luck.
I won't have to stretch anything. You said you don't have any moral obligations towards strangers, yet you vote for a nanny-state. If you have moral obligations to strangers you shouldn't have said you didn't. It's not our fault you don't have a consistent value-system.
ege has a value system consistent with oppressing and regulating everything that doesn't effect him, and declaring "weird" "not normal" and "obsessed" people who might enjoy things he doesn't.
Also, really, who wants to let a consistent value system effect your right to bang someone else's wife?
Actually, I should hope he wants the government to make sure to regulate that too. When someone dies from an MMO addiction, it makes international news. When someone murders a cheating significant other and/or accomplice to said cheater it won't even make the local daily in bigger cities. This is because it's not unique, it's not even uncommon, for cheating to result in murder. Far more common in the United States than death by MMO addiction. So obviously the government is going to have to step in here since all adults are really stupid children who need their hands held all the time.
I'm curious, to those who believe there is a case to be made for regulation in this case, would you look at the situation differently if the game in question wasn't an MMO? Hell, I've done nothing but play Civ for days at a stretch, and Civ 4 was even advertised as being ridiculously addictive.
I don't see how you could construct a regulatory framework around something like gaming addiction. It would be like trying to regulate away Anorexia, Body dysmorphia, damaging obsessive behaviour or any other activity that only becomes problematic in people with a psychological predisposition. There are powers that the State has to intervene if a person is placing themselves at risk, but they already cover this kind of thing, gaming is not a special case.
I'm not convinced it's completely impossible. There have been, for instance, a lot of studies of gambling addiction which find specific aspects that maximize addiction. Payoff rates is one, and payoff rate is specifically regulated in Nevada to lower addiction.
Let's say some really smart people studied MMOs and the behavior of addicts and other gamers and found key metrics that encourage addiction. Time between save-points, say. Is this substantially different from setting minimum payout levels for slot machines?
Perhaps. I'm not convinced that MMOs are uniquely addictive, or that such measures are really necessary. I'd like to see some research on that first. In principle though, I don't think I'd object to it. It's definitely preferable to ege's insane broad strokes.
Would the same thing be applied to offline games? Or multiplayer games hosted on privately owned servers? I'm not yet convinced that it's a large enough problem to warrant regulation.
japan on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Perhaps. I'm not convinced that MMOs are uniquely addictive, or that such measures are really necessary. I'd like to see some research on that first. In principle though, I don't think I'd object to it. It's definitely preferable to ege's insane broad strokes.
Would the same thing be applied to offline games? Or multiplayer games hosted on privately owned servers? I'm not yet convinced that it's a large enough problem to warrant regulation.
They're probably not uniquely addictive, and I don't have enough experience with local multiplayer or single-player games being really addictive in the same way. And everyone's right, of course, that OCD people can fixate on anything.
I do have some experience with MMOs, though, and I've bumped into a few people who have really messed up their lives as the result of getting fixated on them. Yeah, there's no way of knowing whether they would have found something else to screw up their lives if MMOs weren't available, but I think it would be imprudent to dismiss the idea that certain aspects of these games might generate some social ills. We should at least be on guard against the possiblity and stay on the lookout for sensible ways to mitigate or ameliorate the social ills caused.
ege has a value system consistent with oppressing and regulating everything that doesn't effect him, and declaring "weird" "not normal" and "obsessed" people who might enjoy things he doesn't.
It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it affects me.
I eat junk food occasionally, but I am all for banning trans fats. I don't exclude myself from the standards I advocate.
Also, really, who wants to let a consistent value system effect your right to bang someone else's wife?
Not wife. My stance on not having a problem with banging other people's S/Os does not extend to married people.
It's what he's trying to defend more than his arguments. At least that's what I have to assume since he still isn't actually positing arguments so much as claims and beliefs and remarks that he mistakenly believes to be snappy-comebacks. Although I see what you mean about the government and individuals having different responsibilities; in ege-land people are not responsible for their lives, but the government is. To such an extent even that the government is expected to monitor all of the people in their homes at all times.
. . .
What?
