Is it just me or does he seem to stutter and talk in circles a lot? As far as I'm hearing here, they just seem to be focused on the fact that games are interactive. I should find the specific reasons his bill was deemed unconstitutional. Was it the fact that this bill contained the "Fine parents for allowing their kids to play" portion, or was it purely a "Kids can't buy." bill? 

I can agree with his position on the ESRB as of late, especially with GTA 4's rating. The ESRB has some issues since it is paid by the ESA, but I disagree with him in terms of "snippets" mainly because there are literally hundereds of hours of gameplay, it's impossible to cover every bit of detail.

His rolling into the reports of Columbine shootings and things like that kinda irks me as well. "You never heard about", because it wasn't reported. His statement about the first grader only makes me roll my eyes, where were the parents in that situation?

[8:20]"..but in all of the psychological literature, there has been a consistent report of a correlation between playing these games and violent behavior, so that is undisputed."

Let's look up "disputed" shall we? Wiki:
A controversy or dispute occurs when parties actively disagree, argue about, or debate, a matter of opinion. Controversies can range in size from private disputes between two individuals to large-scale disagreements between societies.

So he can't be saying it is undisputed, because it blatantly is. He is basically saying that a study that shows no real causal relationship between two things should be treated as such. Even when data suggests the otherway. It's basically him saying that "Although you have data that shows correlation, I'm going to force you to act according to my correlation-based data in order to 'err on the side of safety'."

What is even more interesting is how he completely dodged the America's Army question.

---- There is a limit for both politicians against video games, and video games against politicians.

Yee is a refreshingly intelligent critic of violent videogames. However, there is a flaw with his logic for backing this legislation. I really don't like his disregard of statistics. He dismisses them when they do not support his claim, but instead points to anecdotal evidence. His concerns for WHY violent games are bad for children sound nice and all, but when all you have left is to site “well, this one time some kid did this… and we think it’s because of videogames,” your argument looses much of its strength.

Pushing buttons hurts real human beings? WHAT?

So games should be delayed by years or their ratings don't count? MMOs never end, some single player games are hundreds of hours long...

He hasn't read the only major study done on actual kids and talks about 'all' the data other then that pointing to kids being affected... Is he retarded? He says that 'all' this other data, which was gathered from adults shows correlations always(not true but lets ignore that for now) so because there are some correlations he wants us to simply assume that there is a causation even though it has never been found. I guess the answer to my last question is a yes...

Its fine for the military to recruit little kids but violent games are bad?

The fact that violent crime levels among youth are dropping like stones according to FBI doesn't matter because he is certain that violent games are causing a plague of violence...hmmm... I think he is getting senile... His evidence is that no gun zones (zones were people who legally own guns and have concealed carry permits aren't allowed to defend themselves) have apparently become targets for disturbed or clinically insane murderous criminals some of which (not all) played video games... hmm didn't this 'plague' start AFTER teachers with concealed carry permits were banned from carrying their guns into the schools? Also these things just didn't get reported before that is why we are hearing about it now, we are actually paying attention now...

Most studies don’t see a difference between interactive and non-interactive media... some find that interactive ones influence people LESS then non-interactive...

So to sum up his argument:

"The issue is not censorship, I support the first amendment, again I support the first amendment, we must ban parents from buying these games for their kids..."

I like the fact that the statistics aren't important, but these vague studies mean everything.  Here's a hint, large amounts of correlation just mean large amounts of correlation.  I don't care if you have 1,000,000 studies proving a strong correlation, you still don't have any causal proof.

Hey Gamecyte.

Thanks for posting that Interview with Senator Yee.

Even though I did not agree with most of the things he said about Videogames, I do understand that sometimes he is just a guy who is trying to do the right thing.

But one thing I hate the most is when politicians think that Videogames are meant to be tools for learning...

It just makes me think that a Videogame that is fun and enjoyable to me is not important to the Politicians and Parents all because they don't see the importance of just having fun in a Videogame no matter what you might be doing in a videogame.

Also I feel that you should not judge people, even kids, who love to play Violent Videogames and label them as possible potential murderers. Sorry for some of my comments there on the videos but it was from my own heart and sometimes my own heart can be upset sometimes every time I hear the same old comments coming from a person who has no real understanding of the Videogame Industry But hey, at least Mr Yee is far more better than Hilary Clinton or Jack Thompson.

At least he was able to answer the questions from the Videogamers now that is a good thing I can say about Mr Yee.

But yeah, if his legislation is ever going to pass, he need to understand that the legislaton has to work both with the interests of the Videogame Industry and the interests in helping parents understand videogames better.

But I don't think any legislation would ever help both sides of the arguments.

 He believes that correlational studies prove a causal link. That of course is a bunch of bull. Lets have some fun with correlational statistics shall we? Almost all of America's violent criminals are soda drinkers; therefore soda is the cause of their violent behavior right? Most younger criminals play violent videogames; therefore videogames are the cause yes? A majority percentage of child abusers have kids of their own; therefore children are an underlying cause am I right? No, of course not, I'm so wrong! If you flip any of those statistics in the opposite direction it will tell a different tale. Most soda drinkers are not criminals, most gamers are not criminals, and most children are never abused by their parents. My point is that correlational studies don't prove jack shit and if one tries hard enough they can find a link between any two unrelated things or ideas.

I would venture to guess that almost every person in the U.S. currently serving time in prison has at one point or another watched a violent television program, read a violent book, or played a violent videogame. I can use this statistic to make the assumption that entertainment in general is the cause of all of their circumstances. I would be a complete idiot for coming to this conclusion but I could go on Fox News and be hailed as a hero while  being cited as an expert on violent media. 

I don't mind banning retailers selling M rated games to minors, but parents must be able to decide in the end when their kids should have access to the content by buying for them. The "M" rating is now the "Adults Only" rating guys.

---- There is a limit for both politicians against video games, and video games against politicians. http://www.goteamretard.com