Serious Business: Red Cross offended by videogame War Crimes.

[Aprilgold]

At first I thought this was them saying that all games should be banned and are uber violent, nice to see it wasn't that.

 

[Treblaine]

Here's a good question, why would it be a bad thing for the Red Cross to do this? Most of the article makes it sound like their course of action is going to be to advise developers on how they could incorporate international law into their games. It would mean that many games would become more realistic. I can't believe that everybody is bickering and moaning because these guys think games should incorporate the rules by which war is waged. I think that more games following these rules could be pretty cool.

Edit: Enforcing games to follow this through law would be bad and that is not what I am advocating and it is not necessarily what the Red Cross is advocating.

I think you're the only one that actually read the article from start to finish without just going "ZOMG THEY WANNA BAN VIOLENT GAMEZ!!!"

This isn't the Red Cross saying "oooh, we got offended by violence"
This isn't the Red Cross saying "violent videogames should be banned naow!"
This is the Red Cross encouraging game developers to consider making their games with a better focus on IHL and why it is important, instead of just throwing all that away and say "fuck that, it's a video game so it's not real anyways".
Get a grip, guys.

The article only highlights this quote in giant font-48 bold:

[HEADING=2]"One possible course of action... could be to encourage governments to adopt laws and regulations to regulate this ever-growing industry."
...
"Historically, the committee works quietly and behind the scenes to influence policy makers and push for change, often to great effect."[/HEADING]

Yeah, Red Cross ARE entering the censorship game.

Other gems include:

-"However, such games are not zones free of rules and ethics." yes they are, they are games! Maybe they want to change that.

-"civilians or protected objects such as churches or mosques can be attacked with impunity" not that you are ordered to, just that you CAN!

-"The practically complete absence of rules or sanctions" that church! That god-damn bullet-magnet church in COD4 that would insta-fail any mission! And I saw militants STREAMING out of there! So they are exaggerating like fruck.

 

[Random berk]

So, even the Red Cross are complaining about noobtubing now?

Seriously though, do they really have the time to be focussing on this shit? Last I checked, the world hasn't entered a time of unprecedented peace that would allow humanitarian activity to cease.

Also, when has a first person shooter given us the option, or even a scripted event, to blow up a mosque? I haven't seen any such moment.

 

[red the fister]

I would imagine this is more of a publicity stunt rather than a serious policy recommendation. Although, I have been thinking recently of what a game that took into account human rights and other forms of international law. A brave developer could no doubt have fun with the concept.

i can see two ways to go about that. 1: make the non/unarmed-combatants un-killable through whatever means possible, i.e. Mass Effects Green Reticle (making the weapon not fire when pointed at the wrong "people") or "simple" immunity for all but designated targets. 2: Consequences in game, i.e. some manner of in game authority attempting to capture/kill you (GTA cops) or just fail the mission (blowing Sheva up)

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

*snip*

Re-read my post (as it is on page three), realize I said I was wrong, then shut the fuck up. Seriously. I edited out most of the post and said I was wrong. Beside that such rounds aren't used in rifles because they aren't necessary for the round to tear things up. You are also being misleading as the only usage of the rounds by police (that I could find and I would be fine with you showing me evidence of my wrongness if you would be fucking civil) was by the metro police in Britain, and some usage under heavy restrictions in New Jersey. This is done to prevent collateral damage to other people. I also said I may have been wrong on that so it would have been nice if you had just corrected me instead of acting like such a douche about it. When I said they make a mess I meant they made an especially bad mess that is nasty to live with if you survive. Yes war is horrible, but large quantities of shrapnel are worse. I would love it if you would adjust you're post to the edit I made, like, three minutes after the fact when it took you over twenty minutes to respond and you seem to have been reading this page. Once again, stop being such a fucking douche.

 

[Treblaine]

I would imagine this is more of a publicity stunt rather than a serious policy recommendation. Although, I have been thinking recently of what a game that took into account human rights and other forms of international law. A brave developer could no doubt have fun with the concept.

Games have ALREADY done this before. Kill a civilian = mission failure

COD4 with that over-watch mission you couldn't fire on the church, even though you saw an army of militants streaming out of that place.

And no one really cared. If anything they're annoyed that a building clearly used by the enemy for military purpose is protected because it is a church. And modern day militants use the same tactics today, this just presents the same situation to millions of people and demonstrates how wrong this law is.

