- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- New proposed Legislation to regulate games
New proposed Legislation to regulate gamesFollow
Seamy seems like a girl's name. With that, show us your boobs. If you are indeed not a girl, just go away. Our annual quotient of uninteresting newbie angsty teen posters has already been filled.
Quote:
You know what the post wasn't aimed at you, but it is terribly amusing that you took it as such. Says volumes.
Which one? The one where you quoted me or the one where you directly responded to my suggestions to you?
That's what I thought. NEXT!
#29REDACTED,
Posted: Mar 16 2006 at 12:20 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Oh yeah, I am a chic, and you don't wanna see my boobs, you couldn't handle it....ermm them. Nekkid pics go to my hubby hon, to which he replies /drool.
Quote:
I don't take orders from you and I suspect no one else does either. But really I don't care, amazing you do.
Wait, we're not supposed to take orders from Moe? I didn't have to send him all those naked pics?
#31REDACTED,
Posted: Mar 16 2006 at 12:23 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) The one about cnut 14 year olds. Opinions regarding what you post are not about you but the thought. Hmmm....of course many think all things are about them. Ego issues.
Quote:
Oh yeah, I am a chic, and you don't wanna see my boobs, you couldn't handle it....ermm them. Nekkid pics go to my hubby hon, to which he replies /drool.
Our quota of uninteresting chics who refuse to show their boobs has also been filled. Come back when you have a better schtick.
Sir Rodth wrote:
Oh yeah, I am a chic, and you don't wanna see my boobs, you couldn't handle it....ermm them. Nekkid pics go to my hubby hon, to which he replies /drool.
Your husband only gets pics of the boobs?
everyone wanna know what will happen? mature rated video games will pass into the realm of booze and **** for adolescents
they will beg their older brothers, or some dude at their school to buy them stuff in exchange for some extra cash.
but since I'm 19 and turning 20 at teh end of april I really don't give a ****.... I hate all the ******* emo ******* that play video games and are like I WANT ***** while I',m capping them in the head for being such a ******** while playing CS
they will beg their older brothers, or some dude at their school to buy them stuff in exchange for some extra cash.
but since I'm 19 and turning 20 at teh end of april I really don't give a ****.... I hate all the ******* emo ******* that play video games and are like I WANT ***** while I',m capping them in the head for being such a ******** while playing CS
#35REDACTED,
Posted: Mar 16 2006 at 12:30 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Oh well my quota of men who can only think about boobs is never filled.....in reality it never can be because there are so many. And how unfair is it to have a cut off point where men who can only think about boobs are concerned? If there was one no chic would ever talk to a guy. It's innate. lol
Jesus Christ. Is there an off button?
Quote:
The one about cnut 14 year olds. Opinions regarding what you post are not about you but the thought. Hmmm....of course many think all things are about them. Ego issues.
Hmm. Really? Are you sure about that?
Good. I know good and Bob damn well the original post wasn't about me. It didn't need to be. You f'ucked up and posted somewhere you aren't equipped to about something you aren't able to understand by taking seriously a joke you aren't able to get. You were informed of such and got a little itchy in the bung.
With said itchy bung, you decided to try your own little power play, and got shown the proverbial exit, to which your response was, "I didn't mean you, you big meanie head!"
Now who has ego issues, *****?
#38REDACTED,
Posted: Mar 16 2006 at 12:33 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elderon didn't ask to play with them, just see them. He isn't here so the assumption that a pic was in the request....lol. So nah, silly thing hubby doesn't just get pics.
The Moe wrote:
With said itchy bung, you decided to try your own little power play, and got shown the proverbial exit, to which your response was, "I didn't mean you, you big meanie head!"
To be fair, you are a big meanie head.
#40REDACTED,
Posted: Mar 16 2006 at 12:35 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) ********** don't try to justify your complete lack of comprehension on my back Moe, your ego is deflating and it hurts. People like you always use this tactic. yawnnnnnn
Quote:
To be fair, you are a big meanie head.
A label I have infrequently tried to dissuade people from. It is embraced unless I am trying to lull Wavamechawarfarenix in to a false sense of security.
The Family Entertainment Protection Act is designed to penalize game retailers for violating the ESRB standard. If you sell an ESRB game with a rating of M or higher to someone under the age of 17, you are punished with a $1,000 fine or 100hrs of community service. The penalty is $5000 or 500hrs of community service for repeated violations.
The ESRB is an industry group that rates games submitted by publishers. I believe participation in the ratings system is voluntary, much like how the film industry abides by MPAA-assigned ratings. (They don't have to; they can always release things 'unrated', they simply won't be carried by as many theaters.)
There is no written law that enforces a criminal or civil penalty if you violate the movie rating guideline. If a kid sneaks into an R-rated film, movie theaters aren't hit with a cash penalty. Movie theaters, like game retailers, voluntarily enforce the ratings system to a greater or lesser extent. It's pretty easy to argue that theaters are lax about enforcement, too, with the number of kids that sneak into R rated movies.