This is why I hate arguing with you VC; you take my stances to extreme levels and put words in my mouth (certainly not the first time you have done it).
Government monitoring everyone in their homes at all times? I never said that. Imposing a 4 hour limit on MMO-playing != installing cameras in people's homes to watch them 24/7.
I never said people aren't responsible for their lives either.
I said they are responsible for their lives, but if they cannot fulfill that responsibility (i.e. of staying alive while playing a god damn game), then maybe someone else (i.e. the government) needs to step in and regulate.
The person in the OP did not kill herself because she wanted to.
She died due to horrific negligence and ridiculous forgetfulness, caused by addiction.
When that woman sat in front of her game, she did not do it with the intention of dying. I'm sure the possibility didn't even cross her mind.
But she died.
That is why it's not anti-freedom to say that the government should protect us from unintended consequences of our actions, by, well, regulating the actions themselves.
Do you see the line I am drawing here? I explained it as clearly as I could without using language that you might mistake as "snappy-comebacks" so that you don't get distracted.
Okay, let me move this discussion forward a bit.
I'm going to assume that you agree that people dying while playing MMOs is a problem that is getting more serious as MMOs become more popular.
Do you agree that we should work to solve that problem?
I'm going to assume that you agree that people dying while playing MMOs is a problem that is getting more serious as MMOs become more popular.
Do you agree that we should work to solve that problem?
If so, what do you suggest?
But that's the thing, I don't agree. People dying while playing MMOs isn't a serious nor a widespread problem. This isn't happening all over the place everyday like, say, a domestic murder or a drunk driving accident.
It's a sad, strange way to die that has garnered international attention because some people are looking for just about any reason to demonize a pass time that I dare say most of the people in this forum enjoy in one form or another.
I say again: the MMO didn't kill her, it was her mental instability which caused her to not realize what she was doing that led to her death.
Did the game have a role to play in her death, sure, as a result, the furthest I would see any form of regulation would be a label on the packaging of a game saying "content may be addictive, users with addictive personalities should play with caution." much like they do with the epilepsy warnings which is a prefectly suitable way to warn those who might have an ailment which the game could worsen.
I'm going to assume that you agree that people dying while playing MMOs is a problem that is getting more serious as MMOs become more popular.
Do you agree that we should work to solve that problem?
If so, what do you suggest?
But that's the thing, I don't agree. People dying while playing MMOs isn't a serious nor a widespread problem. This isn't happening all over the place everyday like, say, a domestic murder or a drunk driving accident.
It's a sad, strange way to die that has garnered international attention because some people are looking for just about any reason to demonize a pass time that I dare say most of the people in this forum enjoy in one form or another.
I say again: the MMO didn't kill her, it was her mental instability which caused her to not realize what she was doing that led to her death.
Did the game have a role to play in her death, sure, as a result, the furthest I would see any form of regulation would be a label on the packaging of a game saying "content may be addictive, users with addictive personalities should play with caution." much like they do with the epilepsy warnings which is a prefectly suitable way to warn those who might have an ailment which the game could worsen.
People dying is always a problem.
Aside from a more compassionate standpoint (i.e. people dying is bad), they cost the society money in terms of opportunity cost that is lost. It also costs money to take care of the body after they die.
The only reason it is not a serious problem yet is because MMOs aren't that popular. But, judging from the widespread popularity of WoW (which is becoming more popular by the day), this is going to change in several years. Then what?
How many people need to die until people (like you) admit that the problem needs to be dealt with?
I'm going to assume that you agree that people dying while playing MMOs is a problem that is getting more serious as MMOs become more popular.
Do you agree that we should work to solve that problem?
If so, what do you suggest?
But that's the thing, I don't agree. People dying while playing MMOs isn't a serious nor a widespread problem. This isn't happening all over the place everyday like, say, a domestic murder or a drunk driving accident.
It's a sad, strange way to die that has garnered international attention because some people are looking for just about any reason to demonize a pass time that I dare say most of the people in this forum enjoy in one form or another.
I say again: the MMO didn't kill her, it was her mental instability which caused her to not realize what she was doing that led to her death.
Did the game have a role to play in her death, sure, as a result, the furthest I would see any form of regulation would be a label on the packaging of a game saying "content may be addictive, users with addictive personalities should play with caution." much like they do with the epilepsy warnings which is a prefectly suitable way to warn those who might have an ailment which the game could worsen.
People dying is always a problem.
Aside from a more compassionate standpoint (i.e. people dying is bad), they cost the society money in terms of opportunity cost that is lost. It also costs money to take care of the body after they die.
The only reason it is not a serious problem yet is because MMOs aren't that popular. But, judging from the widespread popularity of WoW (which is becoming more popular by the day), this is going to change in several years. Then what?
How many people need to die until people (like you) admit that the problem needs to be dealt with?
As soon as I'm convinced that it's the games that are the problem, which I am not.
I take your arguments to no greater extremes than the way in which you state them. If you wish to state less-extreme arguments, I recommend that you state some less-extreme arguments and back them up. If you're unwilling to be mindful of how you say things, then there's not really any point in talking with you about abstract concepts because no one will ever know what you think. You support limiting people's playtime of videogames because .0000001% of the population is too goddamn stupid to put on an [afk] tag and go eat a Hot-Pocket and take a shit. You neglect to acknowledge that the only way such a law could be enforced is to monitor people in their homes, because MMOs are hardly the only addictive games out there, and while it's true that even the old Final Fantasy games do eventually end, many games are more than 40 hours long, and the human body can only go without food and water for about 36.
These are problems for your argument. No, you didn't specifically reference them. That's why other people are having to reference them for you, because they are directly relavent to your argument. The fact that you believe MMOs are a great enough threat to justify the sort of extreme degree of legal-paternalization required to enforce any kind of legislation pertaining to them means that you believe activities that are obviously more severe threats justify at least the same level of extremity in their handling. Whether you actually believe that or not doesn't make it not an implication given that legal precedent isn't exactly a new thing and laws don't exist in individual bubbles.
None of this is stretching anything, none of this is straw-manning, none of this is putting words into your mouth. You stated what you think should be done and why, and I'm explaining to you the consequences of the action you're endorsing. While ideally it would be wonderful if the government just had a spider-sense that would tingle when someone's about to kill themselves with their own stupidity and send fairies to help them, that's absolutely not an even vaguely reasonable expectation. The action you propose is meant to apply to the real world, where things are by nature kind of fucked up and random.
I, for one, absolutely will not support a law regulating anything without being told the means by which it will be regulated. "Oh this can be bad so we're going to regulate it somehow" is not good enough for me, because I'm far more concerned about the rights of the 99.999% of the people who are able to play a game for more than a couple hours without falling down a slippery slope to sucking dick for those monthly pay-cards than about the statistically insignificant number of people who actually let themselves die for the sake of a damned videogame.
That's like saying people should only be allowed to smoke half a pack a day, or something.
People are free to make stupid, suicidal choices, whether that is smoking a moronic amount of cigarettes or playing a video game for a moronic amount of time.
Posts
That's only true if it is a big problem.
What does the government have to gain by protecting WoW addicts from themselves?
Pretty much nothing since there are so few people who are addicted to WoW to the point that their health and productivity are severely decreased.
Honestly there's nothing special about WoW or MMOs to make them worth singling out anyway. The internet in general is just as psychologically addictive, and you'll see more general internet-addicts than all the MMO's addicts put together.
News at 11!
They aren't dying because they WANT to die. I doubt that woman who died while playing that MMO thought, "I hate my life, I think I'll just sit in front of my computer and play all day and night and forget to eat and drink".
That's too much, but for the record I am all for the government banning unhealthy foods such as trans fats. Props to NY.
Ah, things taken out of context can be wonderfully amusing, no?
Let me know when you stop being a dipshit and decide to actually contribute to the thread.
Except eating yourself to death. Or getting morbidly out of shape by watching TV all day, every day. Or gambling your family fortune away. Or being an alcoholic (you just can't drive while being one). Or tanning to the point of skin cancer. Or...
