I knew Jack Thompson was a turd, but...

[SackAttack]

www.vgcats.com/jack.php
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6135979.html

So anybody who attempts to contact him and correct his fallacious notions is either a would-be murderer or a moral midget?

[SackAttack]

Dola,

Some background on the PA spat:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6135940.html

[illinifan999]

[QuikSand]

The Throwin' Samoan?

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

The Throwin' Samoan?

The Throwin' Samoan.

[QuikSand]

beautiful.

[Coder]

Jack Thompson is a comedic genius. Are people really falling for his act? I haven't seen the episodes of 60 Minutes he's been on, but how are they slanted? Are other people getting to say their thing or is it just him and how awful the computer game industry is?

Has someone sent the above material to CBS?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I wouldn't know Jack Thompson if he showed up on my doorstep delivering a newspaper, but ... if I had to pick whether I'd side with him or those who find something defensible in the actions of Rockstar Games ... well, c'mon in Jack, we're just sitting down to dinner.

[Coder]

I'm not arguing that there's something defensible in the games by Rockstar Games, but he's basically pinning murders on them. How are they any more responsible than gun-manufacturers for example?

Also, his behaviour in the cases above makes him look like a ten year old.

Interviewer: "So how did this fight start?"
Jack Thompson: "It all started when they hit me back!"

[jeff061]

Jack Thompson was around long before Rockstar was a household name. That's why Rockstar didn't get a lot of support from gamers. Everyone knew they screwed up and were pissed because a loud mouth clueless asshole like Jack Thompson actually got some real ammo. But Rockstar is a very small part of the Jack Thompson picture.

Should add I agree with Coder, glossed over that a bit.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Coder

I'm not arguing that there's something defensible in the games by Rockstar Games, but he's basically pinning murders on them.

If that's what it takes to shut them down, more power to him then.

And I'm not so sure that isn't some part of the strategy here, throw everything you can find against the wall & see what'll stick. Or maybe not, darned if I'll claim to know for sure. But if it discomfits RG in some way, then I'm likely to approve.

[Coder]

Hadn't been to Penny Arcade since Sunday evening.. just read their news from yesterday. Wonderful stuff. I had read the cartoon about the phonecall and the column by Tycho, but with the cheque and the letters.. this is good stuff.

I really recommend reading the Penny Arcade frontpage today.. (start after the main column with Gabe's post)

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I wouldn't know Jack Thompson if he showed up on my doorstep delivering a newspaper, but ... if I had to pick whether I'd side with him or those who find something defensible in the actions of Rockstar Games ... well, c'mon in Jack, we're just sitting down to dinner.

If that's all it were, sure.

But this is the same guy who's been calling on the ESRB to re-rate The Sims 2 as "Adults Only" because underneath the blur when they shower or take a crap, they're naked as a Barbie doll.

He's a fruitcake, and if he has your support, Jon, that tells us something about you.

[jeff061]

Jack is looking to get paid. Nothing more. Just hoping for that one big lawsuit against one of the big game companies to go through. If you want to support it fine.

[jeff061]

He's a fruitcake, and if he has your support, Jon, that tells us something about you.

Really, you need to be told?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

But this is the same guy who's been calling on the ESRB to re-rate The Sims 2 as "Adults Only" because underneath the blur when they shower or take a crap, they're naked as a Barbie doll.

1) Although I think he may get a bit fixated on a particular point, on the whole I'm not at all sure that Sims2, on the whole, shouldn't be AO (I'd have to refresh my memory on how the ratings are structured & whether "Mature" or whatever its called would be more where I'd put it). But, if I put some time into it, I could probably find a number of games I'd re-rate for various reasons.

2) More to the point in this case though, let's assume for the sake of discussion that he is indeed nuttier than a jar of Planter's Honey Roasted ... still doesn't mean that his end goal here isn't appropriate and therefore worthy of some support.

[SnowMan]

Should Tomb Raider be Adults Only rated? What about World of Warcraft? Those are two games I can think of off the top of my head that have "nude patches." Shouldn't it be up to the game makers to encrypt all their texture files so people can't mod the games to perhaps show a nipple?

What ever happened to parents being responsible for their kids' actions? I guess that's another thread...