Red Cross should be worried, worried of these laws of war being depicted and widely disliked, that could create the political groundswell to make it far more likely for countries to ignore these laws as people are face with the same decisions and decide:

"yeah, they militants are clearly using that church as a military base. Hit it"

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

My problem with "human rights" is how many people forget that technically even Hitler was a human. What rights should extend even to the likes of him!

There was some Human rights legislation that said everyone should have a right to vote, forgetting to realise that even convicted murderers and serial rapists incarcerated in prison are technically humans, so they should by this insane logic have the same right to vote as everyone else.

Civil rights, much more a fan of. If you are bad enough you can lose them, but only by an individual judicial and in accordance with laws and due process. It's a matter of inclusion in society and right to have a chance there, not merely having human DNA.

Except not every country is that keen on decent civil rights. And civil rights are inherently limited by statehood so you can't just expand them from one country, so how do these NGO organisations try to coerce these bad states to fall in line with the good states? By the lowest common denominator, that we are all human beings. Well isn't that great. The thing is, if there is a human right to life, doesn't that mean that Obama cannot order the CIA to fire a rocket at a fleeing terrorist?

I think human rights undermine the whole concept of statehood and jurisdiction. Civil right and Civil laws are the Responsibility of a particular Authority to Enforce them.

Who is the Authority Responsible for Enforcing laws and rights of all humanity?

I think far better is to encourage every state to come up with robust and generous CIVIL rights that that state is responsible for.

And for those states that refuse to be reasonable, then more reasonable neighbours should force their authority on them by civil rights, as America and Britain did in their various territorial and colonial expansions.

Just saying, you have officially lost the argument. Godwin's law's a ***** ain't it? But I do believe Hitler deserves rights, as do rapists and murderers. No one, yes, no one can ever lose their humanity in my eyes. The reason war is alright is because one has the right to defend their rights and the rights of others, thus you can kill an enemy soldier to protect the rights of your nation and possibly others. Also, imperialism and colonialism are some of the worst things that have ever occurred within human history. So many suffered and died for the greed of so few, who often used your very rationale for their actions, their horrifying actions.

 

[Daverson]

I like how more than half the posters here haven't even read the article, and are just assuming them red cross folk want to take away our vidja games!

I think it's a good idea. Video games present a good opportunity to educate people on the reality of modern conflict and the importance of stuff like the Geneva convention. Maybe having legislation might be going a bit too far, though...

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Can someone answer me the question, how far books and film are restriced by that stuff?
How can you pick up "hot topics" and show flaws in human nature if you've to be political correct in everything you do?
Where's the controversy in that? It would simply mean, that games would immediatly stagnate and could only picture what would be "socially acceptable" or some bollocks.

I agree though, the usually "Hurr we US, you bad russian, boomboom" is kinda disrespectful and maybe developpers should put more consideration when choosin' which faction shoots which in the buttocks.

None of what you just said has anything to do with what is being talked about here. No medium is currently being restricted by laws telling them that they have to talk about the Geneva conventions if they mention war, and the Red Cross isn't necessarily advocating that. The Geneva conventions have nothing to do with being "politically correct," they are international laws regarding war and military interactions. Incorporating them wouldn't mean American game developers can't make games about the US fighting Russia, because the Geneva conventions never say, "The United States of America is not allowed to go to war with Russia" (I forget the official name of the country).

Argh, sorry. I was in a hurry when i wrote this. First, the second paragraph wasn't directly related to the topic, more of a thought that went through my head while i was thinkin' about the Red Cross thing.
Thanks for answering the question about the other medias. With that i can probaly explain my point a little bit better now.

Those maybe laws, but in the context of a game it'd be censoring for the sake of what's "political correct" to show in a game, just because some scenes scenes may violate a real life law.
If you follow this thought, one could argue that the depiction of any illegal action therefore must be forbidden, because it would collide with real world war. Where do you draw the line? Which laws have to be upheld in a game, and which not?

We're not there yet but i believe that games can be used as an artform similar to books. And it would be sad to lose these topics. Because used carefully you can let the player share much more emotion within these situations, than any other media could do.

On the other hand i agree with other posters: Those war-simulators which claim to be "real", should then also incorporate these into their games. True dat.