There are plenty of self-destructive behaviors that are not restricted by the government. Personally, I don't like the insinuation that people can't care for themselves if they play an MMO, or heck even if they're addicted to an MMO.
My dad has been addicted to Everquest for years, but he doesn't do any of the shit you guys hear about on the news. Putting government regulations on this stuff is making sure we are one step closer to a totalitarian state.
Give me an example that's neither marijuana nor physically-addictive.
irt ege; And to the rest of the arguments posed to you, Hell even just the rest of that post, you say what?
Unless the context consisted of "haha just kidding!" that doesn't even matter. Let me know when you're going to learn how logic works and think before you say retarded shit.
Alcohol sales are regulated heavily by the state, food-based regulations and taxes are everywhere, gambling is heavily regulated, and there's a very fluid and grey line in terms of the state's power to commit someone in the case of mental illness likely to cause "harm to self". The judicial system can essentially force people into rehab and treatment programs. Hell, pornography is regulated.
I'm not saying that the government swoops in on every case of addiction. What I'm saying is that the government has the power to, and generally does, enact high-level legislation dealing with issues of addiction and harm to self. I understand that ones' own personal hobby might seem sacrosanct, but it just ain't so.
MMOs are new enough phenomenon that we've not yet seen larger-scale effects, but we do see disturbing trends.
Explain to me how me saying "I don't have any moral obligations towards strangers" in a sex and relationships thread has anything, anything at all, to do with me being in favor of the government imposing regulations on MMO playing.
You'll have to stretch the boundaries of "logic" quite a bit. Good luck.
How is porn regulated? Is there a tax on pornographic materials?
Okay, I see your point. I think that we disagree on what 'regulations' means though. Yes, these industries all have government regulations on them. But the government does not regulate how much we participate in these activities. As stated previously in the thread, unless you can show that video games differ from any other activity you can become addicted to (such as working out, eating, pornography) I see no reason why anyone would single out video games over any one of these.
Also, to say that sin taxes are simply funding vehicles misses the point that not only are these products explicitly regulated by various government agencies above and beyond taxation, but it also overlooks the fact that these are able to be independently taxed because they're regarded largely as social ills.
Hell, I'd personally love to see the MMO industry self-regulate a little with respect to drawing down the implicit time requirements of those things.
I won't have to stretch anything. You said you don't have any moral obligations towards strangers, yet you vote for a nanny-state. If you have moral obligations to strangers you shouldn't have said you didn't. It's not our fault you don't have a consistent value-system.
Gambling is regulated because Jesus doesn't like it, not because it destroys lives (note how the regulation applied to it doesn't stop people from using it to destroy their lives). Trans-fats aren't regulated very well or very broadly. Mental health is regulated? Shit, I'd better watch out for the men in white coats since I'm pretty much crazy as far as the government is concerned. Credit is regulated as part of interstate commerce. Pornography is regulated because it offends people, not because it destroys lives (note how the regulation applied to it doesn't stop people from using it to destroy their lives).
More to the point, ege's statement about obligation really was in the context of that relationship thread.
So then he has an obligation to force people to live their lives to his standards to protect them from themselves, but no obligation not to expose them to whatever nasty might be living on his wang without their knowledge? This isn't any less inconsistent, and if anything it's a far less positive picture of his character.
1) Everything federally regulated is officially regulated as part of interstate commerce.
2) Gambling is partially regulated in Nevada with rtegard to its life-destroying capacity. Moreover, it's banned in most states exactly because of this.
3) Trans-fats are a recent phenomenon, but all foods have to be cleared through the FDA prior to being sold, and many foodstuffs are banned or regulated on health, disease or toxicity grounds. Standards of sale for almost all foodstuffs are determined and heavily regulated by the FDA.
4) Credit interest limits and the like are established and enforced by the federal government (at too-high levels IMO) because they're destructive to peoples' lives - even though the act of soliciting a loan is a free action.
5) The government has at many times fought to ban pornography. After many court cases, it's available, but only narrowly. You don't find it on broadcast TV.
Areas appropriate to regulation by the government are not defined by a bright legal line, as I stated earlier, and computer games have never, insofar as I know, been legally established as "free speech". Because the industry refuses to police itself adequately, it is unlikely to remain free of regulation for long.
This thread's not about ege's character. And there are plenty of facets of life where I feel the government is obligated, but I am not except insofar as I pay taxes.
I don't see how you could construct a regulatory framework around something like gaming addiction. It would be like trying to regulate away Anorexia, Body dysmorphia, damaging obsessive behaviour or any other activity that only becomes problematic in people with a psychological predisposition. There are powers that the State has to intervene if a person is placing themselves at risk, but they already cover this kind of thing, gaming is not a special case.
It's what he's trying to defend more than his arguments. At least that's what I have to assume since he still isn't actually positing arguments so much as claims and beliefs and remarks that he mistakenly believes to be snappy-comebacks. Although I see what you mean about the government and individuals having different responsibilities; in ege-land people are not responsible for their lives, but the government is. To such an extent even that the government is expected to monitor all of the people in their homes at all times.
Fair enough, but how can anyone (game industry or government) regulate something that is done in the privacy of one's own home?
Should game companies be held accountable for their games being "too addictive"? Is it on them to ensure their subscriber base isn't spending too much time on their product? And how do you propose they do that? Monitor every user's time spent online and set an arbitrary cut-off point? What about the previously mentionned weekend bender? If I've had a tough week and haven't had a weekend to myself in a while, do I not have the right to go home and decide to play WoW all day Saturday? Does that make me a dirty filthy addict who doesn't know how to take care of himself?
Also, really, who wants to let a consistent value system effect your right to bang someone else's wife?
I'm not convinced it's completely impossible. There have been, for instance, a lot of studies of gambling addiction which find specific aspects that maximize addiction. Payoff rates is one, and payoff rate is specifically regulated in Nevada to lower addiction.
Let's say some really smart people studied MMOs and the behavior of addicts and other gamers and found key metrics that encourage addiction. Time between save-points, say. Is this substantially different from setting minimum payout levels for slot machines?
Really, I don't think that ad hoc systems for protecting individuals would work well, or that they're even generally actualizable or desirable. I don't think, though, that a software developer is or should be exempt from regulation, and I think that targeted regulation on problematic areas of an industry that refuses to self-regulate is probably the best solution.
Look at it this way: either the government studies and regulates this stuff in a sensible way, or else we're going to see eventual success in a big cash-in lawsuit against Blizzard - who is quite aware of the addictiveness of their product and a subpoena would probably dredge up some pretty damning memos regarding cranking up the stickiness of the product.
Actually, I should hope he wants the government to make sure to regulate that too. When someone dies from an MMO addiction, it makes international news. When someone murders a cheating significant other and/or accomplice to said cheater it won't even make the local daily in bigger cities. This is because it's not unique, it's not even uncommon, for cheating to result in murder. Far more common in the United States than death by MMO addiction. So obviously the government is going to have to step in here since all adults are really stupid children who need their hands held all the time.
Edit: Oh and incidentally, Will, while I suspect it's not good enough for you since it's not the U.S. Supreme Court, yes, videogames have been ruled to be a mode of expression protected by the 1st Amendment.
Perhaps. I'm not convinced that MMOs are uniquely addictive, or that such measures are really necessary. I'd like to see some research on that first. In principle though, I don't think I'd object to it. It's definitely preferable to ege's insane broad strokes.
Would the same thing be applied to offline games? Or multiplayer games hosted on privately owned servers? I'm not yet convinced that it's a large enough problem to warrant regulation.
I do have some experience with MMOs, though, and I've bumped into a few people who have really messed up their lives as the result of getting fixated on them. Yeah, there's no way of knowing whether they would have found something else to screw up their lives if MMOs weren't available, but I think it would be imprudent to dismiss the idea that certain aspects of these games might generate some social ills. We should at least be on guard against the possiblity and stay on the lookout for sensible ways to mitigate or ameliorate the social ills caused.
It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it affects me.
I eat junk food occasionally, but I am all for banning trans fats. I don't exclude myself from the standards I advocate.
Not wife. My stance on not having a problem with banging other people's S/Os does not extend to married people.
. . .
What?
This is why I hate arguing with you VC; you take my stances to extreme levels and put words in my mouth (certainly not the first time you have done it).
Government monitoring everyone in their homes at all times? I never said that. Imposing a 4 hour limit on MMO-playing != installing cameras in people's homes to watch them 24/7.
I never said people aren't responsible for their lives either.
I said they are responsible for their lives, but if they cannot fulfill that responsibility (i.e. of staying alive while playing a god damn game), then maybe someone else (i.e. the government) needs to step in and regulate.
The person in the OP did not kill herself because she wanted to.
She died due to horrific negligence and ridiculous forgetfulness, caused by addiction.
When that woman sat in front of her game, she did not do it with the intention of dying. I'm sure the possibility didn't even cross her mind.
But she died.
That is why it's not anti-freedom to say that the government should protect us from unintended consequences of our actions, by, well, regulating the actions themselves.
Do you see the line I am drawing here? I explained it as clearly as I could without using language that you might mistake as "snappy-comebacks" so that you don't get distracted.
Okay, let me move this discussion forward a bit.
I'm going to assume that you agree that people dying while playing MMOs is a problem that is getting more serious as MMOs become more popular.
Do you agree that we should work to solve that problem?
If so, what do you suggest?
But that's the thing, I don't agree. People dying while playing MMOs isn't a serious nor a widespread problem. This isn't happening all over the place everyday like, say, a domestic murder or a drunk driving accident.
It's a sad, strange way to die that has garnered international attention because some people are looking for just about any reason to demonize a pass time that I dare say most of the people in this forum enjoy in one form or another.
I say again: the MMO didn't kill her, it was her mental instability which caused her to not realize what she was doing that led to her death.
Did the game have a role to play in her death, sure, as a result, the furthest I would see any form of regulation would be a label on the packaging of a game saying "content may be addictive, users with addictive personalities should play with caution." much like they do with the epilepsy warnings which is a prefectly suitable way to warn those who might have an ailment which the game could worsen.
People dying is always a problem.
Aside from a more compassionate standpoint (i.e. people dying is bad), they cost the society money in terms of opportunity cost that is lost. It also costs money to take care of the body after they die.
The only reason it is not a serious problem yet is because MMOs aren't that popular. But, judging from the widespread popularity of WoW (which is becoming more popular by the day), this is going to change in several years. Then what?
How many people need to die until people (like you) admit that the problem needs to be dealt with?
As soon as I'm convinced that it's the games that are the problem, which I am not.
These are problems for your argument. No, you didn't specifically reference them. That's why other people are having to reference them for you, because they are directly relavent to your argument. The fact that you believe MMOs are a great enough threat to justify the sort of extreme degree of legal-paternalization required to enforce any kind of legislation pertaining to them means that you believe activities that are obviously more severe threats justify at least the same level of extremity in their handling. Whether you actually believe that or not doesn't make it not an implication given that legal precedent isn't exactly a new thing and laws don't exist in individual bubbles.
None of this is stretching anything, none of this is straw-manning, none of this is putting words into your mouth. You stated what you think should be done and why, and I'm explaining to you the consequences of the action you're endorsing. While ideally it would be wonderful if the government just had a spider-sense that would tingle when someone's about to kill themselves with their own stupidity and send fairies to help them, that's absolutely not an even vaguely reasonable expectation. The action you propose is meant to apply to the real world, where things are by nature kind of fucked up and random.
I, for one, absolutely will not support a law regulating anything without being told the means by which it will be regulated. "Oh this can be bad so we're going to regulate it somehow" is not good enough for me, because I'm far more concerned about the rights of the 99.999% of the people who are able to play a game for more than a couple hours without falling down a slippery slope to sucking dick for those monthly pay-cards than about the statistically insignificant number of people who actually let themselves die for the sake of a damned videogame.
People are free to make stupid, suicidal choices, whether that is smoking a moronic amount of cigarettes or playing a video game for a moronic amount of time.