[illinifan999]

I think maybe parents should start to take some accountability instead of blaming video games that they allow in their homes. I've played every version of GTA on the ps2, completed every version, still mess around with every version, and yet somehow you couldn't find me able to kill an animal much less a person. But God forbid people take responsibility for their actions.

[dubb93]

I'm going to quickly jump in and jump right back out, but it's pretty sad to see someone support making up claims against a company b/c they don't like what that company makes.

Rockstar makes games. No matter if you have to be 17 or 18 to buy them, it makes no difference, they make games that I happen to enjoy. They tell a very good story, probably better than most movies and the acting is a hell of alot better than most movies. Who cares if it is violent? Do you have a TV? Do you turn it on? If you do you see violence.

Things other people do offend me, like basing judgments based on a stupid book with no known author. Look, I don't try and get your violent book banned, so stay away from my games. Its that simple, you don't approve of what I do, I don't approve of what you do, we all go on with our lives.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

2) More to the point in this case though, let's assume for the sake of discussion that he is indeed nuttier than a jar of Planter's Honey Roasted ... still doesn't mean that his end goal here isn't appropriate and therefore worthy of some support.

It's absolutely beautiful that you support an unconstitutional restriction of speech there, Jon.

Look, here's the deal.

1) The ESRB currently provides a ratings system so that parents can inform themselves. It isn't perfect, but it mostly works.

2) Most retailers will not sell AO-rated games, and will not sell M-rated games to minors. Laws such as AB 1179 in California don't change that fact, and in fact they reinforce the existing loophole - that parents, uncles, aunts, grandparents, siblings, legal guardians, etc can still buy the game for the minor and thus avoid the legal penalty.

Jack Thompson's solution is to use frantic hyperbole to drum up support for eradicating the offending content entirely. Which is unconstitutional, of course, but exceedingly popular among parents who apparently can't be bothered to educate themselves about the material to which they're exposing their children.

3) The PlayStation 2 and Xbox - the primary home consoles on which this content is available - both include a ratings lockdown system. You can set the system not to play games above a particular rating - which is user-set - without the password. Parents have the tools to restrict their child's ability to access objectionable content, just as with the V-chip and other technological measures on TV.

Yet, TV gets a free pass. People who lack fundamental education and knowledge of the games industry, on the other hand, hammer it for content that is every bit as restrictable and cry for this and that law that will accomplish absolutely nothing that isn't already being accomplished by other measures.

Do I think children need to be exposed to GTA: San Andreas?

Absolutely not.

Do I think legislation that preserves existing loopholes or that wipes out a form of free expression simply because we don't want our children exposed to it is the solution?

Absolutely not.

Educate the parents about the informational tools and action tools that they have to control their kids' content, and let them be the ones responsible for what their children see, play, and do as a result of it.

Repression of free speech in the name of morality is every bit as reprehensible as restricting the right of the public to worship freely simply because you don't agree with their particular creed. It all boils down to "You can't say this because I don't like it."

[ISiddiqui]

Wow... excellent post, SackAttack. I was going to make the point about the ratings lock they have. If parents can't be bothered to read the instructions of the game system they are giving their kids, then they simply deserve whatever games their kids bring into the house and play. That simple.

Parents, at some point, at some time, need to demonstrate responsibility instead of blaming others.

And not just because I hate JIMG (though it makes it much nicer ), I fully back Rockstar Games and do my part by purchasing every Grand Theft Auto game they release for Xbox or the PC since GTAIII.

[phyrebird]

Well, speaking as a parent, I'll make a point or two:

1) I do and will continue to monitor the games and television that my kids watch.
2) Nobody, and I mean nobody is responsible for how my kids act and what they do, play and say, but me. Period.
3) I will support the right to allow things that I find personally reprehensible (GTA series not included, I love 'em), because hey, who am I? Just because I don't like it doesn't mean that everyone has to lose out.

Is it just me, or are most of these lessons things we really SHOULD have been taught in about the kindergarten level? And is it also just me, but isn't it usually ignorant folks who were raised primarily by the extreme Christian right that don't understand these things? I'm not knocking religion, just the people that think theirs gives them the right to tell me what to do.

[Groundhog]

The reason why Jack Thompson thinks games are so much more dangerous than TV/movies is the fact that they are interactive.

On the whole I don't agree with Jack Thompson, as I've been playing violent video games & watching violent movies from a very early age as my mum never really censored anything from me, and I am not a violent person, am kind to animals, etc.

