It seems kind of bass-ackwards for the sponsors to fund something like that competition and then demand that a certain entry be disqualified because it's too offensive or whatever. It's perfectly reasonable to point out the hypocrisy of such an action. They sponsored the event as it was but suddenly threatened to withdraw their support just because of that game, a game which exemplifies everything that the event itself stands for? What a riot.

Maybe the event organizers could have had one of those "the content of this event does not necessarily reflect the views of our sponsors" disclaimers or whatever so the corporate tightwads wouldn't get their panties in a bunch over it.

How is this game tasteless.

Good for the sponsors. No, really, good for them. Welcome to the free market and stuff.

This isn't censorship, this is about whoever is paying the bills getting to decide how their (and their stockholders') money is spent. Don't like it? Sponsor the event yourself. Or go start your own event to show off SCMRPG or whatever. And while you're at it, boycott whichever companies pulled the plug. The free market is a two-way street, after all. ;)

@Yuki-
Umm, I know you mean well, but you can't sue somebody because they don't want to give you their money for something they don't want to support. No matter how absurd their reason for it is.

Furthermore, it's the promoters own damn fault for either not telling the sponsors what they were in for, or not putting a clause in the contract preventing them from pulling out like this. Or, at the very least, for not finding enough sponsors/funds to be able to afford to tell picky sponsors to screw off.

Suing or blaming sponsors over this would only serve to exhibit the same personal responsibility deficiency syndrome which infects the think-of-the-children cultists...

Yuki,

1A and other civil rights cut both ways. Whoever is (or was) sponsoring the event has a First Amendment right to not "say" whatever it is in the free speech it is which offends them. Forcing them to do otherwise via the courts would be compelled speech, which is just as dangerous as censorship. If we could force sponsors to promote our speech, what is there to stop someone else from forcing us to promote theirs? Should, say, Jack Thompson be able to cry "censorship" and force game developers to help him promote his message?

Likewise, it would be a violation of 4A to seize their assets to promote something against their will.

As for Brokeback Mountain, the Oscars, et al, erm, it was well within any and every sponsors rights to not advertise there. The reason those with problems with the subject matter chose to do so anyway wasn't some sort of law. It's because ad spots during the awards show are just too damn lucrative. That, and, shunning fans of one of the biggest movies of the year (and cinema in general) would lose more business than pissing off a handful of religious zealots.

@Brokenscope

I would disagree that slashdot tends to be 'left'..... I think it wants to be, and there is a group who consider themselves 'true' slashdot people instead of 'right wing trolls'.. I have a feeling the 'right' side thinks about the same, and any discussion I watch seem to be both side butting heads.

Outside that, yeah, gotta agree on the basic sequence. It is actually an example of why I miss the LJ-threaded gamepolitics discussions. Sure they had thier problems, but they behaved MUCH better then slashdot and were honeslty really intersting.

To clearly state the issue at hand here, it is my understanding that supposed free speech (Rights) have been trumped by corporate pressure. I believe a careful examination of this is in order. The Slamdance is a private, corporate event organized and run by a corporate entity and promulgating certain "contest" rules, so to speak. The fact that the other corporate financial sponsors of this event have considered withdrawing THEIR money, is an exercise in their right to direct their support AND to affiliate (Right to Associate Freely is Constitutional too) with those groups and events of their choosing. The game maker has ALREADY exercised his free speech and is distributing his RPG. Please, someone clarify where exactly the supposed free speech rights of anyone is being squelched. I do despise corporate America in general and I do support Free Speech Rights WITHOUT reserve, but in this case, I am having trouble clearly understanding the alleged nature of these rights.

"The allegation that free speech rights are being squelched is not supported by a deeper understanding of the facts of this matter. Corporations have the right to associate freely, to sponsor freely and to speak freely. The CORPORATION running this event is out to make a profit. The game maker has been successfully distributing his game. Whose speech is being threatened here? The corporate sponsors are being villified for exercising their right to direct THEIR property (money) in a manner in which they so choose in order to maximize the benefit to their shareholders. Perhaps someone can point to the exact individual and which exact Rights of his (or hers) that are being trampled. Then we can all send an email to that person telling him (or her) that a lawsuit is in order to collect damages."

The problem here is not a violation of free speech rights. No one ever said that (that I read). The problem is that Slamdance is a festival celebrating Games/Movies/Entertainment that is considered "underground", even more Indie than Indie if you will.
The problem is that these corporations are providing funding to a festival which celebrates independent media that focuses on issues that may be uncomfortable...they know this, but as soon as SCMRPG is mentioned they threaten to pull funding? WTF is that about?

Err...what's the big deal? Private organization decides not to let tasteless game into one of its competitions. Let's get off the high-horse talk about "first amendment" and "censorship" as if this issue is even remotely equal to any sort of government action. Get real.

[...] Kotaku is reporting, and Water Cooler Games confirming, that Super Columbine RPG, accepted as a finalist for the Slamdance Guerrilla Gamemaker Competition, has been pulled from the copetition by festival organizers under pressure from sponsors. Apparently this is a first for any film or game that has been accepted to Slamdance. Oddly, the game was actively courted by Slamdance before submissions were due. See the comments at GamePolitics.com, too. [...]

Do we know which of the sponsors actually threatened to pull?

Kodak may make artistic tools[cameras and film] but they just showed they don't understand art at all.

There's a lively discussion on Slashdot about it.
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/05/1353221

Not that I am surprised... thanks to our persistent media which still compares every single school shooting to Columbine, most people are still too sensitive over the subject to want to view it in any form of media. The fact that it is a video game makes it even more controversial.

I understand why Slamdance pulled it from the competition, as sad as it is, they can't operate without funding.

Here's what I sent to each of the sponsors:

I'm very dissapointed that you pressured the Slamdance film festival to remove Super Columbine Massacre RPG from it's list of independant video games up for consideration. Independant artists who tackle uncomfortable issues should be celebrated, and not shunned. By bowing to pressure from the public, you are allowing the mob to decide what is art and what isn't. If that is the case, why bother sponsoring the festival at all? You should be ashamed that you let the uninformed majority dictate to independant artists what issues cannot be talked about. By doing so, you've shown independant artists everywhere that if the mob doesn't agree, then the film/game shouldn't be made. Slamdance has acknowledged that video games are capable of tackling serious issues, just like film and literature. Why can't you?

@Jabrwock

Very nice. I really hope at least a few respond and GP can post them ^_^

well, at minimal, I guess I know a handfull of companies that I will be rather unlikliy to bother buying from again.

Lol @ censorcrats

How do I put this without sounding so "anti-video games" over this...

We understand he should have a right for this game to be in the festival and there is apprent hypocristy with "elephant?" being allowed still. (Never heard of elephant.)

But complaining about this....just kinda flashed a point of view in my head that further proves Jack's delusions of us voilent killers/criminals.

Which I know we aren't. But BSing about this might kinda send the message that we want to see gore and voilence I know some do but not in a sick way.

I dunno...

I know we are complaining about how stupid this is and first admendment rights etc etc.....but uh....becareful how you word things I suppose....

I think I popped my mind. x_x

WTF? Were the sponsers actually threatned with boycotts if they allowed the game in the competition? How many non-gamers actually know about Slamdance? Why have Americans gotten into the attitude that any speech they don't like should be censored?

@Radioguy:

No, that's Danny LeDonne at left, the news anchor at the top and Mike Strobel at bottom right, some dummy from Toronto (I think) who they got to argue with LeDonne. Don't worry, he made enough of the types of comments you mentioned without JT there.

On a brighter note, a bunch of us wrote and ripped him, and his response, at least to me, was surprisingly defeatist...

Now that really annoys me.

Compare SCMRPG with the criticly acclaimed Elephant - in which you follow about a boring bunch of annoying kids for 50 minutes until they all get shot.

SCMRPG actually explored the reason why the killers did what they did, and the emotional impact their actions left. Out of the two, it was the game that made me think about high school shootings the most. Yet Elephant was allowed at the Cans film festival and SCMRPG isnt allowed at Slamdance.

BTW - is that Jack Thompson in the screenshot? What obviously biased, ill informed and quite possibly biogeted comments did he have to add to to the dialog?

Very nice! I have some LJ with news, check this out:
Newest news
Check this out
livejournal

wsfa. com jesus heals a leper bible story saxahpone travelquote. us domestic mail

bay ave trattoria yorktown 2018 girlsbendover sites-portal. timesharevacationoutlet

meaning of sign of the cross bikini 20 20 20 20thongs fodors paris cbs channel 5 effects of sodium hypochlorite on plant growth

@ Brokenscope

Oh, by the way, I know you didn't mean it as a compliment a few weeks ago when you said that I am almost the reverse of Jack Thompson, but that was the best compliment I have ever received. Thanks a lot.

@Kyouryuu

Actually, the posters aren't angry at Salmdance itself, their reasons for turning down the game was very sound... they are angry with slamdances sponsers. They were the ones that applied pressure on slamdance and gave the festival no choice but to pull out the game... considering the bad rep that people have been giving the game without even bothering to play it or even try understanding the true point of the game, it's easy to think that the sponsers made this decision for all the wrong reasons.

And i doubt many poeple would be crying foul if the game didn't win. No one thought that it was a sure fire win, but we did expect that it would atleast be allowed to compete; hence the current uproar. Fair treatmeant is really all we ask, something the sponsers denied the game...

And thats why I'm an old time socalist. The captalist system has its flaws like ALL economic systems, but thats not my point. My point is that somethings well alot of things are more important than the all mighty Profit. As for the 1st amendment, i believe it trumps all, wether that is true of not does not bother me, the whole fact is that a corportaion/s threted to pull there money from a small indie sundace"esque" like competion that well I have never even heard of, the much more poweful corporation is in essace bullying "Slamdance" whos right? I don't know my self I tend to side with the 1st Amendment right or wrong, but what do I know Im more than a bit biased

I'm not seeing how this involves the 1st Amendment. A festival is put together. The organizers need money to make it work, so they get sponsors. Sponsors don't like a certain game, so they threaten to bolt. Isn't this similar to a politician taking specific actions to appease his campaign donors? If the organizers/politicians don't like what the sponsors/donors are all about, they're free to find different ones, aren't they, just as the latter are free to find different endorsees?

Is what the sponsors are doing right? No, I think they were assholes for pulling this crap at the last minute and throwing their weight around, but I'm just not seeing how the 1st Amendment applies since all parties are acting within their own rights. Maybe I'm missing something.

[...] Kotaku and Game Politics have reports about how Slamdance dropped the game due to pressure from sponsors, though recent reports indicate that the founder of the festival, Peter Baxter, made a “personal decision” without any outside pressure. Game designer and theorist Ian Bogost was asked to advocate for the game to any skittish sponsors, but the game was pulled before he had the chance, suggesting that Baxter just wanted to avoid potential conflict. The basic issue here, Bogost suggests, is that Baxter wants to push the envelope with film, but games are more of a side project. [...]

I've posted a long review (and defense) of Super Columbine Massacre here:
http://www.manifestogames.com/node/3048

And will be hosting it, for those who want to form their opinions at first-hand, here:
http://www.manifestogames.com/node/3040

@blah blah

Whoa whoa, slow down, I was merely asking if you had played it yourself. Now if you hadn't and caleld it tasteless, your argument would have less merit, but sicne you have and think it's tasteless, well, I say to each his own, not everyone is gonna like this sort of thing, and if you don't that's fine, I"m jsut glad you don't abuse your legal liscense to make sure no one else can enjoy it, if they do that is.

[...] Les recuerdo, para quienes no lo hayan jugado, que SCMRPG es un juego relativamente rudimentario, hecho con el RPG-Maker, que te pone en la piel de los autores de la masacre del instituto de Coloumbine. Pese a ser, pues eso, un juego hecho con el RPG-Maker, la seriedad del planteamiento y la profundidad con el que trata el tema hacen de él no solo una joya, sino un punto de referencia obligado a la hora de hablar de juegos serios y de las múltiples e infrautilizadas posibilidades del videojuego. Por eso estaba ahí compitiendo en lo más alto codo a codo con joyas de la corona como Castle Crashers. Primero informó Kotaku el día 5 de que el juego había sido retirado de la competición por presiones que supuestamente venían de arriba, de lo más alto, de los patrocinadores. Con la excusa de la moral, y esas cosas. No voy a decir que era de esperar, porque creía que la industria independiente funcionaba de manera distinta y que festivales de este tipo valoraban los videojuegos como debía ser y pasaban olímpicamente de las subnormalidades a lo Jack Thompson a las que tristemente estábamos acostumbrados. Pero resulta qus sí era de esperar. Poderoso caballeraro es don dinero. ¿O no? Las reacciones no han tardado en llegar. El revuelo que ha causado la expulsión, haciéndose eco en importantes medios (1up.com, gamasutra, selectparks.net, gamespolitics.com), no ha sido tan ruidoso como la mierda que está saliendo a flote. Primero Johnatan Blow, ganador del 2006 IGF con Braid, y también finalista del festival, se ha retirado de la competición por solidaridad. Ian Bogost de Water Cooler Games, (responsable de Persuasive Games y finalista en años anteriores), dice que lo de los patrocinadores es un pufo y que los organizadores como Baxter están cagaditos de miedo con la idea de que los videojuegos puedan ser más impactantes, expresivos, y guais que las películas (el festival Slamdance es también de cine independiente, no sólo de juegos) y que si la sección de videojuegos sirve para darle un toque cool y indie al festival, bien, pero que si empieza a toquetear con temas artísticos de manera seria y contundente, le quita protagonismo a los flims y que no puede ser. [...]

action pinball womans 20sandels green and black posion arrow froiog school fund raisers low growing perenials

wcia that goes to casey il ncucationlottery erica durance front nude pineapple cookie recipie maple festival

ielts test kris king big headphones animated allan tufankjian ship discovery colorado state congressman

greatful dead songs nude kate mulgrew du bai pensacola concealed weapon permit how much is the tamagatchi

goosie lucy port richey yellow pages washington state ferries education issues in zimbabwe dh5 united states postal service tracking aerosolesoutlet metaphor is marylandsmostwanted pediatric eye doctor fl boston ave

First time here on your site. I am delighted to find your wonderful website online. drudge report
PS7n6u5dk2