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?
How many people die a day of alcohol poisoning? Magnitudes more. Why aren't you arguing for prohibition? Is it - perhaps - because you like to drink?
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.
Your exact statement was "I don't play games for more then 1 or 2 hours a day, so such a law doesn't effect me. People who play for 4 hours or more though are addicted and will be forced to cut down"
Essentially "I'm normal, they're not" - to which I reply - fuck you and the horse you rode in on, you arrogant cockmunch.
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.
Because that's such a gloriously consistent line of reasoning there. You've totally separated the moral issues of regulating the activities of strangers to the moral issues of actively attempting to undermine the relationships of strangers in potentially emotionally damaging ways - OH WAIT! NO YOU HAVEN'T.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
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.
But, you know, we regulate the hell out of cigarettes. We tax them highly, don't sell them to minors, heavily restrict where they can be smoked, print warnings all over them, restrict their advertising, etc. Even with all these regulations, the civil consequences to the tobacco companies is immense. We do this in large part to mitigate their public harm.
How in the world would regulations for something like MMOs work? Are you going to put limits on characters? Accounts? How about multiple games? Free MMO-like games, such as Guild Wars? How about the crazy idea that this internet and gaming thing is still relatively new, and that people will come up with different and even more addictive games?
Elki on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
edited March 2007
Also, the central justification for regulating MMOs wouldn't be statistical anomolies like some gamer dying at the keyboard. The central rationale would be that these things can be incredibly addictive and can inadvertantly destroy lives. There's growing evidence of this, and as the hobby becomes more widespread, we'll see even more.
It's a separate issue from the first amendment content-related debate swirling around the violent and pornographic content in some games.
That's really the question. An autopsy report would be helpful before jumping to conclusions about why he died. All we know is what he was doing prior to his death.
How in the world would regulations for something like MMOs work? Are you going to put limits on characters? Accounts? How about multiple games? Free MMO-like games, such as Guild Wars? How about the crazy idea that this internet and gaming thing is still relatively new, and that people will come up with different and even more addictive games?
Best would actually be industry-voluntary structural limits on the games based upon studies of addiction. Otherwise, it'll eventually either end up costing some game company billions of dollars in civil court or end up with hysterical elected officials passing arbitrary, overbearing, and ill-thought-out regulations.
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.
But, you know, we regulate the hell out of cigarettes. We tax them highly, don't sell them to minors, heavily restrict where they can be smoked, print warnings all over them, restrict their advertising, etc. Even with all these regulations, the civil consequences to the tobacco companies is immense. We do this in large part to mitigate their public harm.
But those are laws that regulate the circumstances in which cigarettes may be smoked (ie, age to purchase, cost etc).
That is entirely different to a law that regulates how many cigarettes may be smoked by an individual adult of the age of consent (whether that number be a pack a day or a total ban).
Zsetrek on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
But those are laws that regulate the circumstances in which cigarettes may be smoked (ie, age to purchase, cost etc).
That is entirely different to a law that regulates how many cigarettes may be smoked by an individual adult of the age of consent (whether that number be a pack a day or a total ban).
This, though, isn't a matter of freedom so much as it's a matter of unenforcability. If you called your local police department and told them you were going to kill yourself by overdosing on cigarettes, you'd be arrested amd probably institutionalized. Hell, it's illegal to improperly take prescription medication. And if death-by-too-many-cigarettes started to happen more than a statistical anomaly, you can bet there would be legislation.
But those are laws that regulate the circumstances in which cigarettes may be smoked (ie, age to purchase, cost etc).
That is entirely different to a law that regulates how many cigarettes may be smoked by an individual adult of the age of consent (whether that number be a pack a day or a total ban).
This, though, isn't a matter of freedom so much as it's a matter of unenforcability. If you called your local police department and told them you were going to kill yourself by overdosing on cigarettes, you'd be arrested amd probably institutionalized. Hell, it's illegal to improperly take prescription medication. And if death-by-too-many-cigarettes started to happen more than a statistical anomaly, you can bet there would be legislation.
I would say that death by cigarettes is already more than an anomaly. I'd even say it was a norm.
Exactly, you are still allowed to smoke as many cigs as you want to. The regulations are in place for other reasons.
Perhaps I could see an analogy if you were advocating a restriction on MMOs for people under 18. But you're not, so it's just as crazy as advocating a restriction on the amount of cigs you can smoke per day.
flamebroiledchicken on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
But those are laws that regulate the circumstances in which cigarettes may be smoked (ie, age to purchase, cost etc).
That is entirely different to a law that regulates how many cigarettes may be smoked by an individual adult of the age of consent (whether that number be a pack a day or a total ban).
This, though, isn't a matter of freedom so much as it's a matter of unenforcability. If you called your local police department and told them you were going to kill yourself by overdosing on cigarettes, you'd be arrested amd probably institutionalized. Hell, it's illegal to improperly take prescription medication. And if death-by-too-many-cigarettes started to happen more than a statistical anomaly, you can bet there would be legislation.
I would say that death by cigarettes is already more than an anomaly. I'd even say it was a norm.
Yeah, but it's long-term and up until recently not officially correlated and yadda yadda. Really, though, attempted suicide is illegal.
Gambling is banned in most states at least partially on the basis that it has a strong capacity to destroy lives. There is precident for the government restricting peoples' ability to make dumb self-destructive decisions. And don't forget that outright bans are only one form of regulation.
If you called your local police department and told them you were going to kill yourself by overdosing on cigarettes, you'd be arrested amd probably institutionalized.
Actually they'd probably yell at you for prank-calling the police, maybe send someone out to arrest/ticket you for that.
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?
How many people die a day of alcohol poisoning? Magnitudes more. Why aren't you arguing for prohibition? Is it - perhaps - because you like to drink?
No, because this is a thread about online gaming addiction, not alcohol poisoning.
As I have previously stated, I enjoy my junk food just like everyone else, but I'm not against a ban on trans fats etc. because it would be ridiculous to try to exclude myself from the standards I am advocating.
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?
How many people die a day of alcohol poisoning? Magnitudes more. Why aren't you arguing for prohibition? Is it - perhaps - because you like to drink?
No, because this is a thread about online gaming addiction, not alcohol poisoning.
As I have previously stated, I enjoy my junk food just like everyone else, but I'm not against a ban on trans fats etc. because it would be ridiculous to try to exclude myself from the standards I am advocating.
So why aren't you advocating a legal limit to the amount of alcohol a person is permitted to consume? It's blatantly obviously a greater threat than MMOs, and such a law would be equally impossible to enforce without again monitoring people in their homes at all times.
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
If you called your local police department and told them you were going to kill yourself by overdosing on cigarettes, you'd be arrested amd probably institutionalized.
Actually they'd probably yell at you for prank-calling the police, maybe send someone out to arrest/ticket you for that.
Well, yeah, probably, since it's pretty tough to kill yourself short-term with cigarettes. If, on the other hand, a roommate called the cops because you were ODing on prescription meds or painkillers, the cops would definitely show up, with an ambulance, and there would be citations.
It seems like the dominant sentiment around here is that there's some sort of inviolable Right of the Consumer to purchase and make use of whatever one wants to, regardless of personal or larger social harm. This is simply not a right.
There is precident for the government restricting peoples' ability to make dumb self-destructive decisions. And don't forget that outright bans are only one form of regulation.
Of course there is, but the line as to what is/is not a dangerous pastime is an important one.
If people were advocating tighter controls on MMOs because of the financial risk they pose - fine, that's an argument with some merit. But claiming that MMOs are a health risk on the same level as dangerous drugs (ie, meriting a law that goes to limiting use, as opposed to regulating it) is just stupid.
No, because this is a thread about online gaming addiction, not alcohol poisoning.
I severely doubt he collapsed and died simply from sitting around. People sit on their ass 24/7 and don't collapse and die. This was a health issue, that very well might have pushed him over the edge from this marathon session. Severe lack of sleep can cause serious problems, and no doubt contributed to his death.
His videogame addiction might have gotten him fat, but it's his fat that killed him.
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?
How many people die a day of alcohol poisoning? Magnitudes more. Why aren't you arguing for prohibition? Is it - perhaps - because you like to drink?
No, because this is a thread about online gaming addiction, not alcohol poisoning.
As I have previously stated, I enjoy my junk food just like everyone else, but I'm not against a ban on trans fats etc. because it would be ridiculous to try to exclude myself from the standards I am advocating.
So why aren't you advocating a legal limit to the amount of alcohol a person is permitted to consume? It's blatantly obviously a greater threat than MMOs, and such a law would be equally impossible to enforce without again monitoring people in their homes at all times.
See limed part.
As for enforceability... the difference in the enforceability of the two is humongous. Look at China: they seem to be enforcing their 4-hour limit quite successfully. And it's not an outright BAN either. Rather, after 4 hours, your character starts gaining less experience, his chances of finding loot go down, etc. The way China enforced it was to go after the game developers. Perfectly reasonable, in my opinion.
Alcohol... alcohol deserves its own thread. Feel free to start it; no matter how hard you try, I will not derail this one because I am enjoying the on-topic discussion.
If you called your local police department and told them you were going to kill yourself by overdosing on cigarettes, you'd be arrested amd probably institutionalized.
Actually they'd probably yell at you for prank-calling the police, maybe send someone out to arrest/ticket you for that.
Well, yeah, probably, since it's pretty tough to kill yourself short-term with cigarettes. If, on the other hand, a roommate called the cops because you were ODing on prescription meds or painkillers, the cops would definitely show up, with an ambulance, and there would be citations.
It seems like the dominant sentiment around here is that there's some sort of inviolable Right of the Consumer to purchase and make use of whatever one wants to, regardless of personal or larger social harm. This is simply not a right.
If I were to play WoW for eight hours straight tomorrow it would cause absolutely no personal or larger social harm (well, except that I don't like WoW). Ergo I have the right to do it. If I were to drink a litre of Jack tonight it would cause absolutely no larger social harm and only minor, temporary personal harm.
Alcohol... alcohol deserves its own thread. Feel free to start it; no matter how hard you try, I will not derail this one because I am enjoying the on-topic discussion.
You don't seem to grasp the concept of things being relavent to other things without actually being the other things themselves. You want to open a can of worms and I want justification and some kind of rationale that's detailed enough to assure me that it's not going to result in the gang-raping of people's rights before I'm willing to do anything other than repeatedly shoot down your proposal. Why do you continue to pretend not to understand this? Because it doesn't effect you? Oh but it does! And here's how, you establish legal precedent to regulate private activities on the grounds that they have a remote potential to cause personal harm, and shit that you like is going to get regulated to assinine extents just like the things that don't effect you personally.