 

[Treblaine]

*snip*

Re-read my post (as it is on page three), realize I said I was wrong, then shut the fuck up. Seriously. I edited out most of the post and said I was wrong. Beside that such rounds aren't used in rifles because they aren't necessary for the round to tear things up. You are also being misleading as the only usage of the rounds by police (that I could find and I would be fine with you showing me evidence of my wrongness if you would be fucking civil) was by the metro police in Britain, and some usage under heavy restrictions in New Jersey. This is done to prevent collateral damage to other people. I also said I may have been wrong on that so it would have been nice if you had just corrected me instead of acting like such a douche about it. When I said they make a mess I meant they made an especially bad mess that is nasty to live with if you survive. Yes war is horrible, but large quantities of shrapnel are worse. I would love it if you would adjust you're post to the edit I made, like, three minutes after the fact when it took you over twenty minutes to respond and you seem to have been reading this page. Once again, stop being such a fucking douche.

You think you can repeatedly call me a "fucking douche" and then demand that I should then go back an edit my comments to clear up your mistakes.

Nope.

Your Edit wasn't there when I started to compose my reply. You DID talk with a lot of confidence on something you clearly knew next to nothing about. You shouldn't do that.

Beside that such rounds aren't used in rifles because they aren't necessary for the round to tear things up.

To reliably do so and to an adequate extent, such rounds ARE necessary. This is AGAIN baseless speculation on your part.

http://www.uthr.org/SpecialReports/Military_rifle_bullet_wound_patterns.htm

On 7.62x39mm AK47 rifle cartridge: "The typical path through the abdomen caused minimal disruption; holes in organs were similar to those caused by a non-hollow-point handgun bullet."

Giant ass rifle performs like a little pistol... not good.

Very different with a soft-point:
http://www.brassfetcher.com/7.62x39mm%20Wolf%20154gr%20Soft%20Point.html

the only usage of the rounds by police ... was by the metro police in Britain, and some usage under heavy restrictions in New Jersey

What kind of conformational bias are you working under? That the only two cases that you can find are the ONLY cases where it is used?!?!

http://www.thegunzone.com/11april86.html
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob93.html

It's so well established in gun forums and the media there aren't any news articles addressing it but here are a few reliable sources that mention how other forces use them more widely buy the FBI and most police forces of US states. The relevance of the restrictions of Hollow-points in New Jersey is how EVERY OTHER US STATE there is no blanket ban on hollow-points use or transfer. You just need a driver's licence.

When I said they make a mess I meant they made an especially bad mess that is nasty to live with if you survive.

Well that is vague to the point of being utterly useless. Look, Hollow-points relative to Non-expanding reliably make a bigger hole. That is the job of bullets, to make holes in things. This conventions defeats the purpose of bullet design. It's like saying you can't add a supercharger on a plane engine... why?

FMJ bullets (the type approved by Hague 1899) will also often fragment and leave shrapnel. Shrapnel is not a problem, flesh grows around it just fine as should be obvious if you have ever seen how the body adapts to metal ear and navel piercings. Are you saying soldiers should not be allowed to deal grievous injuries to their enemy in war and other armed conflict? Armies have been dancing around Hague 1899 for over a century now, it's time we accept how obsolete and in need of appeal it is.

The Hague Convention 1899 Declaration III should be repealed. It is obsolete as Declaration I forbidding the dropping of bombs from balloons, how quaint. So I can drop laser guided bombs from a supersonic spy plane but I can't toss a grenade out of a hot air balloon. Come oooon, that alone challenges the relevancy of all this. I'm not saying have it all go, just the stupid parts.

 

[Treblaine]

My problem with "human rights" is how many people forget that technically even Hitler was a human. What rights should extend even to the likes of him!

There was some Human rights legislation that said everyone should have a right to vote, forgetting to realise that even convicted murderers and serial rapists incarcerated in prison are technically humans, so they should by this insane logic have the same right to vote as everyone else.

Civil rights, much more a fan of. If you are bad enough you can lose them, but only by an individual judicial and in accordance with laws and due process. It's a matter of inclusion in society and right to have a chance there, not merely having human DNA.

Except not every country is that keen on decent civil rights. And civil rights are inherently limited by statehood so you can't just expand them from one country, so how do these NGO organisations try to coerce these bad states to fall in line with the good states? By the lowest common denominator, that we are all human beings. Well isn't that great. The thing is, if there is a human right to life, doesn't that mean that Obama cannot order the CIA to fire a rocket at a fleeing terrorist?

I think human rights undermine the whole concept of statehood and jurisdiction. Civil right and Civil laws are the Responsibility of a particular Authority to Enforce them.

Who is the Authority Responsible for Enforcing laws and rights of all humanity?

I think far better is to encourage every state to come up with robust and generous CIVIL rights that that state is responsible for.

And for those states that refuse to be reasonable, then more reasonable neighbours should force their authority on them by civil rights, as America and Britain did in their various territorial and colonial expansions.

Just saying, you have officially lost the argument. Godwin's law's a ***** ain't it? But I do believe Hitler deserves rights, as do rapists and murderers. No one, yes, no one can ever lose their humanity in my eyes. The reason war is alright is because one has the right to defend their rights and the rights of others, thus you can kill an enemy soldier to protect the rights of your nation and possibly others. Also, imperialism and colonialism are some of the worst things that have ever occurred within human history. So many suffered and died for the greed of so few, who often used your very rationale for their actions, their horrifying actions.

Just saying, that's not the way Godwin's Law works:

"criticising some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis"

I'm not saying ANYONE is like Hitler or the Nazis, except Hitler and the Nazis! And I'm pretty sure I can say with confidence that Hitler was a Nazi.

One thing Godwin's Law is NOT is meaning you cannot reference Hitler or Nazism AT ALL!'. But by YOUR OWN LOGIC, are you not "breaking Godwin's Law" by continuing to talk about Hitler? Or by your logic is it like a game, whoever mentions it first loses and the winner can talk about Hitler as much as they like.

Yeah, Hitler deserves rights... not many. Especially not many if it would prevent his heinous crimes.

imperialism and colonialism are some of the worst things that have ever occurred within human history

Read up on the Spanish Inquisition. Makes Hostel and other torture porn flicks seem like family films.

Imperialism is no perfect "best thing ever, never went wrong", but nor is it the other extreme of "worst in human history". Things like the Congo Free State hardly even qualify as colonialism, King Leopold did not try to run it as a country, he ran it as his private property to be exploited mercilessly and only once he was dead did any real colonial efforts start. Colonialism brought good and it brought bad but even in 1880's Britain knew the Empire had cost more than it earned and it would continue that way till WWII when they couldn't afford to keep it any more and it wasn't earning them anything remotely worth while! It may have started with some greed but greed most certainly did NOT keep it going. It was a massive experiment in nation building, patronising in the extreme but not malicious.

Along with firearms history I suggest you read up on colonial history. More than just the anti-colonialists cliff-notes.

I'd like to add that come WWII after all the "horrifying actions" of the British Empire still millions of people throughout the Empire from India to Africa to China they joined up to fight Fascism! And they got independence when the spirit truly moved for it and still there was too goodwill to remain together, joining the commonwealth. Would India be the country is is today without its British colonial past? You may be surprised but even today in parts of Africa there is open talk that it would be nice to have colonialism back again, at least there would be order and justice.

 

[Catalyst6]

/Sigh, yet another group after games because they are games. Okay, they are media, but c'mon now. It can still have a purpose, Red Cross!

And I'm not really sure how a lot of the things in the video apply to the Conventions. Shooting a Aid truck, totally bad. Landmines leave lots of civilian casualties, so I think they're banned too. But shooting a guy around a corner? How does that work?

And I'm wondering what they're worried about. Do they think these people are going to become soldiers and commit these crimes? All I know is that I live in the United States of America, where we would never, NEVER do any of these things where someone could see us.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

*snip*

Sorry, I apologize for my behavior but your use of reaction images is very, very annoying and is pissing me off. Secondly, I guess I was wrong about the hollow point usage, as I simply skimmed the site I found on the subject. Still, they are used to minimize collateral damage (I would say not for lethality, but you'd link to your information on the penetration testing and I'll just agree to disagree on the matter), but hey, whatever. Thirdly, I did find information on why they are not used in rifles, but it probably isn't as accurate as you want and I am tired of talking about this subject. I really don't care about gun laws as I don't care for hunting and am unlikely to need to use one to protect myself, and even then I'd just use a boring pistol and aim for the person's legs because I am largely a pacifist. Sorry I don't know a damn thing about gun laws and was relying on a misleading History Channel documentary for my information.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

*snip*

You mentioned America first when you were talking about colonialism. I have never taken a world history class in my life (not even the anti-colonist cliff notes), but I have taken multiple U.S. History classes and one on Native American Studies. Colonialism is one of the worst things in American history (and don't start pointing out worse things that have happened. I said "one of"). Yes, I may have misunderstood the exact wording of Godwin's law, but I've never read the exact wording. But really, why am I having to talk about this? My point was, and has always been, that putting the Geneva convention in games could lead to some much better, much more realistic games. I never said that the games would have to strictly adhere to them, just that it would be cool if they were present.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Argh, sorry. I was in a hurry when i wrote this. First, the second paragraph wasn't directly related to the topic, more of a thought that went through my head while i was thinkin' about the Red Cross thing.
Thanks for answering the question about the other medias. With that i can probaly explain my point a little bit better now.

Those maybe laws, but in the context of a game it'd be censoring for the sake of what's "political correct" to show in a game, just because some scenes scenes may violate a real life law.
If you follow this thought, one could argue that the depiction of any illegal action therefore must be forbidden, because it would collide with real world war. Where do you draw the line? Which laws have to be upheld in a game, and which not?

We're not there yet but i believe that games can be used as an artform similar to books. And it would be sad to lose these topics. Because used carefully you can let the player share much more emotion within these situations, than any other media could do.

On the other hand i agree with other posters: Those war-simulators which claim to be "real", should then also incorporate these into their games. True dat.

I agree with much of what you said. I think that if the Red Cross decided they were going to try to make this happen through restrictive laws that it would be wrong, but if they just tried to do this through advising developers that only good could come of it.

 

[Treblaine]

*snip*

Sorry, I apologize for my behavior but your use of reaction images is very, very annoying and is pissing me off. Secondly, I guess I was wrong about the hollow point usage, as I simply skimmed the site I found on the subject. Still, they are used to minimize collateral damage (I would say not for lethality, but you'd link to your information on the penetration testing and I'll just agree to disagree on the matter), but hey, whatever. Thirdly, I did find information on why they are not used in rifles, but it probably isn't as accurate as you want and I am tired of talking about this subject. I really don't care about gun laws as I don't care for hunting and am unlikely to need to use one to protect myself, and even then I'd just use a boring pistol and aim for the person's legs because I am largely a pacifist. Sorry I don't know a damn thing about gun laws and was relying on a misleading History Channel documentary for my information.

Well you are on a thread all about War, and the laws of war.

Pascifist or not, if you want to contribute to and understand tis discussion you have to understand the limits of your knowledge and expand on them if necessary. Otherwise you are out of your depth. Sorry for using the inflammatory pictures, but what you wrote really did inspire that response in me and I felt the need to articulate it. Perhaps it wasn't very helpful.

*snip*

You mentioned America first when you were talking about colonialism. I have never taken a world history class in my life (not even the anti-colonist cliff notes), but I have taken multiple U.S. History classes and one on Native American Studies. Colonialism is one of the worst things in American history (and don't start pointing out worse things that have happened. I said "one of"). Yes, I may have misunderstood the exact wording of Godwin's law, but I've never read the exact wording. But really, why am I having to talk about this? My point was, and has always been, that putting the Geneva convention in games could lead to some much better, much more realistic games. I never said that the games would have to strictly adhere to them, just that it would be cool if they were present.

Weeeell, America's expansion isn't really colonialism. It's expansion of its borders and territories, these areas are included and integrated into the greater running of government. It's awful that relations with the so many Indian tribes degenerated into wars, but if that's the worst part of US history that you've got, well we've got the Vikings.

Also please read the actual wording of things before you cite them. Otherwise you end up looking like the way you look.

putting the Geneva convention in games

Well if they do do that they might do by criticising how it has been abused over the years, how it was originally an agreement between signatories to allow either side that loses to surrender with dignity and without undue suffering. It was never supposed to be used for the uncontrolled, unaccountable and unreasoning elements like pirates, bandits, insane cults and what we now know as terrorists. Terrorists are by all original standards of the Geneva Convention somewhere between Bandits and Spies/saboteurs.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

*snip*

Thank you very much for understanding where I'm coming from at this point and being a little more civil. Yes, I understand I was wrong about a lot of things and I do genuinely appreciate that you pointed out where I was wrong, it just could have been done a little more nicely. I will admit that part of why you did post that though is that you hadn't seen my edit, and my reply afterwards could have been vastly more civil than it was. Finals have got me a little bit on edge it appears.

I do agree with parts of your last point, in the sense that it could be used to educate and make whatever point you'd like, even though I don't agree with the point you'd like to see it be used to make.

Also, I am anything but technical with my terminology, so by colonialism I did mean exactly what you wound up thinking. It also wasn't just wars that occurred, much of what happened closely parallels far worse occurances, but that is a subject for another thread.