The Family Entertainment Protection Act puts the force of law behind a voluntary industry rating standard. But that ain't all...
1) It has the Federal Trade Commission appoint a second organization to act as an ESRB watchdog. This could lead to the government having a way to influence the ESRBs actual ratings.
2) The `Hot Coffee` provision; If game makers hide content that can be unlocked by patch or keystroke, the FTC can enact an order pursuant to 15 USC 45, the order that allows them to regulate unfair and deceptive practices in the marketplace. This allows the trade commission to issue orders of whatever nature it so chooses, including halting the sale of a product, forcing a product to leave the market, or otherwise punishing a company for what it deems an unfair practice. Cash fines of $10k per order violation are listed in the USC, too.
Other state laws in the past that tried to enforce a penalty for selling violent games to kids were struck down as unconstitutional. This was largely because the laws used vague, non-specific language to define games that caused a problem. This page has examples from California's 2005 law:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051011-5418.html
ex., They define "heinous" to mean "shockingly atrocious", which itself has no specific legal definition. It's a subjective term and would have led to uneven enforcement.
The Family Entertainment Protection Act is specific enough - it makes no vaguaries of its own - but it still calls for a cash penalty tied to what is, in essence, a subjective ratings process. And it does so even though the movie industry is not subjected to the same penalty for violations of their similar rating system, probably because the MPAA has some very pricey lobbyists working on its behalf.
Also, the bill itself appears to have some specious information listed for it's justification.
Text of the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.2126:
The Family Entertainment Protection Act was introduced in December of 2005 (way to be on the ball, VGVN) and is currently residing in a Senate committee (the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, findable at http://commerce.senate.gov/).
The ESRB is an industry group that rates games submitted by publishers. I believe participation in the ratings system is voluntary, much like how the film industry abides by MPAA-assigned ratings. (They don't have to; they can always release things 'unrated', they simply won't be carried by as many theaters.)
There is no written law that enforces a criminal or civil penalty if you violate the movie rating guideline. If a kid sneaks into an R-rated film, movie theaters aren't hit with a cash penalty. Movie theaters, like game retailers, voluntarily enforce the ratings system to a greater or lesser extent. It's pretty easy to argue that theaters are lax about enforcement, too, with the number of kids that sneak into R rated movies.
The Family Entertainment Protection Act puts the force of law behind a voluntary industry rating standard. But that ain't all...
1) It has the Federal Trade Commission appoint a second organization to act as an ESRB watchdog. This could lead to the government having a way to influence the ESRBs actual ratings.
2) The `Hot Coffee` provision; If game makers hide content that can be unlocked by patch or keystroke, the FTC can enact an order pursuant to 15 USC 45, the order that allows them to regulate unfair and deceptive practices in the marketplace. This allows the trade commission to issue orders of whatever nature it so chooses, including halting the sale of a product, forcing a product to leave the market, or otherwise punishing a company for what it deems an unfair practice. Cash fines of $10k per order violation are listed in the USC, too.
Other state laws in the past that tried to enforce a penalty for selling violent games to kids were struck down as unconstitutional. This was largely because the laws used vague, non-specific language to define games that caused a problem. This page has examples from California's 2005 law:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051011-5418.html
ex., They define "heinous" to mean "shockingly atrocious", which itself has no specific legal definition. It's a subjective term and would have led to uneven enforcement.
The Family Entertainment Protection Act is specific enough - it makes no vaguaries of its own - but it still calls for a cash penalty tied to what is, in essence, a subjective ratings process. And it does so even though the movie industry is not subjected to the same penalty for violations of their similar rating system, probably because the MPAA has some very pricey lobbyists working on its behalf.
Also, the bill itself appears to have some specious information listed for it's justification.
Quote:
(2) Experimental research and longitudinal research conducted over the course of decades shows that exposure to higher levels of violence on television, in movies, and in other forms of media in adolescence causes people in the short-term and, after repeated exposure, even years later to exhibit higher levels of violent thoughts, anti-social and aggressive behavior, fear, anxiety, and hostility, and desensitization to the pain and suffering of others.
(3) This evidence is so strong, it has been replicated in so many populations, and it draws on such diverse methodologies that a 2003 comprehensive review of the literature concluded `the scientific debate over whether media violence increases aggression and violence is essentially over' and 6 major medical and public health organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association, issued a Joint Statement to Congress in 2000 stating that research points `overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior'.
(4) New research shows that exposure to violent video games causes similar effects as does exposure to violence in other media, including increased levels of aggression in both the short-term and long-term, and research shows that the uniquely interactive, engaging nature of video games may be especially powerful in shaping children's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.
(5) Research shows that children are more likely to imitate the actions of a character with whom they identify, and in violent video games the player is often provided with a behavioral script where he or she takes the point of view of the shooter or perpetrator.
(6) Research shows that children are more likely to learn from behaviors that they repeat over and over again and behaviors that they are rewarded for taking, and in most video games, surveys show, players repeat actions over and over again, aggression goes unpunished, and perpetrators are rewarded for taking aggressive action
(3) This evidence is so strong, it has been replicated in so many populations, and it draws on such diverse methodologies that a 2003 comprehensive review of the literature concluded `the scientific debate over whether media violence increases aggression and violence is essentially over' and 6 major medical and public health organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association, issued a Joint Statement to Congress in 2000 stating that research points `overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior'.
(4) New research shows that exposure to violent video games causes similar effects as does exposure to violence in other media, including increased levels of aggression in both the short-term and long-term, and research shows that the uniquely interactive, engaging nature of video games may be especially powerful in shaping children's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.
(5) Research shows that children are more likely to imitate the actions of a character with whom they identify, and in violent video games the player is often provided with a behavioral script where he or she takes the point of view of the shooter or perpetrator.
(6) Research shows that children are more likely to learn from behaviors that they repeat over and over again and behaviors that they are rewarded for taking, and in most video games, surveys show, players repeat actions over and over again, aggression goes unpunished, and perpetrators are rewarded for taking aggressive action
Text of the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.2126:
The Family Entertainment Protection Act was introduced in December of 2005 (way to be on the ball, VGVN) and is currently residing in a Senate committee (the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, findable at http://commerce.senate.gov/).
Seamy, you are quite the idiot.
/huggles!
/huggles!
#44REDACTED,
Posted: Mar 16 2006 at 12:59 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Thanks for the info Wingchild.
#45REDACTED,
Posted: Mar 16 2006 at 1:16 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ya think? Well if it makes you feel good to call me an idiot, I'm happy for you!
Quote:
by way of immersion in a tub containing one plugged in hair dryer.
http://home.howstuffworks.com/hair-dryer4.htm wrote:
Since 1991, all portable hair dryers have been required by federal law to protect you against electrocution should you accidentally drop one in water while it's plugged in. This applies whether the hair dryer is on or off. A GFCI is the larger, polarized plug that you'll find on many consumer appliances. When they are plugged in, GFCIs monitor the amount of current that is running from one slot of a wall outlet through an electric circuit and back to the other slot. If they sense a leak in the current, they trip the circuit.
Just saying is all...
Nicroll 65 Assassin
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere
Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
Teltorid 52 Druid
Aude Sapere
Oh hell camp me all you want f**kers. I own this site and thus I own you. - Allakhazam
1990'sDudette wrote:
Who died and made you forum god?? Newsflash NO ONE!!
1990'sDudette wrote:
My tax dollars at work! NOT.
What Compuserve BBS did you crawl out of?
Lord xythex wrote:
Quote:
by way of immersion in a tub containing one plugged in hair dryer.
http://home.howstuffworks.com/hair-dryer4.htm wrote:
Since 1991, all portable hair dryers have been required by federal law to protect you against electrocution should you accidentally drop one in water while it's plugged in. This applies whether the hair dryer is on or off. A GFCI is the larger, polarized plug that you'll find on many consumer appliances. When they are plugged in, GFCIs monitor the amount of current that is running from one slot of a wall outlet through an electric circuit and back to the other slot. If they sense a leak in the current, they trip the circuit.
Just saying is all...
It might not kill you, but it will allow you to read womens' thoughts. (Or so says Mad Max)
2 posts
Quote:
It might not kill you, but it will allow you to read womens' thoughts. (Or so says Mad Max)
There ya go Moe. You could share a tub with Seamy and then maybe you could figure out what's going through her mind.
This may lead to night terrors however, so you may want to have your shrink on speed dial.
As for the original topic, I don't think it matters if they put restrictions on the games or gamemakers. People always find a way around rules or just completely ignore them anyway.
As was mentioned earlier, kids will find a way to get hold of the games that are designated not suitable for them. If anything it will make those games more appealing to them.
I for one don't want the bewbs to disappear.
This is such a worthless undertaking. It is too easy to bypass any laws of this kind short of complete restriction to ALL individuals.
Video game retailers would not turn themselves in, watchdogs and government officials can not possibly be on sight at alll times nor are they likely to pour through thousands of hours of footage to catch them.
I am tired of watching democrats try stupid **** like this. By trying to look like they care about family values they end up alienating far more voters.
Video game retailers would not turn themselves in, watchdogs and government officials can not possibly be on sight at alll times nor are they likely to pour through thousands of hours of footage to catch them.
I am tired of watching democrats try stupid **** like this. By trying to look like they care about family values they end up alienating far more voters.
The article wrote:
Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), and Evan Bayh (D-IN) recently announced that they will introduce "The Family Entertainment Protection Act,"
Translation: 'We can protect families too! Vote for us!' That said, I am in with the reducing-cnut-quotient crowd.
Recent Visitors: 287
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (287)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- New proposed Legislation to regulate games
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC