Don’t Expect an R18+ Decision Anytime Soon

November 9, 2010 -

For all the Australian gamers waiting patiently for an R18+ videogame rating category, a GameSpot columnist offers some advice—don’t hold your breath.

Despite petitions in favor of the addition of an R18+ rating, sponsored by retailer GAME (which received over 72,000 signatures) and EB Games and Grow Up Australia (which was signed by over 46,000 supporters), the government continues to drag its feet when it comes to the subject.

Why? According to GameSpot, “They do not believe that enough Australians care about video game classification in order to take the issue seriously and so continue to find new methods of stalling and deliberation when it is brought up.”

Indeed, Minister for Home Affairs Brendan O’Connor has continued to press for more community feedback on the subject, claiming that the “silent majority” still needed to weigh in on the subject, perhaps the first time in history a group of mute citizens has made an impact on a government.

Also delaying the introduction of a new rating tier is the “problem" that all classification ministers must be in agreement for any new introduction:

This current system is too stringent. A difference in opinion from one minister to another, more often than not based on personal beliefs and prejudices means this issue is discussed on a personal level, not a national level. What is in the best interests of the Australian public turns into what is in the best interests for each classification minister, which ultimately means R18+ for games has little hope of ever becoming a reality.

Gamers, it appears, have done “everything they can,” writes the frustrated columnist. She continued,  “It is now up to the nongaming Australian public to voice their opinion and support the abolishment of censorship and the modernisation of Australia's archaic classification laws.”


Thanks Ryan!


Image from Slap Upside the Head


Comments

Re: Don’t Expect an R18+ Decision Anytime Soon

What´s wrong with that people? I´m very sorry for australian gamers.

------------------------------------------------------------ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew WilsonI am old school on this. I believe its a conflict of interest to have public sector unions. that being said, I do not have a positive look on unions in general.07/07/2015 - 3:59pm
TechnogeekWhat's best for the employee tends to be good for the employer; other way around, not so much. So long as that's the case, there's going to be a far stronger incentive for management to behave in such a way that invites retalitation than for the union to.07/07/2015 - 3:10pm
TechnogeekTeachers' unions? State legislatures. UAW? Just look at GM's middle management.07/07/2015 - 3:05pm
TechnogeekIn many ways it seems that the worse a union tends to behave, the worse that the company's management has behaved in the past.07/07/2015 - 3:02pm
james_fudgeCharity starts at home ;)07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
james_fudgeSo mandatory charity? That sounds shitty to me07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, if Union dues are automatically withdrawn, then there is no such thing as a non-union employee.07/07/2015 - 2:38pm
Goth_Skunka mutually agreed upon charity instead.07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_Skunkyou enjoy the benefits of working in a union environment. If working in a union is against your religious beliefs or just something you wholeheartedly object to, dues will still be deducted from your pay, but you can instruct that they be directed towards07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_SkunkBasically, if you are employed in a business where employees are represented by a union for the purposes of collective bargaining, whether or not you are a union member, you will have union dues deducted from your pay, since regardless of membership,07/07/2015 - 2:32pm
Goth_SkunkIt's something that has existed in Canada since 1946. You can read more on it here: http://ow.ly/PiHWR07/07/2015 - 2:27pm
Goth_SkunkSee, we have something similar in Canada, called a "Rand Employee." This is an employee who benefits from the collective bargaining efforts of a union, despite not wanting to be a part of it for whatever reason.07/07/2015 - 2:22pm
Matthew Wilson@info depends on the sector. for example, have you looked at how powerful unions are in the public sector? I will make the argument they have too much power in that sector.07/07/2015 - 12:39pm
InfophileIt's easy to worry about unions having too much power and causing harm. The odd thing is, why do people seem to worry about that more than the fact that business-owners can have too much power and do harm, particularly at a time when unions have no power?07/07/2015 - 12:31pm
Matthew Wilsonthe thing is unions earned their bad reputation in the US. the way unions oparate the better at your job you are, the likely you want to be in a union.07/07/2015 - 11:33am
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
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician