Three New Gamer Videos for Republican Presidential Debate

August 14, 2007 -

Last week the Entertainment Consumers Association issued a call to action, challenging gamers to create grassroots video questions for Republican candidates participating in next month's CNN/YouTube debate. As a show of support, ECA president Hal Halpin even promised to send an ECA t-shirt to everone who submitted a gamer issue-oriented video.

The response has been unprecedented with new gamer-created videos appearing almost every day. Here are three brand-new submissions:

Jordan from Maine wants to know what the Republican candidates will do to keep his video games safe from censorship. Tim from Pennsylvania wonders how the candidates would help parents make the right video game choices for their children. UGIPhobose from Atlanta wonders if the candidates believe it is the government's duty to censor digital media, including the Internet and video games

To see all of the gamer debate videos submitted so far, click on the Presidential Debate Videos category tag in the right sidebar. And if you're submitting a debate video to YouTube, don't forget to contact GamePolitics or the ECA to claim your t-shirt!


Comments

test

the halo video is pointless. unelss your real name is ugi fugil or what ever.

Apparently mine was deleted. I like the second one best. Machinima doesn't really work for this.

I expect a complete dodge on the "what will you do to hold parents responsible for their choices" question.
-- If your wiimote goes snicker-snack, check your wrist-strap...

must avoid spam filter, must not sing the lyrics to the monty python spam song.

In the .0007 percent chance this does get through these videos don't seem to be as good as the ones before.

I don't like these videos at all. The Machina ones just need to go away. Politicians want to respond to real people, not cartoons.

The other two were very weak questions that would recieve very weak answers.

We need to call these politicians out, not cater to their two tongued tactics.

All of these questions are good, but they are too clear, if that makes sense. The answer you want to hear is obvious. If it were phrased more neutrally, like "How do you feel about video game violence and regulation." I would do it myself, but I can't afford a decent camera.

@jabrwock

that or they will be answered by candidates who never intended to legislate games in the first place, like guliani or ron paul.

I can't watch the videos at work, but doesn't Machinma violate one of the rules?

Machina definitely violates rules.

At first I didn't want to post anything on this, because I made the second video, but after seeing a few of these comments I thought I'd say a little something here.

The whole arguement about videogame legislation is that it's not suppose to be up to the government to make decisions on what kids should and shouldn't play, view, read, or listen to, it's suppose to be up to the parents. That's the answer WE want to hear, but most politicians don't want to say it.

From my POV, simply asking the politicians how they feel about videogame violence and regulation lets them talk around the issue. Grilling them about regulation conflicting with the first ammendment gives them an easy way out. Neither put the real fix (getting parents involved) to the problem at hand (unwanted and unconstitutional legislation). Asking them specifically how they would implement the fix leaves them no choice but to A) talk about legislating videogames, or B) working with established groups (like the ESRB) to get parents more involved.

Either answer would give everyone a better picture of how the candidates will handle the problem.

Thanks to everyone for the cirticisms though, because they did give me some ideas for a second question.

the 3rd one isn't going to cut it...

I sent an email to GP regarding these debates. They have been "rescheduled" to November 28, read: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/13/cnn%e2%80%99s-gop-debate...

The main reason cited for the change was "scheduling conflicts" with major candidates. Unless something changes dramatically in the next 3 months I would put money on Guilaini and Romney skipping out on these and at least a 50% chance the entire debate crumbles and is canceled. The debate has been planned for quite some time now, and if candidates thought it was important they would fix their scheduling conflicts. Republicans are not ready to embrace the technological movement just yet.

@ Evan

Guiliani is going to be there. If Romney doesn't, then he's a coward.

The first two were at least decent efforts. Timmay, memorize that shit. It looks a lot better when you make eye contact with the camera. But hey, I liked it. You were easy to understand, thought out your question beforehand, and really used those 30 seconds to their fullest.

I love--absolutely love--the way you posed your question. What will you do to hold parents responsible? That's genius. It's a direct question, which makes it that much more obvious should a candidate try to dodge it, and completely turns the tables on the debate, illustrating the parents as the responsible party. It's like a slap in the face, but in a valid and polite way. Saucy.

The last video... made me want to bash my against a wall for the sheer stupidity of it.

First: Machinima. Don't. It makes you look like an idiot. This is a serious issue and if you can't be serious about it, stay away from it. No one will respect a question asked by someone hiding behind a game character. Seriously, we already know these people don't take games seriously. Do the math.

Second: Ask something important. It seems little or no thought went into formulating the question. If you only needed 10 seconds, you weren't trying hard enough. Bland and generic. Most importantly, it's not direct enough. The question, as posed, would give candidates too much room to maneuver. And believe me, they will. They'll talk for minutes on end without actually saying anything.

Third: For the love of everything holy, people need to learn to enunciate... especially when you have a wacky name like "Ugio F. Foma... see..." something. See? I couldn't understand it. Not that they'd remember it anyway, but anything you don't pronounce clearly becomes a distraction.

And finally... are you serious? A copyright notice?

Get the **** out. Right now. Seriously, just go.

/sigh.

One missed tag and the whole post goes to shit.
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
InfophilePut that way, "right to work" seems to have BLEEP-all to do with gay rights. Thing is, union-negotiated contracts used to be one of the key ways to prevent employers from firing at will. Without union protection, nothing stops at-will firing.07/07/2015 - 11:06am
Infophilehas an incentive to pay dues if they're represented either way, so the union is starved for funds and dies, unless things are bad enough that people will pay dues anyway.07/07/2015 - 11:02am
InfophileFor those who don't know, "right to work" laws mean that it can't be a condition of an employment contract that you pay union dues. That is, the right to work without having to pay dues. Catch is, unions have to represent non-members as well, so no one...07/07/2015 - 11:01am
MechaCrashUnexpected? Seriously?07/07/2015 - 10:55am
Mattsworknamejob they wanted without the unions getting involved. The problem is, it has some unexpected side effects, like the ones Info mentioned07/07/2015 - 8:49am
MattsworknameThe problem being, right to work states exsist specificly as a counter to Unions, as the last 20 or so years have shown, the unions have been doing this countries economoy NO favors. The right to work states came into being to allow people to work any07/07/2015 - 8:49am
Infophile(cont'd) discriminatory. This can only be done for protected classes which are outlined in law (race, sex, religion, ethnicity everywhere, sexual orientation in some states). So, a gay person could be fired because they're gay and have no recourse there.07/07/2015 - 7:27am
Infophile@Goth: See here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/firedforbeinggay.asp for a good discussion on it. Basically, the problem is that in the US, most states allow at will firing, and it's the burden of the fired person to prove the firing was ...07/07/2015 - 7:25am
Goth_SkunkAssuming that's true, then that is a fight worth fighting for.07/07/2015 - 6:58am
Yuuri@ Goth_Skunk, in many states being gay is not a protected status akin to say race or religion. It's also in the "Right to work" states. Those are the states where one can be fired for any reason (provided it isn't a "protected" one.)07/07/2015 - 6:07am
Goth_Skunkregarded as a beacon of liberty and freedom that is the envy of the world, would not have across-the-board Human Rights laws that don't at the very least equal those of my own country.07/07/2015 - 5:47am
Goth_SkunkI find that hard to believe, Infophile. I have difficulty believing employers can *still* fire people for being gay. I would need to see some evidence that this is fact, because as a Canadian, I can't believe that the United States,07/07/2015 - 5:46am
InfophileFor that matter, even women don't yet have full legal equality with men. The US government still places limits on the positions women can serve in the military. And that's just the legal side of things - the "culture wars" are more than just laws.07/07/2015 - 5:43am
InfophileAnd that's just LGB issues. Get ready for an incoming battle on rights for trans* people. And then after that, a battle for poly people.07/07/2015 - 5:41am
InfophileA battle's been won. In many states employers can still fire people for being gay. And in many states, parents can force their children into reparative therapy to try to "fix" being gay. Those battles still need to be fought.07/07/2015 - 5:40am
Goth_Skunkand now they've switched to battles that don't need to be fought.07/07/2015 - 5:37am
Goth_SkunkIn my opinion, it was the final legal hurdle denying homosexual couples final and recognized statuses as eligible spouses. But even though this war's been won, some people are still too keen to keep fighting battles,07/07/2015 - 5:28am
Goth_SkunkAnd it's a trend I don't mind seeing continue. Same-sex marriage was at long-last made definitively legal by SCOTUS, and it's about time. I'm glad it's finally happened, as it was desperately needed.07/07/2015 - 5:25am
Infophile(cont'd) It started long before that. Perhaps the American Civil War comes to mind?)07/07/2015 - 3:59am
InfophileOn Goth's linked article: Historically speaking, there may have been cycles, but remember that the left has steadily gained ground. Is there a good reason to expect that to be different this time? (Oh, and no, Culture War 1.0 wasn't with the Baby Boomers.07/07/2015 - 3:59am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician