OT: Words fail me

[Arkcon]

Atrocities said:
Its just a game suck it up and deal with it.

A valid point of view, but consider -- the game is a card trading game, so anyone could make it in their own home. It exists, and this petition won't change that. Maybe the protest raised just raises awareness, makes people think, and has a positive effect on people who might want to play it once just to see what it all means.

I'm thinking this is a similar situation to Ghettopoly -- first there's game creation, then publicity, outrage, then in sequence protests, petitions, the manufacturer stops making the game, and some fly-by-night outfit takes over. Then the game is forgotten, 'cause its a stupid premise anyway.

Opinion: If games don't hurt our mind and culture, then protests and outrage don't rob us of our freedom. It's all just stuff that happens during the day.

[dogscoff]

I heard about this one game, it's disguting. In it, you play the part of some fascistic dictator who seeks to expand his (or her, the game is at least gender-equal) own territory by wantonly devouring natural resources, invading other nations and the use of spying, political intrigue and even genocide! In the light of immeasurable grief caused by real-life warmongering bastards throughout history, I think this game should be outlawed altogether!

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Indeed, they have a right to make it and you have a right to buy it. I don't want to interfere in that. I'm simply saying that for me, that game crosses over a line. The choice of wether they listen to that will ultimatly be up to their conciounce and/or market possibility, the same forces that are a part of any market descision where greed and/or morals exist. And, of course, you have the right to protest the petition, just as people have a right to make and sign that petition.

In other words, there is nothing there that doesn't already exist in a market economy, and I wouldn't support a law to ban it.

[AMF]

Atrocities said:
My god if they have a problem with it, don't buy it. What next, will they try and pass a law to protect us from our right to choose what kind of card / video / other game we want to buy?

Would you say the same if it was a game whose object was to see how many 10 year old boys you could sodomize in order to win?

The point being that it's not just *your* opinion that matters, at a certain point one has to admit that society, *as a whole* is harmed by things like this. An analogy: I don't think the FCC should be in the business of busting Janet Jackson for her breatshowing, but what if they showed, instead, a preist buggering a boy, or some giant explicit anal sex orgy on prime time TV, or they had a gameshow where the object was "Who can rape as many goats in an hour wins a million bucks!" ("who wants to be a goat-raping millionaire?" by Fox of course)

The point is, again, no one cares what an individual thinks. We should, and many people do, care about the overall impact to our society - especially as it impacts those members of society least able to protect themselves. We owe it to the children, at the very least, to have some sort of standards.

Do you oppose movie ratings as well? Howabout explicit pornagrphy in high schools? Take your pick - the point is: where do you draw the line?

I personally tend to draw the line by saying that NO ONE has a right to tell ANYONE else what to do in the privacy of their own home as long as all parties are adult and willing participants. You want to get chopped up and eaten like that guy in Germany? Hey, as long as that's ok with you, go to it.

But don;t do it in public. And this game is somewhat public, no?

Remember Rome? I'm the *last* person to be conservative, but neither am I going to accept the uber-Libertarian viewpoint that the government has NO role in society and protecting its weakest members.

That to me is the real measure of the worth and quality of a society: how well does it treat it's least protected members? And that is the real issue here.

Alarik

Oh, and PS: stop blaming liberals for everything you don't like in the world: this is a right-wing nutjob issue - to use your own phrase, look at it with an open mind and you'll see that. When was the last time you heard liberals yell about Hollywood standards?

ta ta

[Rasorow]

alarikf said:

Would you say the same if it was a game whose object was to see how many 10 year old boys you could sodomize in order to win?

The point being that it's not just *your* opinion that matters, at a certain point one has to admit that society, *as a whole* is harmed by things like this. An analogy: I don't think the FCC should be in the business of busting Janet Jackson for her breatshowing, but what if they showed, instead, a preist buggering a boy, or some giant explicit anal sex orgy on prime time TV, or they had a gameshow where the object was "Who can rape as many goats in an hour wins a million bucks!" ("who wants to be a goat-raping millionaire?" by Fox of course)

The point is, again, no one cares what an individual thinks. We should, and many people do, care about the overall impact to our society - especially as it impacts those members of society least able to protect themselves. We owe it to the children, at the very least, to have some sort of standards.

Do you oppose movie ratings as well? Howabout explicit pornagrphy in high schools? Take your pick - the point is: where do you draw the line?

I personally tend to draw the line by saying that NO ONE has a right to tell ANYONE else what to do in the privacy of their own home as long as all parties are adult and willing participants. You want to get chopped up and eaten like that guy in Germany? Hey, as long as that's ok with you, go to it.

But don;t do it in public. And this game is somewhat public, no?

Remember Rome? I'm the *last* person to be conservative, but neither am I going to accept the uber-Libertarian viewpoint that the government has NO role in society and protecting its weakest members.

That to me is the real measure of the worth and quality of a society: how well does it treat it's least protected members? And that is the real issue here.

Alarik

Oh, and PS: stop blaming liberals for everything you don't like in the world: this is a right-wing nutjob issue - to use your own phrase, look at it with an open mind and you'll see that. When was the last time you heard liberals yell about Hollywood standards?

ta ta

Hear! Hear!

Though we may debate where the line is... there is a line. There is some point where the thing becomes harmful to society through physical hurt to others, emotional hurt to others, etc. When you endanger/hurt someone else in the public then society has the obligation and the right to tell you that it is wrong and not permitted. (please note the word public.. in private is another matter open to debate though I would argue you never have a right to harm another regardless of consent.. but thats a very narrow opinion)

Rasorow

[Will]

dogscoff said:
I heard about this one game, it's disguting. In it, you play the part of some fascistic dictator who seeks to expand his (or her, the game is at least gender-equal) own territory by wantonly devouring natural resources, invading other nations and the use of spying, political intrigue and even genocide! In the light of immeasurable grief caused by real-life warmongering bastards throughout history, I think this game should be outlawed altogether!

You do know you'll be drawn and quartered for trying to outlaw Space Empires V on these boards, no?

[Hunpecked]

Alarikf and Rasorow seem to be confusing fantasy and reality here. As Dogscoff illustrated in his roundabout way, even with a game as "violent" as Space Empires, where entire "star systems" are ravaged and literally billions of "intelligent beings" are "killed" or "enslaved", NO ONE is actually harmed (aside from voluntary sleep deprivation, perhaps ). When the "emperor" gets up from his/her computer, yawns, and crawls into bed, lo and behold: the universe remains as it was. Birds still sing, the planets remain in their orbits, and billions of "dead" people go about their daily business, oblivious.

Now from what I've read of this "Pimp" game, it's pretty much the same. The "pimp" makes "money" by playing certain cards to "abuse", "exploit", and "addict" certain game objects called "women". When the game is over, however, the player (or "pimp") has no more of the real-world commodity we call "money" than he (or she) started with (and probably less, having paid some to the game's manufacturer), he doesn't drive a real-world "pimpmobile" (unless he already had one), and he hasn't done the slightest microscopic iota of harm to any real-world creatures we call "women".

Now let's examine the game "outrage". In this game real people see a real fantasy product (game, movie, novel, rap album, whatever) that "exploits" some real-world "problem", and decide that it "offends" them. They decide to try and stop this product's production and/or distribution. They join like-minded players, express their "outrage" to news media, politicians, and fellow citizens, and organize petitions and so on, in their attempt to "stop" the product.

Sometimes the players succeed in their "quest", sometimes they fail, but players usually "win" the "outrage" game anyway in the sense that they feel they've "done something" about the real-world problem in question. They haven't of course, because the "outrage" game is as much a fantasy as "space Empires" and "Pimp".

[geoschmo]

Hey Hunpecked, you might be onto something there. You should work up a protoype for your new game there and suggest it to Shrapnel, they might want to sell it.

[AMF]

Wrong.

There is a *very* real difference in the two cases you describe. There are no space faring races in our lives. There are no billions of inteeligent beings being enslaved by alien empires. These are not, at all, analogous to events or people or places in our own reality.

Now, if you had a game that was "How many Hutus can you kill?" or "How many Serbs can you Rape?" then, yea, we're talking similar things.

This is analogous to the game "how many women can you rape" "How many women can you pimp out"

When I play SE4, I play with certain game objects called "planets" and "starships" and "planetary populations"

When I play this pimp game, I play with certain game objects called "women".
(That last noun clause is quoted from your post, BTW)

This is the fundamental, crucial difference. And it is especially so becuase pre-teens play this game.

I'll stop there but say lastly that for what it's worth, I am not entirely convinced that this game in question is problematic - ALL I am talking about is the existence, or non-existence, of some "line" that is theoretically crossable or not. Is there such a line? That's all I'm asking.

Is there such a line? If so, where? If not, is this a good thing?

Alarik

Hunpecked said:
Alarikf and Rasorow seem to be confusing fantasy and reality here. As Dogscoff illustrated in his roundabout way, even with a game as "violent" as Space Empires, where entire "star systems" are ravaged and literally billions of "intelligent beings" are "killed" or "enslaved", NO ONE is actually harmed (aside from voluntary sleep deprivation, perhaps ). When the "emperor" gets up from his/her computer, yawns, and crawls into bed, lo and behold: the universe remains as it was. Birds still sing, the planets remain in their orbits, and billions of "dead" people go about their daily business, oblivious.

Now from what I've read of this "Pimp" game, it's pretty much the same. The "pimp" makes "money" by playing certain cards to "abuse", "exploit", and "addict" certain game objects called "women". When the game is over, however, the player (or "pimp") has no more of the real-world commodity we call "money" than he (or she) started with (and probably less, having paid some to the game's manufacturer), he doesn't drive a real-world "pimpmobile" (unless he already had one), and he hasn't done the slightest microscopic iota of harm to any real-world creatures we call "women".

Actually, one last question: why don't we hear from the majority of the earth's population and see what they think about it. Any women reading this? Hunpecked, you married or have a GF? Ask them what they think. I can't speak for them. Maybe I am too uptight.

[Raging Deadstar]

Blinks

Reads the Posted Links

Oh, It's White Wolf....Can't say I'm suprised