OAO Game Ratings/Content Controversy Thread

[El Psycho Diablo 0]

This would explain quite a bit.

 

I'm fairly sure Jack Thompson isn't right in the head. Forwards an email to me about Killer 7. I email him back. He threatens legal action for harrasment. Wtf?

 

Edit: Yes I checked the headers. Same IP, it was him both times and not a spoof.

 

Interesting.

[AndrewTS 0]

Too bad the CAD one seems to be completely oblivious to Thompson's past crusades, but still funny.

 

"are all you gamers on drugs?"

 

Nobody tell Jack about Super Mario Brothers, mmmk?

[Masked Man of Mystery 0]

My quotes are taken out of context.  I feel like Gary Sheffield now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

MMoM misunderstandimates alot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

At least when I make a mistake I admit it(not a shot at you, Andrew, just people who don't own up to it)

[AndrewTS 0]

Jack Thompson Sues More People

Posted By Tom Pandich on 08.11.2005

 

Who and why? Let's look inside.

The new target of the animosity from most gamers, Jack Thompson, is suing Take Two, Wal Mart, Gamestop, and Target for selling violent games. At the heart of this suit is Devin Moore, the man who shot and killed three police officers and was convicted by an Alabama jury after his defense of "GTA Made Me Do It" failed. Thompson says, "he was given a murder simulator." More on this stupidity as it breaks.

 

(Source: GAF)

 

EDIT: No, that doesn't make any sense whatsoever to me, either, but Thompson is a freakin' loon.

[Anya 0]

Maybe if we ignore Jack he'll go away.

[AndrewTS 0]

Posted from another board...an e-mail exchange between a 14 year old gamer and Mr. Thompson.

 

I wrote:

 

I found a link to your site, www.stopkill.com, through an online forum. I looked over it, and although I think that there is some genuine concern over the effect of violent media on kids, many of your statements on that site were made in ignorance. What I plan to do in this email is to help you gain a better understanding of video games, and to show you that while your intentions are good, your current course of action is a mistake. I'm going to present my arguments calmly and logically, and you're welcome to write a rebuttal if you wish. First off, let me tell you a little about myself. I'm 14, and I've been playing video games avidly since I was 8. I'm pretty knowledgeable about the subject of video games as a whole, and I've played my fair share of Halo 2 and other shooters, including the Ghost Recon series, which is regarded as one of the most realistic FPSs (first-person shooters, in case you aren't familiar with the terminology). I also enjoy strategy games, in which the death toll is often far higher than what you'd encounter in a FPS. I'm an archer, a martial artist (Tae Kwon Do), and I was taught how to operate a gun by my grandfather, who's an experienced hunter. And, oddly enough, I've never felt the urge to kill, or even seriously injure, anyone. I imagine that killing in self-defence would be extremely difficult for me, despite my alleged desensitization. Now I'd like to dismiss a misonception (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and not assuming that you're twisting the truth) you have about games like Halo, which are called FPSs. These are not "sniper games." They are games presented in first person, in which you shoot enemies, manage ammunition, and explore levels. You may fail to see the distinction between "sniper" and "first person" based on that description alone, but if you ever take the time to play any of these games, you'll understand that there is no comparison between playing a FPS and operating a rifle. Which brings me to my next point- games can't accurately "train" you to commit violent acts, despite your claims. First off, games are innacurate by their very nature, and they give you less practical knowledge on operating firearms than watching a few hours of History Channel would. Secondly, I'm going to walk you through a typical scenario of me playing Halo 2, which is probably the best FPS available right now1) I rotate the right control stick slightly, then hold down the right trigger. There is no violent intent towards my enemy, wether it's an AI-controlled bot or a human opponent I'm facing online- it's a simple challenge in the case of the former and a friendly competition in the case of the latter.(2) On screen, a series of polygons which emulate bullet trails appear. Those polygons collide with the polygons rendered to represent my enemy, and those same polygons then emulate my opponent dying.The important distinction here is that there is no gun, no bullets, and no enemy. There is a rotation of the control stick and a pull of the controller's trigger, resulting in a change of the onscreen display. Anyone who can't see the difference between this and the act of firing a gun at a human being is clearly unfit to be playing these games and, frankly, is an idiot. Which, once again, leads me to the next point I'm going to make. No one in their right mind would ever do the things that you blame on video games. A quick glance at such actions shows that there are far bigger, far more serious causes than violent media behind them. Now, you may wonder, "Why would someone kill a person in a video game if they think it's wrong to do in real life?" Well, the truth is, no one gets hurt when you kill a video game character. There are corporeal consequences to commiting acts of violence on real living things, but the difference is that real living things are just that, real. Well, that's my case against your Anti-Violent Games crusade. I support efforts to get parents more informed about the type of games their kids are playing, but it doesn't take some kind of genius to look at the back of the box of the game your kid wants to buy. If that doesn't tell you enough, there are many popular, respected websites that can give parents reliable information on the content of games. There is no evil conspiracy to turn America's youth into killers going on here- developers are people too. It should be noted that any federal interference with the video game industry would go down in my book as a violation of freedom of speech, which is something I dissaprove of under all circumstances. PS: On the topic of the 'Hot Coffee' mod for GTA: San Andreas, I get the feeling that you don't know what a mod is. Mods are code written by third parties, which adds to or modifies the game code, thereby adding or changing gameplay features. Also, you should keep in mind that this game is rated Mature(17+), and it's clearly displayed on the box that GTA contains sexual content, so any parent who walks in on their kid playing Hot Coffee shouldn't be at all shocked, in my humble opinion.

 

Jack Thompson wrote:

Of course they can train you to kill. The games suppress the inhibition to kill, which is why the military uses them for that purpose. Thanks for writing.

 

I wrote:

That's a half-truth. The games used by the military are not the same as the games available to the public, and they're far more akin to simulators than to entertainment systems. There is only one game that I know of which was used by the military and is now available to the public, Full Spectrum Warrior, and the civilian version was modified for faster gameplay and improved graphics. Things such as making the grenades go off quicker, for example, to give it more pick-up-and-play, entertainment value. Even then, anyone can tell you that killing in a game is not at all comparable to killing in reality, because killing in a game is, in fact, not actually killing.Flight simulators aren't used to suppress the inhibition to fly, they're used to give the pilot-in-training technical skills needed to operate a plane. The military uses video games in the same way.

 

Jack Thompson wrote:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/07/15/news_6129301.html

 

I wrote:

Well, I'll admit defeat on Hot Coffee issue, but my point about violence still stands. I'd hardly call that article an effective rebuttal to my statements. And just for the sake of debate, let's hypothetically say your theory is true, and violent games do indeed reduce the inhibition to kill. Does that neccessarily mean that a gamer would have any more desire to kill? It would simply remove a roadblock for someone who already has violent urges and tendencies, caused by other, more serious factors, would it not? A rational, peaceable person who's inhibition to kill was reduced still would lack the violent urge to even contemplate murder.

 

Jack Thompson wrote:

In the UK an M game can't be sold to a minor, which is the only restriction I seek here. Smarten up. Your ignorance is showing.

 

I wrote:

Oh, really? Seems to me that you're attempting to draw negative attention to a major game company, spread false information that suggests that violent media creates killers, and continually changing the subject during this discussion. I'd like to bring your attention to the replies you allegedly sent to a few other gamers who have emailed you:

"I am not interested in 'gamer's thoughts,' as that constitutes the latest oxymoron." "Screw off" These are people who I have never known to lie, especially on matters of politics. Perhaps you're being so curteous to me because you don't want Mommy and Daddy upset? Don't worry about that, Mr. Thompson, because I like to fight my own battles. You're spreading ignorance, taking advantage of others' misfortunes, attempting to destroy a well-established industry, and using technicalities to evade my arguments, which you seem to be incapable of refuting. Your two-faced, ambulance-chasing nature is showing. If you want to convince me otherwise, respond to my arguments instead of changing the subject. I'm not as naive as you think.

 

Jack Thompson wrote:

check into the nearest mental health facility

 

I wrote:

Mental institution? Whatever for? Did I hit a soft spot with that last email? That reply had a clear tone of finality to it, but you haven't gotten rid of me yet. Personally, I enjoy verbally destroying your "beliefs" and watching your petty attempts to shut out the truth. So, tell me... what exactly are your motives for professing these beliefs that you make no effort to defend? Really, I'm curious. I've never understood how people like you find it so easy, so satisfying, to uphold beliefs that aren't your own. That clearly aren't your own. If you want to insult me, find something witty next time. Being called insane isn't very deragatory, nor is it very clever. PS: I was going to include a joke pertaining to me allegedly having no inhibition to kill, but as you are a lawyer I opted against anything that could be considered a threat in even the most liberal terms.

 

Jack Thompson wrote:

Not interested.

 

I wrote:

Well, I've had fun antagonizing you. Also, I think I should tell you that I've posted this entire conversation on a public forum. You're unlikely to garner any support from my little corner of the web.

 

Jack Thompson wrote:

Post that, junior.

 

I wrote:

With pleasure. I know some people who'd get a real kick out of it.

 

Jack Thompson wrote:

I bet you do. While you gamers are all autostimulating yourselves with hopefulness that all of this is going nowhere, I'm in the current Reader's Digest and working with US Senators. You all ought to be concerned.

 

I wrote:

Reader's Digest? How ironic that they once had an article poking fun at frivolous lawyers. Funny ol' world, ain't it? Well, you never know what crazy things politicians will do, but if people critically examine your viewpoints as I have, then I doubt that you'll get far. A great deal of disdain towards you is growing in the gaming community, and there are a LOT of voting-age gamers in this country. Who are some of the senators you're currently talking to? I think I'd like to contact them as well.

 

He hasn't responded since the last e-mail I sent him.

 

Pwned!

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I'd hate to have this guy as a lawyer if that's how he argues his case. I'd probably be better off with the 14 year old.

[Open the Muggy Gate 0]

Get that 14 year old a law scholarship right now.

[AndrewTS 0]

I'd like to see Dee Snider utterly destroy Thompson in a debate.

[Slayer 0]

I'd like to see Dee Snider utterly destroy Thompson in a debate.

Someone resurrect Frank Zappa so he and Snider can tag team like they did against the PMRC