So long as hsi views remain his own and no policies are enacted on them, I don't give a flying fuck what his views on gaming are.

Still, that doesn't sound good.

And why do I get the feeling Mr Obama might need a new fax machine thanks to a certain never-has-been ex-attorney?

“If the industry fails to act, then my administration would,”

That is messed up right there. The ESRB is one of the most comprehensive rating systems on the planet and he is critizing them. It really does show that he is either

A) Ignorant of how the system works and how thorugh it is.

or

B) Is giving consideration to imposing federal guidelines for video game creation and distrubtion like in many European nations.

While I do view it as more than likely scenario A, I will also be the first to tell you that Liberals and Democrats are the first people to promote censorship of anything that they think might be offesive to a small percentage.

Obama is not Clinton. I think he's pretty pro-free speech. His views on games IMHO extend to moderation and making sure kids are not playing them all day long. He's not saying kids should not play games whatsoever, all he's saying is that they shouldn't be couped up inside all day playing games and watching T.V. and their parents should make them go outside and do other things. Seems like common sense to me.

"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

I don't think it is much to worry about. I'd like to think that they would at least look at the rating before they would take any steps, and anyone looking at any retail game box would QUICKLY be able to see just how accurate and comprehensive the ESRB ratings are.

Compare them to the MPAA ratings which only give a general idea of what age should be able to see something without detailing why.

The question is whether Obama is so far left-wing that he treads into "Nanny State" territory.  Hillary surely was, and I think that was a factor in her defeat (thank you Mr Obama). 

He did reach out to gamers through his advertising, and he does owe the younger generation for getting him elected.  Hopefully he is young enough and values younger voters to stay away from anti-free speech legislation.

Also, if a Christian zealot like George W didn't try to regulate games, I doubt the next president would as well...those issues are for senators and congressmen. 

"Palin would of regulated games. "

He doesn't have to lead the way on the issue Chris W, all he has to do is sign a bill into law.

I must admit that I am a little worried about possible anti-game sentiments producing attempted game legislation in a Democratic D.C. However given the circumstances and what was at stake this election, I will take on this fight, than fight another Bush administration (McCain and Palin). This is why I do not regret voting for Obama, and I also feel his anti-game rhetoric is just that--rhetoric.

Once again I will reiterate that we must stick together and lobby congress for our rights. We elected these people, and with enough e-mails, phone calls, faxes, and letters, they will listen to us. This is the participatory government which Obama has promised the American people, and we should take him up on his offer.

It's actually pretty hard to tell what a politician will do based simply on thier Party affiliation or social leanings.  You basically have to wait until they do something, to get a gauge on how they'd respond to other issues down the line.

Republicans - Used to be the Party of small government, but that's a thing of the past.  They spend as much money as Democrats anymore.  They also have to play to their Christian base, since they'd be completely ruined without them.  So it's a toss-up.  A Republican might try to regulate or cencor games to appease their religious constituants, but then again they're just as likely to think they shouldn't interfere with free enterprise.

Democrats - They have a hard time saying no to a new government program, so if a Dem decides games are bad, then they might try to regulate them.  But at the same time, they're "generally" more open to new formats and social change, so they might already be a part of the gamer generation.  Again, a toss-up.  It's different from one Dem to the next.

Conservatives - They hate people telling them what they can do, but don't mind telling others what to do if they don't agree or understnad.  So a conservative would either consider the sales of games to be none of thier business, or would believe they're undermining "core moral values."  You can't really tell which way they'd go until they move.

Liberals - They know better than you about how to live your life (actually not that much different from conservatives, only without the religous slant), so they're not above sticking their fingers into regulation if they think it's for the "greater good".  But they also take free speech very seriously.  How a liberal will react to games is anyone's guess.

So you see, base your predictions on a person's record and words.  Not on their labels.

I don't think Obama's going to put any kind of concentration on games. He has way too much on his plate as it is.

Wow, people sure are blowing up this "put away the video games" thing.

He meant take the time to vote. If that wording set you off, imagine he had said "turn off the TV" or something apparently less flammable.

No one seems to realize, in our government and media, that there is NO security that is not broken trivially that relies on an "everyone but" strategy.

What does this mean? Parents have to start watching what their kids buy. Sorry, there's no way to stop them from accessing it. A v-chip is trivial to get around, the rating system? Charge up a visa at wal-mart and order offline. "Yes I'm over 18."

Where is the industry responsible?

The ESRB does NOT give consistant ratings to content. A new board needs to be made with a more concise rating system, and a more thorough examination of the game. Video game companies should also be rating to the MOST SENSITIVE CONSUMERS. This doesn't mean let jack thompson rate the games, as he's not a consumer of them. I'd propose something like this:

G - general audience, safe for anyone

E - Everyone, animated violence (Think cartoon network's superhero shows)

Then add two ratings, one for violent content and one for sexual content, maybe even just use a numbering system. Nothing too complex. Then require game retailers and places that sell used games to maintain an explanation board.

</rambling>

Regardless, asociating all gamers with underachievers is a huge mistake. Instead of considering our students work at minimum 40 hour weeks in class and are expected to spend another 20 hours a week out of class MINIMUM, and looking at our failing public school system, we have nutjobs like jack thompson.

So before branding gamers 'idiots', look at what they do to their games.

Look at oblivion, morrowind, unreal tournament, garry's mod, rome total war, and all the other moddable games. It takes many patient, methodical, INTELLIGENT minds to take the hours upon hours to self teach the skills to make these mods.

I'd like to give anyone who thinks these games are for underachievers a few moments in medieval total war or garry's mod with wiremod on it. They'd run away crying.

Though I hate to admit console gamers don't do nearly as much.

This thread is too damn funny. FTW! Anyway, what about those of us over 18 that play games? What can we look forward to with Obama's administration? Parents need to parent and do some homework for themselves. The government has more important things to worry about then the entertainment industry and minors...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus

Oh, and as to #1, if it's clear it isn't Michelle Obama, then what's the problem?  You do have a sense of humor even though you're a gamer, right?  I'm one of the few people here that actually uses my real name to post, unlike the legion of anonymous cowards here, and you know I posted this, so your question is rather silly, no?

JACK THOMPSON, THAT'S RIGHT, JACK THOMPSON