As for enforceability... the difference in the enforceability of the two is humongous. Look at China: they seem to be enforcing their 4-hour limit quite successfully. And it's not an outright BAN either. Rather, after 4 hours, your character starts gaining less experience, his chances of finding loot go down, etc. The way China enforced it was to go after the game developers. Perfectly reasonable, in my opinion.
As for enforceability... the difference in the enforceability of the two is humongous. Look at China: they seem to be enforcing their 4-hour limit quite successfully. And it's not an outright BAN either. Rather, after 4 hours, your character starts gaining less experience, his chances of finding loot go down, etc. The way China enforced it was to go after the game developers. Perfectly reasonable, in my opinion.
As for enforceability... the difference in the enforceability of the two is humongous. Look at China: they seem to be enforcing their 4-hour limit quite successfully. And it's not an outright BAN either. Rather, after 4 hours, your character starts gaining less experience, his chances of finding loot go down, etc. The way China enforced it was to go after the game developers. Perfectly reasonable, in my opinion.
There is precident for the government restricting peoples' ability to make dumb self-destructive decisions. And don't forget that outright bans are only one form of regulation.
Of course there is, but the line as to what is/is not a dangerous pastime is an important one.
If people were advocating tighter controls on MMOs because of the financial risk they pose - fine, that's an argument with some merit. But claiming that MMOs are a health risk on the same level as dangerous drugs (ie, meriting a law that goes to limiting use, as opposed to regulating it) is just stupid.
Yeah, I mentioned earlier that financial and social harms were my personal concept of a reasonable bases for regulating MMOs. And I agree with ege that the best way to do it is something like diminishing returns on long consecutive playtimes.
As for enforceability... the difference in the enforceability of the two is humongous. Look at China: they seem to be enforcing their 4-hour limit quite successfully. And it's not an outright BAN either. Rather, after 4 hours, your character starts gaining less experience, his chances of finding loot go down, etc. The way China enforced it was to go after the game developers. Perfectly reasonable, in my opinion.
So if China had, say, a superior healthcare system to that in the USA, would you still say the same thing? Because they are a shitty model in general doesn't mean they did not handle some things better.
As for enforceability... the difference in the enforceability of the two is humongous. Look at China: they seem to be enforcing their 4-hour limit quite successfully. And it's not an outright BAN either. Rather, after 4 hours, your character starts gaining less experience, his chances of finding loot go down, etc. The way China enforced it was to go after the game developers. Perfectly reasonable, in my opinion.
So if China had, say, a superior healthcare system to that in the USA, would you still say the same thing? Because they are a shitty model in general doesn't mean they did not handle some things better.
Funnily enough the model which runs the logistics of a healthcare system, and the model which governs the degree and influence the government should exert over the private lives of it's citizens are 2 completely separate things.
As for enforceability... the difference in the enforceability of the two is humongous. Look at China: they seem to be enforcing their 4-hour limit quite successfully. And it's not an outright BAN either. Rather, after 4 hours, your character starts gaining less experience, his chances of finding loot go down, etc. The way China enforced it was to go after the game developers. Perfectly reasonable, in my opinion.
So if China had, say, a superior healthcare system to that in the USA, would you still say the same thing? Because they are a shitty model in general doesn't mean they did not handle some things better.
Considering their record on internet privacy, I'd say that no, they don't handle this better.
Alcohol... alcohol deserves its own thread. Feel free to start it; no matter how hard you try, I will not derail this one because I am enjoying the on-topic discussion.
You don't seem to grasp the concept of things being relavent to other things without actually being the other things themselves. You want to open a can of worms and I want justification and some kind of rationale that's detailed enough to assure me that it's not going to result in the gang-raping of people's rights before I'm willing to do anything other than repeatedly shoot down your proposal. Why do you continue to pretend not to understand this? Because it doesn't effect you? Oh but it does! And here's how, you establish legal precedent to regulate private activities on the grounds that they have a remote potential to cause personal harm, and shit that you like is going to get regulated to assinine extents just like the things that don't effect you personally.
No, I understand your point, and I understand why you're against my proposal. I don't agree with your slippery slope, i.e. once a playing MMOs is regulated, other private activities will as well, and to asinine extents at that (on the contrary, making it so your character starts gaining less exp and loot after a certain amount of time is perfectly reasonable to me. They can still play if they want. They will just be rewarded less).
As far as comparing it with alcohol goes, alcohol consumption is nowhere near similar to MMO-playing. For one thing, there is already a ton of regulation and taxes in alcohol sales. For another, alcohol causes physical on top of psychological dependence. For yet another, alcohol causes one to lose control of their judgment and motor functions, which means its consumption might lead to other accidents.
Perhaps if you found a more accurate example we could discuss that.
As for enforceability... the difference in the enforceability of the two is humongous. Look at China: they seem to be enforcing their 4-hour limit quite successfully. And it's not an outright BAN either. Rather, after 4 hours, your character starts gaining less experience, his chances of finding loot go down, etc. The way China enforced it was to go after the game developers. Perfectly reasonable, in my opinion.
So if China had, say, a superior healthcare system to that in the USA, would you still say the same thing? Because they are a shitty model in general doesn't mean they did not handle some things better.
Funnily enough the model which runs the logistics of a healthcare system, and the model which governs the degree and influence the government should exert over the private lives of it's citizens are 2 completely separate things.
But you get my point.
Just because a country is a shitty model in general does not mean we should dismiss their handling of specific things right away. That's an ad hominem, but against the country in question (i.e. the same way you might dismiss someone's arguments based on their personal reputation or based on something they might have said about some other topic, you're dismissing the way China handles MMO-playing because they have a shitty record with Internet censorship).
As for enforceability... the difference in the enforceability of the two is humongous. Look at China: they seem to be enforcing their 4-hour limit quite successfully. And it's not an outright BAN either. Rather, after 4 hours, your character starts gaining less experience, his chances of finding loot go down, etc. The way China enforced it was to go after the game developers. Perfectly reasonable, in my opinion.
So if China had, say, a superior healthcare system to that in the USA, would you still say the same thing? Because they are a shitty model in general doesn't mean they did not handle some things better.
Funnily enough the model which runs the logistics of a healthcare system, and the model which governs the degree and influence the government should exert over the private lives of it's citizens are 2 completely separate things.
But you get my point.
Just because a country is a shitty model in general does not mean we should dismiss their handling of specific things right away. That's an ad hominem, but against the country in question (i.e. the same way you might dismiss someone's arguments based on their personal reputation or based on something they might have said about some other topic, you're dismissing the way China handles MMO-playing because they have a shitty record with Internet censorship).
No, I think your point is irrelevant. China pursues totalitarian state policies against it's citizenry in order to govern their moral and social outlook and interactions. They maintain the largest state firewall in the world purely for the purpose of censorship, routinely engage in the arrest and oppression of minorities including but not limited to their pursuit and harassment overseas (Falun Gong members). Of these policies governing individuals lives, the online gaming time-limit is one of many, and is a drastic invasion of individual privacy and freedom of action, as well as imposition of a social dynamic upon a populace.
So yes, China is successful - because it's government does not uphold or even pay lip service to any of the other benefits or rights we demand in our countries. It succeeds because it does not need to provide evidence for a particular course of action, it does not need to consider individual rights and by virtue of it's population can force many particular constraints from companies.
I don't see this an argument about how it should work, I see this as an argument about why this should not be done, why it's a breach of individual freedoms and why even the loosest justifications for it are retarded and akin to saying "people sometimes kill themselves by jumping off tall buildings. We should ban tall buildings. And windows."
I also see an idiot talking about how it wouldn't effect him, but then deciding that anyone else doing something different falls into category X and should be punished for it, or should just take the loss of freedom because "games aren't that cool anyway", and then using a whole lot of shitty irrelevant examples to try and protect that position (hint: trans-fats != fast food, and you've yet to come up with a better example).
Oh man, and before we close this post, let's consider: the US doesn't hold the monopoly on MMOs. Many are based overseas, or have overseas servers which are not beholden to any particular policy decisions of the US. So unless the US wants to start engaging in a program of active censorship of internet traffic it will accomplish precisely fuck all in trying to implement any policy like this.
But that's totally ok isn't it, coz anyone who can play an MMO for more then 4 hours is totally an addict and should get a girlfriend so you can sleep with them because you don't have any moral obligations towards strangers and oh wait apparently the government has a moral obligation towards strangers and they should directly intervene in their lives to prevent incidental damage from defunct persons so we totally need to keep tabs on people's sexual liasons coz occasionally a guy goes nuts and murders people because there S/O slept with someone else but you're totally ok with doing that and OH SNAP!! INCONSISTENCY? HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED?
I also see an idiot talking about how it wouldn't effect him, but then deciding that anyone else doing something different falls into category X and should be punished for it, or should just take the loss of freedom because "games aren't that cool anyway", and then using a whole lot of shitty irrelevant examples to try and protect that position (hint: trans-fats != fast food, and you've yet to come up with a better example).
I never said "games aren't that cool anyway". I'm a gamer myself.
Trans fats doesn't mean fast food, but since most fast food contains transfats, I was using them interchangably. I can rephrase it if you want. Here:
"I eat a lot of foods containing trans fats, but I wouldn't mind it if the government banned trans fats."
Better?
This isn't shitty or irrelevant, because I am giving it to make the point that whether or not something affects me does not change my stance on whether or not it should be banned or at least regulated in some form.
I don't see this an argument about how it should work, I see this as an argument about why this should not be done, why it's a breach of individual freedoms and why even the loosest justifications for it are retarded and akin to saying "people sometimes kill themselves by jumping off tall buildings. We should ban tall buildings. And windows."
Now, THIS is a shitty and irrelevant example that takes my point to the extreme.
When people jump off tall buildings they do it with the specific purpose of killing themselves.
When people play MMOs, they don't do it with the purpose of killing themselves.
Jumping off tall buildings is not a recreational activity. It is suicide. Playing MMOs is a recreational activity, and is not suicide.
I can keep going, but you get the point.
Oh man, and before we close this post, let's consider: the US doesn't hold the monopoly on MMOs. Many are based overseas, or have overseas servers which are not beholden to any particular policy decisions of the US. So unless the US wants to start engaging in a program of active censorship of internet traffic it will accomplish precisely fuck all in trying to implement any policy like this.
I am not advocating a 4-hour limit in particular. I am advocating regulation of some sort.
But that's totally ok isn't it, coz anyone who can play an MMO for more then 4 hours is totally an addict and should get a girlfriend so you can sleep with them because you don't have any moral obligations towards strangers and oh wait apparently the government has a moral obligation towards strangers and they should directly intervene in their lives to prevent incidental damage from defunct persons so we totally need to keep tabs on people's sexual liasons coz occasionally a guy goes nuts and murders people because there S/O slept with someone else but you're totally ok with doing that and OH SNAP!! INCONSISTENCY? HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED?
I also see an idiot talking about how it wouldn't effect him, but then deciding that anyone else doing something different falls into category X and should be punished for it, or should just take the loss of freedom because "games aren't that cool anyway", and then using a whole lot of shitty irrelevant examples to try and protect that position (hint: trans-fats != fast food, and you've yet to come up with a better example).
I never said "games aren't that cool anyway". I'm a gamer myself.
Trans fats doesn't mean fast food, but since most fast food contains transfats, I was using them interchangably. I can rephrase it if you want. Here:
"I eat a lot of foods containing trans fats, but I wouldn't mind it if the government banned trans fats."
Better?
This isn't shitty or irrelevant, because I am giving it to make the point that whether or not something affects me does not change my stance on whether or not it should be banned or at least regulated in some form.
Banning trans-fats doesn't ban junk food. Try harder unless you're going to claim that without trans-fats junk food is dead to you. Are trans-fats an integral part of the junk food experience? Is junk food being actively denied without them?
These two situations are not even remotely analagous, and your claim that you are a gamer doesn't defuse the fact that you don't play MMOs and claim to only play 1 or 2 hours a day and that anyone playing more then 4 hours is an addict. Can you back this up in anyway? No - and you haven't addressed the point. I can easily play for 4 hours a day if I want, or none, or I might do more or less over the weekend. Yet you consistently ignore these cases in the interests of some moral argument about our duty to protect people from themselves, even when the protection is in extremely isolated extreme cases wherein no protection would apparently be suitable anywaty.
I don't see this an argument about how it should work, I see this as an argument about why this should not be done, why it's a breach of individual freedoms and why even the loosest justifications for it are retarded and akin to saying "people sometimes kill themselves by jumping off tall buildings. We should ban tall buildings. And windows."
Now, THIS is a shitty and irrelevant example that takes my point to the extreme.
When people jump off tall buildings they do it with the specific purpose of killing themselves.
When people play MMOs, they don't do it with the purpose of killing themselves.
Jumping off tall buildings is not a recreational activity. It is suicide. Playing MMOs is a recreational activity, and is not suicide.
I can keep going, but you get the point.
People don't drive cars to die, yet some people die from driving cars. Sometimes they do it because they drive for too long. Clearly, banning driving or limiting all driving to less then 2 hours is the answer.
Oh man, and before we close this post, let's consider: the US doesn't hold the monopoly on MMOs. Many are based overseas, or have overseas servers which are not beholden to any particular policy decisions of the US. So unless the US wants to start engaging in a program of active censorship of internet traffic it will accomplish precisely fuck all in trying to implement any policy like this.
I am not advocating a 4-hour limit in particular. I am advocating regulation of some sort.
No you have specifically advocated draconian regulation measures, rather then educational measures such as we take with driver fatigue. But hey, maybe that's just me being crazy and thinking that better education about how to gauge our level of nutrition and overall health as well as average daily requirements for various things might in fact help more people in more ways then invading everyone's individual liberty, impacting their potential happiness from a hobby activity because a few individuals neglect sleep and lead exceptionally poor lifestyles while happening to engage in the same hobby.
But that's totally ok isn't it, coz anyone who can play an MMO for more then 4 hours is totally an addict and should get a girlfriend so you can sleep with them because you don't have any moral obligations towards strangers and oh wait apparently the government has a moral obligation towards strangers and they should directly intervene in their lives to prevent incidental damage from defunct persons so we totally need to keep tabs on people's sexual liasons coz occasionally a guy goes nuts and murders people because there S/O slept with someone else but you're totally ok with doing that and OH SNAP!! INCONSISTENCY? HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED?
Come on, you're smarter than this.
While I'm obviously insulting you, the fact that the position you advocate is totally at odds with your stated position in another thread, combined with the failing and lack of redress of rebuttals of your argument, essentially combines to make one think that this is based more on a "those MMO guys are weird and always die" reaction rather then any sort of serious, balanced analysis of the facts.
Banning trans-fats doesn't ban junk food. Try harder unless you're going to claim that without trans-fats junk food is dead to you. Are trans-fats an integral part of the junk food experience? Is junk food being actively denied without them?
You are deliberately missing the point.
I'll rephrase what I said, one last time: "I eat junk food all the time. But I don't have a problem with the government banning them or at least regulating them in some way".
You are arguing about the details (I know the distinction between junk foods and trans fats, thank you), about which the point I am making is not. The point I am making is that my stance on this issue is not affected in any way by whether or not I personally partake in that activity.
Now, back on topic, shall we?
These two situations are not even remotely analagous, and your claim that you are a gamer doesn't defuse the fact that you don't play MMOs and claim to only play 1 or 2 hours a day and that anyone playing more then 4 hours is an addict. Can you back this up in anyway? No - and you haven't addressed the point.
I play World of Warcraft.
People don't drive cars to die, yet some people die from driving cars. Sometimes they do it because they drive for too long. Clearly, banning driving or limiting all driving to less then 2 hours is the answer.
Yes, we educate them, but they still die from driving for too long, right? So clearly education is not the only answer.
Oh man, and before we close this post, let's consider: the US doesn't hold the monopoly on MMOs. Many are based overseas, or have overseas servers which are not beholden to any particular policy decisions of the US. So unless the US wants to start engaging in a program of active censorship of internet traffic it will accomplish precisely fuck all in trying to implement any policy like this.
I am not advocating a 4-hour limit in particular. I am advocating regulation of some sort.
No you have specifically advocated draconian regulation measures, rather then educational measures such as we take with driver fatigue. But hey, maybe that's just me being crazy and thinking that better education about how to gauge our level of nutrition and overall health as well as average daily requirements for various things might in fact help more people in more ways then invading everyone's individual liberty, impacting their potential happiness from a hobby activity because a few individuals neglect sleep and lead exceptionally poor lifestyles while happening to engage in the same hobby.[/quote]
You don't understand.
Your individual liberty won't be affected if you're reasonable and responsible about it.
If you play for 2 hours a day, why would you care if there was a 4 hour limit on playing? It doesn't affect you.
You get off work for the week and you have the weekend to yourself, and you wanna play the whole weekend? Well maybe it's a good thing you "saved up" those playing hours during the week then, right? Or maybe the system is on a weekly (or monthly) limit basis rather than daily limit basis?
What you don't understand is that the regulation system can be designed in such a way as to minimize the impact on the liberties of "regular" people while still effectively preventing people from killing themselves due to negligence.
But that's totally ok isn't it, coz anyone who can play an MMO for more then 4 hours is totally an addict and should get a girlfriend so you can sleep with them because you don't have any moral obligations towards strangers and oh wait apparently the government has a moral obligation towards strangers and they should directly intervene in their lives to prevent incidental damage from defunct persons so we totally need to keep tabs on people's sexual liasons coz occasionally a guy goes nuts and murders people because there S/O slept with someone else but you're totally ok with doing that and OH SNAP!! INCONSISTENCY? HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED?
Come on, you're smarter than this.
While I'm obviously insulting you, the fact that the position you advocate is totally at odds with your stated position in another thread, combined with the failing and lack of redress of rebuttals of your argument, essentially combines to make one think that this is based more on a "those MMO guys are weird and always die" reaction rather then any sort of serious, balanced analysis of the facts.[/QUOTE]
Irond Will stated this before. Clearly you missed it. Me not having a moral obligation toward strangers does not mean the government does not have a moral obligation to protect its citizens from themselves. Therefore the two are not at odds; they are almost completely irrelevant.
ege02 on
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
As for enforceability... the difference in the enforceability of the two is humongous. Look at China: they seem to be enforcing their 4-hour limit quite successfully. And it's not an outright BAN either. Rather, after 4 hours, your character starts gaining less experience, his chances of finding loot go down, etc. The way China enforced it was to go after the game developers. Perfectly reasonable, in my opinion.
o_O
So it's okay for China to limit people's ability to entertain themselves if it feels it poses enough of an "acceptable risk" to them? Nevermind that they (the government) are the ones that get to determine what is and isn't an "acceptable risk."
Tell you what, Ege, you find me one (1) case of a United States citizen dying because he played MMOs to the point where he died of dehydration and sleep dep and I will concede that you may, possibly, in an exceptionally minute way, have some semblance of a point. In the meantime, the fatality rate amongst MMO players is so incredibly low that regulating it is pointless, unless you desire to go to the extremes other people have brought up, with the goal of keeping every single person possible from dying of anything ever.
And you know what, for the hell of it on my way from uni to home I mentally calculated how much I play MMOs - turns out in my evening play sessions I probably play somewhere between 3-4 hours.
So funnily enough ege's proposal would effect me, negatively. Yet far as I can tell I'm still alive, in good health, and not as fit as I could be but MMOs are hardly responsible for that. Oh and definitely not overweight.
But of course, that's ok, it just means he needs to redesign his active regulation to not include me and then I'll ok it, coz clearly there's no possible way that would end up just rolling over more people unnecessarily. None whatsoever!
Posts
How many people die a day of alcohol poisoning? Magnitudes more. Why aren't you arguing for prohibition? Is it - perhaps - because you like to drink?
Essentially "I'm normal, they're not" - to which I reply - fuck you and the horse you rode in on, you arrogant cockmunch.
Also, junk food != trans-fats - try again.
Because that's such a gloriously consistent line of reasoning there. You've totally separated the moral issues of regulating the activities of strangers to the moral issues of actively attempting to undermine the relationships of strangers in potentially emotionally damaging ways - OH WAIT! NO YOU HAVEN'T.
It's a separate issue from the first amendment content-related debate swirling around the violent and pornographic content in some games.
That's really the question. An autopsy report would be helpful before jumping to conclusions about why he died. All we know is what he was doing prior to his death.
But those are laws that regulate the circumstances in which cigarettes may be smoked (ie, age to purchase, cost etc).
That is entirely different to a law that regulates how many cigarettes may be smoked by an individual adult of the age of consent (whether that number be a pack a day or a total ban).
I would say that death by cigarettes is already more than an anomaly. I'd even say it was a norm.
Perhaps I could see an analogy if you were advocating a restriction on MMOs for people under 18. But you're not, so it's just as crazy as advocating a restriction on the amount of cigs you can smoke per day.
Yeah, but it's long-term and up until recently not officially correlated and yadda yadda. Really, though, attempted suicide is illegal.
Gambling is banned in most states at least partially on the basis that it has a strong capacity to destroy lives. There is precident for the government restricting peoples' ability to make dumb self-destructive decisions. And don't forget that outright bans are only one form of regulation.
Actually they'd probably yell at you for prank-calling the police, maybe send someone out to arrest/ticket you for that.
No, because this is a thread about online gaming addiction, not alcohol poisoning.
As I have previously stated, I enjoy my junk food just like everyone else, but I'm not against a ban on trans fats etc. because it would be ridiculous to try to exclude myself from the standards I am advocating.
So why aren't you advocating a legal limit to the amount of alcohol a person is permitted to consume? It's blatantly obviously a greater threat than MMOs, and such a law would be equally impossible to enforce without again monitoring people in their homes at all times.
It seems like the dominant sentiment around here is that there's some sort of inviolable Right of the Consumer to purchase and make use of whatever one wants to, regardless of personal or larger social harm. This is simply not a right.
Of course there is, but the line as to what is/is not a dangerous pastime is an important one.
If people were advocating tighter controls on MMOs because of the financial risk they pose - fine, that's an argument with some merit. But claiming that MMOs are a health risk on the same level as dangerous drugs (ie, meriting a law that goes to limiting use, as opposed to regulating it) is just stupid.
It's called an analogy.
His videogame addiction might have gotten him fat, but it's his fat that killed him.
See limed part.
As for enforceability... the difference in the enforceability of the two is humongous. Look at China: they seem to be enforcing their 4-hour limit quite successfully. And it's not an outright BAN either. Rather, after 4 hours, your character starts gaining less experience, his chances of finding loot go down, etc. The way China enforced it was to go after the game developers. Perfectly reasonable, in my opinion.
Alcohol... alcohol deserves its own thread. Feel free to start it; no matter how hard you try, I will not derail this one because I am enjoying the on-topic discussion.
If I were to play WoW for eight hours straight tomorrow it would cause absolutely no personal or larger social harm (well, except that I don't like WoW). Ergo I have the right to do it. If I were to drink a litre of Jack tonight it would cause absolutely no larger social harm and only minor, temporary personal harm.
You don't seem to grasp the concept of things being relavent to other things without actually being the other things themselves. You want to open a can of worms and I want justification and some kind of rationale that's detailed enough to assure me that it's not going to result in the gang-raping of people's rights before I'm willing to do anything other than repeatedly shoot down your proposal. Why do you continue to pretend not to understand this? Because it doesn't effect you? Oh but it does! And here's how, you establish legal precedent to regulate private activities on the grounds that they have a remote potential to cause personal harm, and shit that you like is going to get regulated to assinine extents just like the things that don't effect you personally.
Oh but rights aren't what makes America great. Tell me, what are their cars/garage and chickens/pot ratios like?
1) Garages never have cars
2) Who the fuck puts a chicken in a pot
So if China had, say, a superior healthcare system to that in the USA, would you still say the same thing? Because they are a shitty model in general doesn't mean they did not handle some things better.
No, I understand your point, and I understand why you're against my proposal. I don't agree with your slippery slope, i.e. once a playing MMOs is regulated, other private activities will as well, and to asinine extents at that (on the contrary, making it so your character starts gaining less exp and loot after a certain amount of time is perfectly reasonable to me. They can still play if they want. They will just be rewarded less).
As far as comparing it with alcohol goes, alcohol consumption is nowhere near similar to MMO-playing. For one thing, there is already a ton of regulation and taxes in alcohol sales. For another, alcohol causes physical on top of psychological dependence. For yet another, alcohol causes one to lose control of their judgment and motor functions, which means its consumption might lead to other accidents.
Perhaps if you found a more accurate example we could discuss that.
But you get my point.
Just because a country is a shitty model in general does not mean we should dismiss their handling of specific things right away. That's an ad hominem, but against the country in question (i.e. the same way you might dismiss someone's arguments based on their personal reputation or based on something they might have said about some other topic, you're dismissing the way China handles MMO-playing because they have a shitty record with Internet censorship).
So yes, China is successful - because it's government does not uphold or even pay lip service to any of the other benefits or rights we demand in our countries. It succeeds because it does not need to provide evidence for a particular course of action, it does not need to consider individual rights and by virtue of it's population can force many particular constraints from companies.
I don't see this an argument about how it should work, I see this as an argument about why this should not be done, why it's a breach of individual freedoms and why even the loosest justifications for it are retarded and akin to saying "people sometimes kill themselves by jumping off tall buildings. We should ban tall buildings. And windows."
I also see an idiot talking about how it wouldn't effect him, but then deciding that anyone else doing something different falls into category X and should be punished for it, or should just take the loss of freedom because "games aren't that cool anyway", and then using a whole lot of shitty irrelevant examples to try and protect that position (hint: trans-fats != fast food, and you've yet to come up with a better example).
Oh man, and before we close this post, let's consider: the US doesn't hold the monopoly on MMOs. Many are based overseas, or have overseas servers which are not beholden to any particular policy decisions of the US. So unless the US wants to start engaging in a program of active censorship of internet traffic it will accomplish precisely fuck all in trying to implement any policy like this.
But that's totally ok isn't it, coz anyone who can play an MMO for more then 4 hours is totally an addict and should get a girlfriend so you can sleep with them because you don't have any moral obligations towards strangers and oh wait apparently the government has a moral obligation towards strangers and they should directly intervene in their lives to prevent incidental damage from defunct persons so we totally need to keep tabs on people's sexual liasons coz occasionally a guy goes nuts and murders people because there S/O slept with someone else but you're totally ok with doing that and OH SNAP!! INCONSISTENCY? HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED?
I never said "games aren't that cool anyway". I'm a gamer myself.
Trans fats doesn't mean fast food, but since most fast food contains transfats, I was using them interchangably. I can rephrase it if you want. Here:
"I eat a lot of foods containing trans fats, but I wouldn't mind it if the government banned trans fats."
Better?
This isn't shitty or irrelevant, because I am giving it to make the point that whether or not something affects me does not change my stance on whether or not it should be banned or at least regulated in some form.
Now, THIS is a shitty and irrelevant example that takes my point to the extreme.
When people jump off tall buildings they do it with the specific purpose of killing themselves.
When people play MMOs, they don't do it with the purpose of killing themselves.
Jumping off tall buildings is not a recreational activity. It is suicide. Playing MMOs is a recreational activity, and is not suicide.
I can keep going, but you get the point.
I am not advocating a 4-hour limit in particular. I am advocating regulation of some sort.
Come on, you're smarter than this.
These two situations are not even remotely analagous, and your claim that you are a gamer doesn't defuse the fact that you don't play MMOs and claim to only play 1 or 2 hours a day and that anyone playing more then 4 hours is an addict. Can you back this up in anyway? No - and you haven't addressed the point. I can easily play for 4 hours a day if I want, or none, or I might do more or less over the weekend. Yet you consistently ignore these cases in the interests of some moral argument about our duty to protect people from themselves, even when the protection is in extremely isolated extreme cases wherein no protection would apparently be suitable anywaty.
People don't drive cars to die, yet some people die from driving cars. Sometimes they do it because they drive for too long. Clearly, banning driving or limiting all driving to less then 2 hours is the answer.
No you have specifically advocated draconian regulation measures, rather then educational measures such as we take with driver fatigue. But hey, maybe that's just me being crazy and thinking that better education about how to gauge our level of nutrition and overall health as well as average daily requirements for various things might in fact help more people in more ways then invading everyone's individual liberty, impacting their potential happiness from a hobby activity because a few individuals neglect sleep and lead exceptionally poor lifestyles while happening to engage in the same hobby.
While I'm obviously insulting you, the fact that the position you advocate is totally at odds with your stated position in another thread, combined with the failing and lack of redress of rebuttals of your argument, essentially combines to make one think that this is based more on a "those MMO guys are weird and always die" reaction rather then any sort of serious, balanced analysis of the facts.
You are deliberately missing the point.
I'll rephrase what I said, one last time: "I eat junk food all the time. But I don't have a problem with the government banning them or at least regulating them in some way".
You are arguing about the details (I know the distinction between junk foods and trans fats, thank you), about which the point I am making is not. The point I am making is that my stance on this issue is not affected in any way by whether or not I personally partake in that activity.
Now, back on topic, shall we?
I play World of Warcraft.
Yes, we educate them, but they still die from driving for too long, right? So clearly education is not the only answer.
No you have specifically advocated draconian regulation measures, rather then educational measures such as we take with driver fatigue. But hey, maybe that's just me being crazy and thinking that better education about how to gauge our level of nutrition and overall health as well as average daily requirements for various things might in fact help more people in more ways then invading everyone's individual liberty, impacting their potential happiness from a hobby activity because a few individuals neglect sleep and lead exceptionally poor lifestyles while happening to engage in the same hobby.[/quote]
You don't understand.
Your individual liberty won't be affected if you're reasonable and responsible about it.
If you play for 2 hours a day, why would you care if there was a 4 hour limit on playing? It doesn't affect you.
You get off work for the week and you have the weekend to yourself, and you wanna play the whole weekend? Well maybe it's a good thing you "saved up" those playing hours during the week then, right? Or maybe the system is on a weekly (or monthly) limit basis rather than daily limit basis?
What you don't understand is that the regulation system can be designed in such a way as to minimize the impact on the liberties of "regular" people while still effectively preventing people from killing themselves due to negligence.
While I'm obviously insulting you, the fact that the position you advocate is totally at odds with your stated position in another thread, combined with the failing and lack of redress of rebuttals of your argument, essentially combines to make one think that this is based more on a "those MMO guys are weird and always die" reaction rather then any sort of serious, balanced analysis of the facts.[/QUOTE]
Irond Will stated this before. Clearly you missed it. Me not having a moral obligation toward strangers does not mean the government does not have a moral obligation to protect its citizens from themselves. Therefore the two are not at odds; they are almost completely irrelevant.
So it's okay for China to limit people's ability to entertain themselves if it feels it poses enough of an "acceptable risk" to them? Nevermind that they (the government) are the ones that get to determine what is and isn't an "acceptable risk."
So funnily enough ege's proposal would effect me, negatively. Yet far as I can tell I'm still alive, in good health, and not as fit as I could be but MMOs are hardly responsible for that. Oh and definitely not overweight.
But of course, that's ok, it just means he needs to redesign his active regulation to not include me and then I'll ok it, coz clearly there's no possible way that would end up just rolling over more people unnecessarily. None whatsoever!
This is assuming we went through with a straight-forward 4 hour daily limit plan in the first place, of course, and not something far more detailed.
Maybe you should play less so you have something other than WoW to talk about when you try to start conversations with girls.
Oh snap!
Sorry that was cheap.