Atkinson Says You Don't Need to Impale People

[Nouw]

Atkinson: "I accept that 98%, 99% of gamers will tell the difference between fantasy and reality, but the 1% to 2% could go on to be motivated by these games to commit horrible acts of violence."

So it is with movies and books as well. I read a particularly violent and gory book once, I believe he knows of it, and will surely find that it should be banned.

...It's called The Bible.

I pretty sure there's a substantial amount of evidence that this book has motivated some readers to commit horrible acts of violence. Unlike Video Games.

Wow, this is an arguement of gold. I tip my hat to you good sir!

 

[knight of zendikar]

He is even worse than Jack Tompson....

Jack's Second coming perhaps?

No this is just what happens when somone like jack gets any executive power.

 

[AWC Viper]

He is even worse than Jack Tompson....

Jack's Second coming perhaps?

No this is just what happens when somone like jack gets any executive power.

imagine if he got to be PM....*shudders*

 

[megatron2.0]

Spoiler: All I can do right now is this

i second this.

 

[ravensshade]

you don't need to impale people?
crap.. can't play prototype anymore then..

but anyway hmm wonder how long it takes for him to finally get killed by someone

 

[Macgyvercas]

Something I don't quite get...Why is this guy still in office? Everything he says is coated in BS, you think they would have impeached him by now.

 

[likalaruku]

Atkinson is going to be a hard turd to flush. I suggest an angry mob of gamers arm themselves with plungers & crongregate outside his office.

 

[tkioz]

A law which would add the R rating to the video game classifications was vetoed by one province's Attorney General.

State not province, get it right.

Also he's from South Australia, second only to Tasmania in the most mocked state of Australia.

Melbourne and Sydney have culture, arts, movie studios, theme parks, casinos, verity, history... Adelaide has serial killers and lots of churches.

Anyway give it a few months and we might be able to force the change through if the white paper comes out with overwhelming support he'll be made to let it through.

 

[eels05]

A law which would add the R rating to the video game classifications was vetoed by one province's Attorney General.

State not province, get it right.

Also he's from South Australia, second only to Tasmania in the most mocked state of Australia.

Melbourne and Sydney have culture, arts, movie studios, theme parks, casinos, verity, history... Adelaide has serial killers and lots of churches.

Anyway give it a few months and we might be able to force the change through if the white paper comes out with overwhelming support he'll be made to let it through.

No.
He's pretty much publicly stated even with failsafe parental locks,which the consoles pretty much have already,he'll still block an R rating for as long as he's Attorney General.

 

[tkioz]

A law which would add the R rating to the video game classifications was vetoed by one province's Attorney General.

State not province, get it right.

Also he's from South Australia, second only to Tasmania in the most mocked state of Australia.

Melbourne and Sydney have culture, arts, movie studios, theme parks, casinos, verity, history... Adelaide has serial killers and lots of churches.

Anyway give it a few months and we might be able to force the change through if the white paper comes out with overwhelming support he'll be made to let it through.

No.
He's pretty much publicly stated even with failsafe parental locks,which the consoles pretty much have already,he'll still block an R rating for as long as he's Attorney General.

He can do that, but if the support is in the 90% he wont be Attorney General for long, they'll be a movement to get him removed, an elected official going against the will of the people? happens all the time, an elected official going against the will of the people when there is hard proof that they want something? political death sentence.

 

[blackshark121]

A law which would add the R rating to the video game classifications was vetoed by one province's Attorney General.

State not province, get it right.

Also he's from South Australia, second only to Tasmania in the most mocked state of Australia.

Melbourne and Sydney have culture, arts, movie studios, theme parks, casinos, verity, history... Adelaide has serial killers and lots of churches.

Anyway give it a few months and we might be able to force the change through if the white paper comes out with overwhelming support he'll be made to let it through.

No.
He's pretty much publicly stated even with failsafe parental locks,which the consoles pretty much have already,he'll still block an R rating for as long as he's Attorney General.

He can do that, but if the support is in the 90% he wont be Attorney General for long, they'll be a movement to get him removed, an elected official going against the will of the people? happens all the time, an elected official going against the will of the people when there is hard proof that they want something? political death sentence.

the problem is that even if support is 100%, this guy will be re-elected by people who will blindly vote for him, and likely payed no heed to the survey, on the premise of "think of the children" and all that jazz.

 

[Donrad]

thats disgusting how non-gamers just assume that gamers are scum and have to be treated differently then the rest of society
i feel so bad for australia!!

 

[Cyberjester]

Erm, no, no they didn't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_republic_referendum,_1999

54% voted NO to republic.

