Tanya Byron Applauds PEGI Decision
Tanya Byron Applauds PEGI Decision
June 19, 2009
Dr. Tanya Byron has thrown her support behind the British Government's recent decision to award the U.K.'s game rating chores to PEGI over the BBFC.
MCVUK reports that Byron, who in 2008 completed a review of the role of video games and the Internet in the lives of British children, said:
Video games were the big issue in my review, specifically their classification system. I didn't have time to outline a new classification system entirely, but I did outline principles for how it should look.
My suggestions then went to consultation and the Government have this week made their decision, which is an enhanced PEGI system. My recommendations have been upheld and it's a really great decision which I thoroughly support.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGIN / REGISTER
Crispy Gamer
GamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:07pm
JDKJ: No, I did you the favor and said it for you.
JDKJ: No, I did you the favor and said it for you.
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:06pm
Valdearg: What I said was while I may have implied long term accuraccy, and that might have been incorrect, my greater point that the CBO report calculated reduced deficits, expanded coverage, and lower costs is still 100% accurate. :D
Valdearg: What I said was while I may have implied long term accuraccy, and that might have been incorrect, my greater point that the CBO report calculated reduced deficits, expanded coverage, and lower costs is still 100% accurate. :D
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:06pm
Valdearg: Like any good politician, I don't believe I said "I was incorrect." :P
Valdearg: Like any good politician, I don't believe I said "I was incorrect." :P
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:02pm
JDKJ: If you'd said "I was incorrect" 10 shouts ago, I'd have quit twisting your arm to get you see the obvious 10 shouts ago.
JDKJ: If you'd said "I was incorrect" 10 shouts ago, I'd have quit twisting your arm to get you see the obvious 10 shouts ago.
Posted 03/18/10 at 12:00pm
JDKJ: You were they one assuming 100% accuracy. In all caps, no less.
JDKJ: You were they one assuming 100% accuracy. In all caps, no less.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:59am
Valdearg: Yes, my implication that the long term estimates were facts was incorrect, but the short term calculations are absolutely facts, and even the long term estimates are still useful in attempting to determine exactly what will happen with the bill.
Valdearg: Yes, my implication that the long term estimates were facts was incorrect, but the short term calculations are absolutely facts, and even the long term estimates are still useful in attempting to determine exactly what will happen with the bill.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:58am
Valdearg: I do. The Short term costs are actually calculated facts. The long term estimates aren't necessarily 100% accurate, but to assume that they can't possibly be accurate because someone said they might not be 100% accurate is also wrong.
Valdearg: I do. The Short term costs are actually calculated facts. The long term estimates aren't necessarily 100% accurate, but to assume that they can't possibly be accurate because someone said they might not be 100% accurate is also wrong.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:57am
JDKJ: When someone says, "I could be wrong but, as best as I can tell, X," X ain't a fact.
JDKJ: When someone says, "I could be wrong but, as best as I can tell, X," X ain't a fact.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:53am
JDKJ: It's too early in the morning for you to be deaf, blind, and dumb drunk. A "my best guestimate" can't be a fact. Don't you understand the difference between the two?
JDKJ: It's too early in the morning for you to be deaf, blind, and dumb drunk. A "my best guestimate" can't be a fact. Don't you understand the difference between the two?
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:41am
Valdearg: By how much depends on variables that can't necessarily be predicted at this point in time. And yes, those Facts are accurate only so far into the future, but those estimates can certainly be used to support this measure.
Valdearg: By how much depends on variables that can't necessarily be predicted at this point in time. And yes, those Facts are accurate only so far into the future, but those estimates can certainly be used to support this measure.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:40am
Valdearg: And I'm saying, as far as the CBO report goes, the facts that it does put forward are deficit reduction, reducing costs, and expanding costs. Those ARE facts.
Valdearg: And I'm saying, as far as the CBO report goes, the facts that it does put forward are deficit reduction, reducing costs, and expanding costs. Those ARE facts.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:30am
JDKJ: You were the one championing a qualified estimate as an indisputable fact. I'm merely pointing out that it's far from indisputable. So says the estimator.
JDKJ: You were the one championing a qualified estimate as an indisputable fact. I'm merely pointing out that it's far from indisputable. So says the estimator.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:27am
Valdearg: Or are you only breaking that argument out because the CBO says that this bill is a good thing for our deficit?
Valdearg: Or are you only breaking that argument out because the CBO says that this bill is a good thing for our deficit?
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:27am
JDKJ: The CBO says that, to the extent it is possible to accurately predict defict reduction over the long term, it is likely to reduce the deficit. That's your idea of "a fact that don't lie?"
JDKJ: The CBO says that, to the extent it is possible to accurately predict defict reduction over the long term, it is likely to reduce the deficit. That's your idea of "a fact that don't lie?"
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:26am
Valdearg: Would you be singing the same tune if the CBO came back saying that the bill will likely double the deficit in 20 years??
Valdearg: Would you be singing the same tune if the CBO came back saying that the bill will likely double the deficit in 20 years??
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:26am
Valdearg: @JDKJ: Just because there is a margin of error doesn't mean that the numbers aren't at least psudo-accurate.
Valdearg: @JDKJ: Just because there is a margin of error doesn't mean that the numbers aren't at least psudo-accurate.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:25am
Valdearg: The point is that the bill reduces costs, expands coverage, and reduces the deficit.
Valdearg: The point is that the bill reduces costs, expands coverage, and reduces the deficit.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:24am
JDKJ: So why are you off and running with "facts and numbers don't lie" when the very author of the facts and numbers is acknowledging that their facts and numbers could quite easily be wrong?
JDKJ: So why are you off and running with "facts and numbers don't lie" when the very author of the facts and numbers is acknowledging that their facts and numbers could quite easily be wrong?
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:23am
Valdearg: @JDKJ: Indeed, but the 10 year is also showing a deficit reduction, and that's more accurate.
Valdearg: @JDKJ: Indeed, but the 10 year is also showing a deficit reduction, and that's more accurate.
Posted 03/18/10 at 11:19am
JDKJ: Val': Isn't the CBO saying at the same time that predicting the long term deficit reduction effect isn't anywhere near an exact science? And that its prediction should be taken with that understanding?
JDKJ: Val': Isn't the CBO saying at the same time that predicting the long term deficit reduction effect isn't anywhere near an exact science? And that its prediction should be taken with that understanding?
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
Has the government been paying that much attention to Byron or her report since it didn't get them the results they wanted?
Why do you say that? The government is happily going with PEGI it seems.
BBFC != The UK government.
It's scary to think one person can have this much influence over other people's ability to speak without prior government approval (or, in this case, that of a third party appointed by the government).
Glad her report got soem good result for gaming.
http://www.magicinkgaming.com/
I'll say this much in support of Dr. Byron: she ain't bad-looking.
I'm with you on that one.
But the whole outcome of this thing wasn't a win for videogame publishers. The fact that there's another governmental committee that can override the PEGI rating makes it pretty toothless.
Heh. She's got nothing on Patricia Vance, though.
"De minimus non curat lex"
Oh God! I'm gonna be sick.
I didn't think her findings were that specific in regards to who she wanted to rate the games.
Now I get it. She's happy because they used her ideas apparantly. Not because the right people for the job won it, but because her ideas were involved.
...why wouldn't she have picked the people she thought were the right people for the job?
/b
How does she feel about video games still being able to be banned by the VSC??? Oh and if they are banned are the perminitly banned or can it be overturned???
IIRC, Tanya believed the ability to ban games should remain in law. Bans can still be overturned.
/b
The idea of the government banning artistic and commercial works would be the only reason I might decide not to move back to England from the USA (which I have always planned). The US Constitution's support for free expression is a quantum leap from the regressive British system in which works can be banned by governmental fiat. In most other respects the British system is the equivalent of the American one in terms of freedom and fair access to (and influence over) government, and in some areas it's better, but I think this single issue trumps everything and makes the US a freer nation overall.
In short, for a country to consider itself truly free, it can't allow its government to go around banning artistic and commercial works.
At least Britain's open about it, not like in America where all different excuses are given. It may be written into the constitution but it doesn't mean much, afterall seperation of state and church is in there but no one follows that one.
Yay the bans can be over turned. :D
Such games can be banned, as I believe that she even included that in her review as I read last year.
However I am thinking that she was thinking more on the lines of games containing Porn.
Yes, they should be banned from commercial stores, but at least allow the games containing Porn to be avaliable on the internet, because that is the only place they can go. And they are not really going to be making much money from it anyone.
I believe that any rating system needs to think about two things, the need to protect children and also the need to allow adults to buy what ever they want even though what they buy may not be suitable for children.
Also a rating system itself is not always able to protect kids from material that is not for them, but with parents being aware of the ratings and being parents, they should be the ones who protect their own kids until they grow to the age of 18.
Much information from the Byron Review pretty much told me that parents either don't know about the ratings, or that they just don't care. And no matter what you do, there is nothing more you can do other than help those who want to know more.
You can even put information on the internet, but that will be useless for those who can't even use the internet.
You can try to talk about those issues on the news to help people be aware of the ratings, except various news media companies only care about selling the news and while this information is helpful for parents, it does not really sell the news so it will be forgotten.
Lets face it, the real problem lies with the Daily Mail and the News on TV for not giving the parents the accurate information and on some politicians only wanting to score political votes.
There is nothing wrong with Videogames or the Industry itself, they are doing their best.
"Much information from the Byron Review pretty much told me that parents either don't know about the ratings, or that they just don't care."
Well, there is a third option - they know about them but find them unhelpful. Personally, I find these ratings systems completely unnecessary. I mean, the whole idea behind parenting is to take personal responsibility for one's kids. I think too many folks who rely on ratings are trying to avoid their parental responsibilities.
Besides, the ESRB is infamous for in effect banning nudity and sexual content while giving violent content a much easier time. The ratings system is half-arsed and topsy-turvy, and the ESRB is run by a bunch of prudish knee-jerk reactionaries. I doubt PEGI is much better. In my experience I'm better served when I take the time to actually sit down with my kid and play the games she plays so that I know first-hand what she's exposed to. More often than not, the games that the ESRB has rated above her age level are perfectly innocuous, while those the ESRB says are appropriate for her are way below her intelligence level.
Here we go about the argument that ratings should be done away with and that people should buy and play the games first before they decide to buy and play the games to see what the content is like. Illogical I know but that's the argument you make.