Despite that, I think RS's plan to release their school bully game is a horrible idea, and just shows that these guys are every bit as sensationalist as Jack Thompson, and are clearly just interested in being as shocking as they can in order to make a bigger name for themselves. When it comes to running around shooting cops and innocent people in a video game, well 99.99% of kids know that's pure fantasy and wouldn't dream of doing it in real life. As for bullying, well, that's a different kettle of fish and I feel it could encourage kids. I can't support that, and I think RS have taken it too far.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by phyrebird

I'm not knocking religion, just the people that think theirs gives them the right to tell me what to do.

Didn't you get the memo? GOD says they have to force their issues on others, its in the bible. So it MUST be true.


*Sorry folks, I just had a runnin with a door to door bible thumping fuckwad and I almost assaulted the bastard when he refused to leave my doorway when asked politely. And no, it wasn't JUST because he refused to leave, he pulled a typical jesus freak and started shouting and insulting me.*

These are the fucking lunatics I've run into my entire life. I wish I could follow the old adage that "One bad apple shouldn't spoil the bushel or whatever the fuck it is, but frankly MANY bad apples means you ought to get a different bushel and perhaps burn the bad one.

[Ajaxab]

Although this controversy is about media content and parental responsibility on many levels, isn't it also about media effects?

The question I have is, "How do you know when you've been effected by a video game?" It's easy to set up a straw man and say that I'm not affected because I haven't gone out and shot anyone after playing GTA, but that's not the kind of answer that seriously addresses the question. So I'm asking this question more broadly. It could just as easily be asked of FOF as of GTA.

[Izulde]

I personally am really looking forward to Bully.

[QuikSand]

Even if it's true that playing violent games leads some people toward violent behavior (and I have no idea if this is true or even suggested by real evidence), pointing out one case where a person has played such games and has not yet murdered anyone doesn't exactly dispel the argument.

[jeff061]

If someone had the time they could point out several million, vrs the the dozen or so otherwise.

[QuikSand]

If someone had the time, he could do a scientifically valid study and actually find out of there is anything going on. And then someone else can make a cartoon that denegrates all statistics.

I don't have a dog in this fight, really -- my instinct is to stand up for free expression and no government involvement at all. I'm just pointing out part of the reason (maybe just a small part) why adults tend to win these fights against children... in part because children argue like children.

[jeff061]

There have been several studies. Predictably some say video games cause violence, some say they do not. It's nearly impossible to get a straight answer.

[Coder]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I'm just pointing out part of the reason (maybe just a small part) why adults tend to win these fights against children... in part because children argue like children.

In that case anyone arguing with Thompson is bound to win..

Check out the replies he's sent to people.. first he tosses out accusations, then people reply, and then he accuses them of harassment.

[jeff061]

hxxp://croqaudile.com/?article_id=10299

That's how Jack responds to children. Now you tell me which one is acting like a child.

[MacroGuru]

[QuikSand]

Let me be clear. I don't support this guy, I don't know anything about him. I'm sure he's a jackass, and probably a nitwit.

What I have seen here, and what we always see in these debates, are completely pointless arguments on the other side. Some t-shirt-wearing punk telling me that since he personally never murdered anyone, there's nothing to the entire argument.

Personally, I think some of the better arguments (including those used here) are:

-properly question any "evidence" suggesting a material link to increased violence among gamers
-free expression is sufficiently important to preclude involvement here, even if there is some link found
-there's a proper role for parental guidance and personal responsibility in these matters


I'm not pro-Jack Thompson... I'm anti-slobbering dipshit. Beat them at their own game... win the policy debate.

[TroyF]

It's amazing that someone is blaming video games for violent crime, when the statistics clearly show that crime (especially violent crime) is decreasing at an incredibly quick level while video game popularity is soaring through the roof. (note here: I'm not saying the two go hand in hand and that video games are causing the lack of violence, I'm just saying I can't see supporting evidence of a correlation to more video games = more crime.)

I've played all the GTA games and enjoy them. I wouldn't want my 12 year old cousin playing them, but I find them to be enjoyable.

As Jeffr said above, were you to take the time, you could find millions of gamers worldwide who haven't taken their video game reality and killed someone.

But all it takes is one guy who blames the video game on his actions to set the wheels in motion. There always has to be something corrupting our children though, this is just the latest. D&D caused kids to kill themselves when the teen suicide rate was soaring. Marylin Manson was going to bring down the entire country with his twisted mind. And now it's video games that are the demise of our destruction.

And ten years from now there will be a different target.

Sorry Jon, we disagree 100% on this one.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by TroyF

It's amazing that someone is blaming video games for violent crime, when the statistics clearly show that crime (especially violent crime) is decreasing at an incredibly quick level while video game popularity is soaring through the roof.

And if video games were the sole cause of all violent crimes, then this would be a perfectly valid argument. I don't think anyone is arguing this to be the case, of course.

However... if it were actually true that violent crimes would be decreasing by 15% per year without violent video games (for other unrelated reasons), and instead it's only decreasing by 10% per year with them... then it would be absolutely true that video games are causing more iolent crimes.

Again -- I don't claim to have any understanding about what is actually true -- just that this argument doesn't refute the claim of the other side.

It's a lonely fight.

[John Galt]

QS is totally right on this one. While I have no idea whether video games contribute to violence, the evidence being offered does not refute the theories being offered. Controlled lab studies have shown some causative effect. It is virtually impossible to construct a societal study that controls for all of the other variables. That overall crime rates are increasing or decreasing does not prove anything.

None of this is to say violent games should be banned or restricted.
None of this is to say other messages can't be developed to counter the effect of violent games.
None of this is to say that defendants in criminal actions should be able to use this as a defense.

However, the arguments in this thread do not disprove a causative effect that may or may not exist.

[Mustang]

For what it's worth...

hxxp://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html

[jeff061]

The tricky part is that Jack Thompson does his damage on the sets of CNN and talks to and with people who take what he says as gospel. Links like that PBS site are only passed around in circles online, where for the most part everyone agrees with each other.

Right now there is no crossover between the two parties, and Jack Thompson has a monopoly on the public stage. It would be fantastic if through all of Penny Arcade's charity work with gamers(http://www.childsplaycharity.org/) and through continued clashes with Jack they get some mainstream coverage. Not likely.

[Coder]

Like I mentioned above, I am not in any way defending Rockstar Games.. However, Thompson is the culprit here. If you've checked out his responses to some of the people who contact him, and checked out what he does say in interviews, you see someone who's not only narrow minded, you also get the feeling he's not a very good debater. He quickly assumes a defensive position and starts spewing insults and accusations instead facing valid arguments.

This is most definately a moneything for a not very good lawyer who craves media attention in a world where media is full of double standards. Attacking the game-industry will cause a lot of stir due to it's rapidly growing popularity, and it's a very grateful target since there's always going to be media interested in telling us what the latest thing is doing to destroy our kids.

Of course, there will never be any statistics for how many violent crimes we would have had without the video-games.. there is also no statistics on how many albums Metallica would have sold if there had been no Napster, nor is there any statistics on how many homicides would have been committed if there was a tighter gun control.

[flere-imsaho]

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Study, published 8/2005, shows no link between repeated exposure to violent content in games & violence.

Detractors of this study point out that the game used was Asheron's Call an MMORPG and not something like GTA: San Andreas. However, if you read the study you'll see that they had the subjects experience, over and over, particularly violent content in the game.

Anyway, it's a study.

[Coder]

Dola:

Originally Posted by jeff061

The tricky part is that Jack Thompson does his damage on the sets of CNN and talks to and with people who take what he says as gospel. Links like that PBS site are only passed around in circles online, where for the most part everyone agrees with each other.

Exactly what worries me, and it's something that Gabe pointed out in his last post about the issue. This guy gets a lot of media exposure (partly because of what I wrote in my previous post), and while he's easy to laugh off for most people, once the seed starts growing, it might grow awfully large.

He's like spam.. most of us just ignore it, but the more he shows up, the more people believe him.

[sovereignstar]

Originally Posted by Coder

He's like spam.. most of us just ignore it, but the more he shows up, the more people believe him.

I don't really need a penis enlargement, do I?

[Coder]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

I don't really need a penis enlargement, do I?

I'll ask Suicaine and get back to you on that one, kk?

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by sovereignstar

I don't really need a penis enlargement, do I?

Why not? If you do, just remember to get the pills to increase your ejaculation range. No sense increasing the barrell of your howitzer without putting some more pop behind it...