Neb on 16/12/2009 at 02:26
I don't exactly have a great understanding of politics or economics, but I'd expect the side with the most financial clout to win out.
Isn't this how the issue would have been brought up anyway? E.g - Big games company lobbies to open the debate, something reasonably tasty passes, gamers get more gore, government gets some nice taxes, opposition gets more ammunition.
Really, I'm so tired I'm almost convinced I'm making this up. (It's 02:25 here :( ).
Scots Taffer on 16/12/2009 at 05:16
I like how the only game they mentioned in any context throughout the entire discussion paper was one called Rapelay.
ercles on 16/12/2009 at 05:26
As far as the Aboriginal argument goes (I can't address the non-english argument because it seems pretty fucking random) I'm not sure you guys realise how fucking dire some of the communities are. They are already exercising a level of control over these societies by banning alcohol and porn to try and curb the absolutely rampant rates of rape (both child and adult) and violence. I'm not sure why these guys want to ban violent video games, but they are getting pretty desperate for any kind of solution at this point. Although we (being the white fella) undoubtedly buttfucked them in the first place, these are still communities that have lost control over their citizens, and need help steering back towards some semblance of control.
As far as Atkinson, he does not have sole control over this issue, it would be decided by all attourneys general in Australia, not just South Australia's. He is by far the most vocal opponent, but that does not mean he is the sole opponent. Victoria's AG has said he would support the 18 plus classification. I definitely think that making submissions can have an outcome, when you consider how few people (read: literally 5-10) to have huge impacts on censorship issues in other media forms, although these are admittedly complaints about what is shown on TV, not what is banned.
Muzman on 16/12/2009 at 05:54
Quote:
* An R 18+ for computer games would exacerbate problems associated with access to high level material in Indigenous communities and by other non-English speaking people
As dvrabel points out I don't think this one is meant as everyone is taking it. They wouldn't be that stupid, especialy since it's a lot of Labor incumbents who supposedly like the status quo. They'd be very careful not to say what it might seem like they're saying.
It's about literacy and people not understanding the warnings. Pissweak and patronising, but not quite as bad as "Abos and dirty foreigners can't handle it".
You have to remember that their argument comes from a position that games are magically potent, in ways other media aren't (any more, lol) and we have to be very careful with them. Atkinson himself virtually admits that the system's not designed to ban things and he knows the same board using the same scheme with only half the ratings options for one kind of media makes no kind of sense. But it's all worth it if it keeps violent games out of the hands of kids.
CCCToad on 16/12/2009 at 06:45
Quote Posted by dvrabel
In the full discussion paper, that bullet point is followed by this explanatory text.
It's a valid, if really weak argument.
It is a weak argument primarily because most video game retailers have the ratings posted right on the video game case or near the register.
Besides, isn't "they're just too dumb to understand ratings" more than a bit condescending? In the few cases where thats true, I think you deserve what you get if you do something obviously stupid like buy your 10 year old kid Grand Theft Auto(which I did see happen in a Wal-Mart).
Then again, the attitude that such heavy handedness is necessary because of how stupid the peons are is an inherent part of any government that operates on a collectivist philosophy. Maybe we should just be glad they're only telling Australians what games they can't play instead of what news they can't read.
icemann on 16/12/2009 at 08:02
Well their introducing an internet filter here soon which will block any "un-rated" websites. The newspapers covered more of the obvious things that would be blocked like child pornography sites, pro terrorist sites etc while not mentioning what else would be blocked which would likely be banned unrated games and other things.
Censorship is great aye.
EvaUnit02 on 16/12/2009 at 08:12
A bit OT, but why aren't ratings logos prominently displayed on the DVD boxes over in Yankland? I have quite a US import DVDs and the MPAA ratings icons are usually in small print on the back of the case insert slip.
BBFC logos in the UK and OFLC equivalents in Oz/NZ usually have the ratings jutting out on both the cover and spines of DVDs, using bold primary colours.
(
http://imgur.com/yqOnf.jpg)
Inline Image:
http://imgur.com/yqOnfs.png (
http://imgur.com/Vx2V0.jpg)
Inline Image:
http://imgur.com/Vx2V0s.pngShakey-Lo on 16/12/2009 at 08:17
the bold colourful ratings on AU boxes were introduced fairly recently, they are ugly as sin and I wish they would go away and stop ruining my cover art.
CCCToad on 16/12/2009 at 15:48
Quote Posted by icemann
Well their introducing an internet filter here soon which will block any "un-rated" websites. The newspapers covered more of the obvious things that would be blocked like child pornography sites, pro terrorist sites etc while not mentioning what else would be blocked which would likely be banned unrated games and other things.
Censorship is great aye.
Ok, I have to take back what I said.
They should keep in mind that "protect the kids from pornz!" is starting a slipper slope. If you ask China, their internet filter only exists to protect the population from pornography as well. Of course, it just happens to censor any potential reading of "unsanctioned" viewpoints while not being as effective against porn.
