October 19, 2006
ESRB president Patricia Vance will represent the video game industry later this week at the 2006 National Summit on Video Games, Youth & Public Policy in Minnesota.The summit is sponsored by the National Institute on Media & the Family as well as Iowa State University. NIMF president Dr. David Walsh has been a frequent critic of the game industry and especially of the ESRB. Vance and Walsh are seen at left.
So what's it all about?
According the the NIMF website:
"(NIMF) has invited a group of scholars, educators and experts on media violence and child behavior issues to discuss the public health ramifications of child exposure to potentially harmful video games... participants will review current and emerging trends related to video game rating systems, education policy and government regulation; determine the accuracy and independence of video game ratings; and, recommend a 10-year action agenda based on the summit’s conclusions."
The finalized agenda for the summit is available here.
Comments
Which translates out to... "We're not going to discuss if there is a link, we're just going to say there is and declare it an international problem."
Once more proving this little NIMF summit is a waste of time. Sure, keep going at it under the veil of "Giving parents the tools they need to raise their children" (or some such crap) Rather than just encouraging that parents actually try to raise their children.
Still, if she gets a word in edgeways, I'll be surprised.
Just so long as they don't try to use her as the scapegoat and drive her out of the conference center...
This doesn't look good.
- Warren Lewis
You can't grill the ESRB, and expect them to be accountable for how the ratings are enforced. Because they aren't responsible for that.
I also want NIMF to bring in random parents to berate them for ignoring the ratings (not the good parents who are comfortable with their kids being exposed to certain media, I mean those who still don't know what "M" means...)
On a more serious note, I'd really like to see more studies on how many parents understand and/or use the ESRB ratings. All the detractors say the system is flawed and no one understands it (I fail to see how the movie system works, but the almost-identical-but-improved ESRB system is incomprehensible), but the only actual study on it is the ESRB's, and going by that, most parents understand the sytem, find it accurate, and find it helpful.
But are you -surprised-? Don't you know that if the distribution of people was more even sided the conclusions of the summit might actually be a matter for debate and discussion? That's a -horrible- way to build political pressure. I thought -everyone- knew that you figured out the solution you want to impose, -then- you reframe the problem until your solution sounds reasonable, and -then- you pretend to discuss the issue.
Bah, disgust aside, I wish Vance good luck. She's going to need it.
Best of luck, though. Remember to look for those damned roots that'll try to trip you up.
I mean, look at most abuse cases. The abuser is in a position of power. And never more so is that recognized by an abuser who tears down their victim mentally and verbally just so they (the abuser) can have a reason to say to themselves "I'm better than them, see? I'm the one in charge."
And, frankly, that's what this feels like. Ms. Vance is going to end up NIMF's victim of abuse. That may sound like a trivialization of abuse, yet, at the same time, it's a textbook case. Even if they don't simply shout her down and pervent her from speaking, it's clearly a case of an abuser (NIMF, the organization) overwhelming (with verbal and mental domination), the abuse victim (Ms. Vance).
I don't see an EXCHANGE of ideas coming out of this. I merely see Ms. Vance having to listen to EVERYONE ELSE'S DEMANDS or end up being berated if she doesn't give in.
Frankly, I wouldn't consider NIMF much of a family oriented organization after this. What organization that wants to protect families would want to act like abusers?
nightwng2000
NW2K Software
October 19th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Has the NIMF ever stated exactly what is so confusing and misleading about the ratings?
Offhand, I don't recall. Of course they'll bring up instances like Hot Coffee and Topless Oblivion, which the ESRB handled reasonably well, and kids buying M games, which of course isn't under the control of the ESRB but rather the VSDA, but other than that, they haven't really gone into detail as to what's "wrong" with the ESRB rating system itself, other than the fact that the games aren't played all the way through to look for "hidden" material, which is of course pointless...
I chuckled at this, then immediately felt guilty. 'Tis more of a prospect than anything else. It doesn't help that she's been ESRB's whipping boy, so to speak, and everyone invited to the NIMF summit knows it. I agree with Siftr and Nightwng, this seems to be a blatant preparation of snide remarks and low shots, outrageous demands, and something just short of an angry mob.
Wait and see, I suppose.
If this doesn't work that should be an "It's a Trap!" Ackbar image.
To think, the man who once tossed aside jack thompson, is slowly becoming just like him.
Can't there be just a few Goddam people in goverment who are against this kind of stuff?
Though, to be blunt, they probably also felt this was nothing more than 'pat your neighbours back' for NIMF, but I will admit that there seems to be far too much burying of heads in the sand from far too many people, and many of those heads are in the gaming industry.
I am, however, also thinking that eventually the ESRB will have to change their rating system (but I don't believe they will disappear). It may be something minor like adding another rating or perhaps the method they use to rate a game. I doubt that they will be subjected to radical changes like playing through an entire game before deciding the rating given, considering that the very concept is completely ridiculous, but perhaps they will come to some arrangement in between two extremes.
And that's even more disappointing, even though I understand why they did it. It's definately something of an ambush situation, but with enough reps for the game industry -there- it might have been possible to turn the tide. While I've said many times that I think the ESRB and the games industry in general is pretty much safe from government interference due to older legal precedents, I -do- think that they need to start shooting back when it comes to the "culture war". It's time to get proactive and -aggressive-. Gah, never thought I'd use a buzzword like "culture war". Now I have to go wash my mouth out with soap.
If I was in charge, the ESA would have sent someone there just to record it. Any outright lies or fabrications by those in attendance, BOOM, LAWSUIT!
Would sure put those stuffed shirts back in there place.
Well, as I said before there wouldn't be any -grounds- for lawsuits against people at these sort of conferences. Lying isn't against the law unless it does some concrete and provable harm and/or you can prove that it -was- lying (as opposed to the person having some genuine, if false, belief) AND that the lie was told with the intent to -cause- harm.
E10 10+
Tenn 13+ NOT KIDS
M 17+ NOT KIDS
AO 19+ or 22+ or banded for your protection depdnign on the state you live in(yes porn is baned in some 0-o)
Still they simply don't understand and do not wish to,it must be banded for their protection nothing more nothing less....
I wish they would simplife the ESRB rateings system by tossing out the descriptors and focusing on the 4 age groupings
Early kids (G)
-6 early learning
6 Non violent (meaning less violence than zelda and or puzzle games)
Kids (PG)
6+ Games like Zelda that are violent but in cartoon fashion
10+ games that have real life issues in them about life,the world and good and evil.
Tenns (PG13)
13+ Like 10+ but with lite gore and blood letting and very very mild sexual themes like DQ8
16+ this is the new M if you will with lesser violent and sexy games being 16+ and the more over the top stuff going to 18+
Adult (R and NC17)
18+ the reason I want to split the normal 17+ is because AO has already been tarnished its almost a scarlet letter making games vanish from retail chains the more reason to make this akin to R meaning on violence alone a game can not be "hidden" from the public.
AO/Adults Only
This is where Nudity and sex come into things if you will forgive the pun of corse 18+ can have lite nudity and sexual themes however AO is for "porn games" or games that are so repulsive it needs the NC17 rateing
Now comes the question what could be so repulsive mmm take postal make it more violent mix it with the pushier but un censored torture scenes then add a extra gooey helping of surrealism,on one hand no game with reasonable amount of violence (as detailed or slightly more detailed than "unrated videos") should not be classifed higher than 18+ on the other hand if they can mix postal with surrealism of the SAW and keep it at max gooy detail then maybe just maybe it could fall under the vague and obscure obscenity laws the states have thus why making it AO would be reasonable.
What I am getting at is AO is akin to porn it needs to hidden away but not removed from retail stores and most game shops could reasonably handle it while department stores could not.
*L*
calmness ,yes the esa/esrb needs to fight against slander however you cant sue a convention that bashes things in the modern world they dislike,altho the law is vague but in any case on this front suing would not be the best coarse of action,however taking out the 4 ton hammer on the mindless horded that cosntanly berate gamers and the industry and lie misguide would be a good start.....slander is the way to go on this.