Interesting. Yr12 Politics said that it had been a majority in all states except for one, which then didn't pass the majority in all states condition. My bad, ty for the link.

In which case Aus is still quite definitely a British colony under control of the Queen. Now, get us an R rating for games already. =P

Well, technically, that could be true. It depends on how your population is spread over the country. If one county has 80% of the population, it could be a majority everywhere else and still fail

And no, you aren't. The Queen is the figurehead of your state. Sadly, Michael Atkinson and the rest of the old crouchity man government is your government.

lol yea. Most of the population is in 3 states, other 3 or so are practically empty.

No really, the Governor General has to sign a law for it to be passed and he can dissolve parliament, and he's just the stand in for the Queen. If she wanted to, she could do whatever she liked. The government is basically just a figurehead, a sub-in for the Queen while she's in England.

Technically speaking.

Well, the same is true of our government; but the monarchy is bound by law too. And the de-facto state of things is that the Queen isn't allowed to refuse to dissolve parliament if requested too, nor is she really allowed to refuse to sign declarations of war.

I believe the only circumstances where she (or the Governor General in Australia) is allowed to exercise their judgement is in the event of a hung parliament or, theorically, if a government refused to have elections when their time was up. I recall there was alot of fuss in Canada over a decision by the GG following there elections not so long ago...?

So, really, Australia rules itself for all real intends and purposes, same as we have a democratic system even though we are technically a constituational monarchy.

Emphasis on technically. =P There's a seat in parliament reserved for the Queen, constitutionally, she's still in charge. And technically the GG can dissolve parliament without reasons, he's got a pretty wide set of powers, he can just be replaced by the Queen if she thinks he's being a jerk. lol

Edit: I said replaced by the Queen, not sure how it works actually. He's recommended by the PM of Aus, and O.K.'d by the Queen. If the GG dissolved parliament, then the PM would technically no longer be the PM so he couldn't get rid of him, which would only leave the Queen..

Well, apparently, the GG is Queen appointed, but Atkinson is an elected Attontery General, not the GG. Sorry dude.

Well yea, but if the Queen or GG has full control, then they can do whatever they want regardless of one person.

Although, courts in Aus are now getting rid of all references to the nobility, Queens Counsel becomes Senior Counsel for example. So it seems that getting the Queen involved wouldn't actually work.

Back to the moving idea.. lol

 

[KurtzGallahad]

I
hate
this
guy
He completely screwed up me ever playing l4d2 online, and because l4d2 is in the valve combo pack, i can't save $132:35 on my game purchases over the holidays.

 

[brunothepig]

I suppose then we should ban books, music, movies and TV shows that have violent acts because of the 1 to 2% who could go on to be motivated by those to commit said horrible acts? You fail censorship forever, Atkinson.

Exactly. I've never understood that. I get the same thing from people who hear the music I listen to (death metal and such). "Oh, it's so violent, why do you need to listen to that?" Why aren't they ranting about violent movies? On topic, I reply in basically the same way. Why don't you hate violent movies, or shows, or even books? This is extremely undemocratic, and a slap in the face of freedom. Australia appears to be taking a step back. Again, comparisons can be drawn, Cannibal Corpse was told by John Howard that they were not allowed to tour Australia, even for 18+ shows! This is the same. We just want a R rating. To be banned from particular forms of enjoyment, simply because this one stupid man finds fault with it, is not very democratic.

 

[BigHandInSky]

Which episode is that pic of Yahtzee from? I wanna watch it now

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

-.-

I would like to think that our societies have a mechanism to deal with that 1-2%.

It is called, when a mother asks, "if your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?"

That 1-2%? They speculate that their friends have already been jumping off bridges, and promptly go to follow suit.

 

[Kimjira19]

The Karmapa Lapa has something to say about it. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/94875-Buddhist-Religious-Leader-Says-Games-Satiate-Aggression]

I was asking about this specific author.

I'm asked why he has a need to kill in video games. Does he have the tendency to act aggressive? Does he need to curb that? Are there no alternatives?

Need is a superlative. I am just curious why it's a need. Is it an addiction? If he goes without, will the world be served with violent activity?

Seriously, 'alternatives'?! The 'alternative' is to actually kill someone. FFS, gaming IS the alternative. Its a stress relief, ya fool. We as a species are evolved as omnivore hunters, so we all have aggression within us. Its just how we're born because evolution hasn't had a chance to catch up. Its far better to release stress by shooting, stabbing, impaling, etc, etc virtual characters who a) aren't sentient beings, and b) feel no pain.

I agree with Doug.