ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1711839:date=Jun 11 2009, 11:00 AM:name=Nemesis_Zero)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nemesis_Zero @ Jun 11 2009, 11:00 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1711839"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Only a quick explanation right now because I'm heading out, but it should be noted that the USK-rating board is an independet trade body, much like the MPAA or ERSB. Only if they refuse to give a game an age rating (i.e.: assume that it must not be played by children) can the governmental BPjM (after another testing) issue an indictment, after which advertising or selling the product where minors can see them carries a fee.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So German video game stores can sell it so long as it isn't advertised/displayed where children can see it?
Does this lead to 18+ sections of stores (ala the porn room at video stores), or just having it under the counter and you have to ask for it?
X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
Somewhat off topic but I just wanted clarification on this.
In the US, the MPAA and the ERSB are voluntary, right? Like, movie studios and game producers don't *have* to submit their film/game to the board for rating, but if they don't, it's released "unrated" or whatever, and most stores won't carry it?
Whereas in the UK, the BBFC has to rate everything released and it's illegal to release something unrated. Right?
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
edited June 2009
<!--quoteo(post=1711870:date=Jun 11 2009, 01:55 PM:name=X_Stickman)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (X_Stickman @ Jun 11 2009, 01:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1711870"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Somewhat off topic but I just wanted clarification on this.
In the US, the MPAA and the ERSB are voluntary, right? Like, movie studios and game producers don't *have* to submit their film/game to the board for rating, but if they don't, it's released "unrated" or whatever, and most stores won't carry it?
Whereas in the UK, the BBFC has to rate everything released and it's illegal to release something unrated. Right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are correct about the MPAA and ESRB.
Wiki says that the BBFC is not a government organization, but rating is legally required. However, there is also a line saying "Legally, local authorities have the power to decide under what circumstances films are shown in cinemas, but they nearly always choose to follow the advice of the BBFC". Readign a bit on the BBFC website makes it sound like this is true for cinema, but not for home videos (those must be rated by the BBFC, and those ratings stick)
There are also apparently exemptions from the BBFC (music, documentaries, and non-fiction are listed on wiki)
<!--quoteo(post=1711830:date=Jun 11 2009, 08:59 AM:name=Nemesis_Zero)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nemesis_Zero @ Jun 11 2009, 08:59 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1711830"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So - you're telling me that being asked to change the color of (or, more likely, cut) a few particles to get a lower age rating, is the same as being unable to publish, <i>full stop</i>? The last time I saw a game exchange humans with robots was Half-Life (I'm certain there are more recent examples, my point is that they are sparse).
Which is beside the point, actually, because games like Quake 3, El Matador, or Gears of War 2, all of which were not made available to children, sold very well over here as far as I know.
Can it be - and this is not meant mockingly, it's a question I had to ask myself - that we invoke the slippery slope mainly because it makes our arguments infinitely easier?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I share your concerns about the slippery slope argument making things way too easy for my side of the debate, and I'd agree that if Germany was censoring something like photorealistic depictions of children being raped and kill that it would be wrong for me to say "censorship is bad and you really ought not to do this," but violent games seem so benign compared to actually physically DOING the kind of things you do in American football or rugby, or actually shooting and killing and skinning and eating a live animal in the forest when you go hunting, that I think a stronger argument for banning them has to be made than simply saying "they can contribute in a tiny way to violent acts." Violent video games are uncensored basically everywhere else and we don't get wholesale slaughter. I think Germany is way overreacting with its rules, an opinion I think is reinforced by the quite clear evidence that Germany censors a whole lot of stuff that other societies don't.
<!--quoteo(post=1711887:date=Jun 11 2009, 09:22 PM:name=TychoCelchuuu)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TychoCelchuuu @ Jun 11 2009, 09:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1711887"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think Germany is way overreacting with its rules, an opinion I think is reinforced by the quite clear evidence that Germany censors a whole lot of stuff that other societies don't.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funny.
This reminds me of GIANTS, Citizen Kabuto. A pretty good game. The US version has been altered in such a way, that a bikini top was added to a water nymph.
This reminds me of GIANTS, Citizen Kabuto. A pretty good game. The US version has been altered in such a way, that a bikini top was added to a water nymph.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giants%3A_Citizen_Kabuto" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giants%3A_Citizen_Kabuto</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, that's a pretty good comparison. Another good example is The Witcher, which for the US version had some breasts censored, and Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy, which I think had a sex scene removed or censored.
Well, I wouldn't say they're hypocrites, because that's sort of looking at it from the point of view that violence AND sex should be banned, and both Europe and the US are just playing favorites. I would say everyone is just being stupid.
... or the point of view that both should be allowed and both the US and various sovereign nations on the continent of Europe are just playing favourites. AND being stupid.
<!--quoteo(post=1712096:date=Jun 12 2009, 06:10 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jun 12 2009, 06:10 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1712096"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->... or the point of view that both should be allowed and both the US and various sovereign nations on the continent of Europe are just playing favourites. AND being stupid.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Right but that wouldn't make them hypocrites. See, if both should be allowed but the US bans violence (and not sex), that's not hypocritical. It's only hypocritical if we think that that <b>both</b> should be banned, which I would say nobody does. Do you see what I'm saying? For it to be hypocritical, the US and Europe have to think that BOTH need banning, not that one or the other need banning, because it's not inherently hypocritical to censor violence but not sex (unless you think that they are both equally wrong, which I certainly do not believe).
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Your pops caught you smokin' and he said "NO WAY!" That hypocrite smokes two packs a day!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Hypocrisy is when I berate you for doing something I think you shouldn't, yet at the same time I'm doing something similar. For instance, I berate you for censoring sexual content while I myself censor depictions of imaginary violence. I say that censorship is bad and you shouldn't do it, yet I indulge in it myself. Doesn't that make me a hypocrite?
ThansalThe New ScumJoin Date: 2002-08-22Member: 1215Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1712158:date=Jun 13 2009, 11:35 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jun 13 2009, 11:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1712158"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Hypocrisy is when I berate you for doing something I think you shouldn't, yet at the same time I'm doing something similar. For instance, I berate you for censoring sexual content while I myself censor depictions of imaginary violence. I say that censorship is bad and you shouldn't do it, yet I indulge in it myself. Doesn't that make me a hypocrite?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, because they are different things?
Sex? Bad, Violence? Fine.
No hypocrisy.
If I said "censorship bad! But not when I do it" then yes.
As none of the people in this group condone censorship of any sort (or at least those that are arguing that it is bad), then there is no hypocrisy.
If it was the American game industry going "bad Germany! No cookie!" then sure, call em hypocrites.
<!--quoteo(post=1712204:date=Jun 13 2009, 05:49 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jun 13 2009, 05:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1712204"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Au contraire. I find that to be extremely hypocritical.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So it's not the censoring you find hypocritical, it's the picking and choosing of what they think ought to be censored? In your view, to avoid hypocrisy, the US would have to censor violence even though it doesn't think violence is objectionable. That seems like it doesn't make sense to me: we shouldn't call either country hypocritical. The US isn't being hypocritical in censoring sex because it's not claiming we should also censor violence and then failing to do so. Europe isn't being hypocritical when they censor violence but not sex because they're not claiming that we should censor sex in the first place. "Hypocritical" means doing something you say other should not do. Neither the US nor Europe is doing anything like that. The US is not saying "censor violence!" and then failing to do so. They're saying "censor sex!" and doing it. I see no hypocrisy.
No, in my view it's the censoring that is hypocritical. In my view, thinking that anything can be objectionable if violence is not is hypocritical. If VIOLENCE is not objectionable, how can ANYTHING ELSE be? Though frankly, I deviate from the literal meaning of being hypocritical here. "Double standard" doesn't work either. "Fundamentally ###### up values" is the closest I can get, really.
You're equating sex and violence and saying that if you censor one it's inherently hypocritical to censor the other. I think that both should go uncensored, but I don't think it's for the same reason, and even if it is, that's not the issue: the issue is "can you have a reason to ban sex that does not apply to violence or vice versa," because if you can, you could censor one or the other without being hypocritical. I think it's pretty easy to imagine a reason to censor sexual content that doesn't apply to violent content. For example, a reason might be "seeing people naked encourages promiscuity and sex outside of marriage" which would definitely not give you a reason to ban violent stuff. In fact, I think America operates under something pretty close to that principal if you strip away the Christian morality trappings, and this means that it's not hypocritical for us to censor sex without censoring violence. You could do the same sort of thing for Europe, which I realize is not a country.
But if it isn't a country someone has to explain wtf the euro is.
I'm not equating sex and violence. I'm calling violence objectionable, and I cannot understand how anything can be objectionable if violence isn't. Can you explain that to me?
The euro is the currency used by those nations that have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Monetary_Union" target="_blank">adopted the third stage of the European Monetary Union.</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1712257:date=Jun 14 2009, 07:24 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Jun 14 2009, 07:24 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1712257"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not equating sex and violence. I'm calling violence objectionable, and I cannot understand how anything can be objectionable if violence isn't. Can you explain that to me?
The euro is the currency used by those nations that have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Monetary_Union" target="_blank">adopted the third stage of the European Monetary Union.</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know what the euro is. I just think it's silly to say that if violence isn't objectionable, nothing is objectionable. I mean, just off the top of my head, I think it would be wrong to censor images of war because if we don't know what kind of brutality war represents that we won't realize what we're getting into, but I think it would make perfect sense to censor child pornography because its existence inherently implies sexual abuse and if it was allowed to be distributed freely it would invite more people to conduct that abuse, even if we were later able to track them down. This is just one example; you could come up with lots of other reasons to censor something other than violence without also censoring violence. I think you're just taking your specific feelings about what is and isn't okay, and universalizing them, so that you can't possibly understand why any country would have different ideas about what should be censored and what shouldn't. I'm able to understand why the US might have different ideas about what is okayt o show than I am, which means that I can evaluate whether or not they're being hypocritical in violating THEIR ideas of what is right rather than MY ideas of what is right.
If all it takes to be hypocritical is to go against what lolfighter or TychoCelchuuu or some other third part thinks is the right thing to do, we'd all be hypocritical in just about every aspect of our lives.
Comments
So German video game stores can sell it so long as it isn't advertised/displayed where children can see it?
Does this lead to 18+ sections of stores (ala the porn room at video stores), or just having it under the counter and you have to ask for it?
In the US, the MPAA and the ERSB are voluntary, right? Like, movie studios and game producers don't *have* to submit their film/game to the board for rating, but if they don't, it's released "unrated" or whatever, and most stores won't carry it?
Whereas in the UK, the BBFC has to rate everything released and it's illegal to release something unrated. Right?
In the US, the MPAA and the ERSB are voluntary, right? Like, movie studios and game producers don't *have* to submit their film/game to the board for rating, but if they don't, it's released "unrated" or whatever, and most stores won't carry it?
Whereas in the UK, the BBFC has to rate everything released and it's illegal to release something unrated. Right?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are correct about the MPAA and ESRB.
Wiki says that the BBFC is not a government organization, but rating is legally required. However, there is also a line saying "Legally, local authorities have the power to decide under what circumstances films are shown in cinemas, but they nearly always choose to follow the advice of the BBFC". Readign a bit on the BBFC website makes it sound like this is true for cinema, but not for home videos (those must be rated by the BBFC, and those ratings stick)
There are also apparently exemptions from the BBFC (music, documentaries, and non-fiction are listed on wiki)
Which is beside the point, actually, because games like Quake 3, El Matador, or Gears of War 2, all of which were not made available to children, sold very well over here as far as I know.
Can it be - and this is not meant mockingly, it's a question I had to ask myself - that we invoke the slippery slope mainly because it makes our arguments infinitely easier?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I share your concerns about the slippery slope argument making things way too easy for my side of the debate, and I'd agree that if Germany was censoring something like photorealistic depictions of children being raped and kill that it would be wrong for me to say "censorship is bad and you really ought not to do this," but violent games seem so benign compared to actually physically DOING the kind of things you do in American football or rugby, or actually shooting and killing and skinning and eating a live animal in the forest when you go hunting, that I think a stronger argument for banning them has to be made than simply saying "they can contribute in a tiny way to violent acts." Violent video games are uncensored basically everywhere else and we don't get wholesale slaughter. I think Germany is way overreacting with its rules, an opinion I think is reinforced by the quite clear evidence that Germany censors a whole lot of stuff that other societies don't.
Funny.
This reminds me of GIANTS, Citizen Kabuto. A pretty good game.
The US version has been altered in such a way, that a bikini top was added to a water nymph.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giants%3A_Citizen_Kabuto" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giants%3A_Citizen_Kabuto</a>
This reminds me of GIANTS, Citizen Kabuto. A pretty good game.
The US version has been altered in such a way, that a bikini top was added to a water nymph.
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giants%3A_Citizen_Kabuto" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giants%3A_Citizen_Kabuto</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, that's a pretty good comparison. Another good example is The Witcher, which for the US version had some breasts censored, and Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy, which I think had a sex scene removed or censored.
Right but that wouldn't make them hypocrites. See, if both should be allowed but the US bans violence (and not sex), that's not hypocritical. It's only hypocritical if we think that that <b>both</b> should be banned, which I would say nobody does. Do you see what I'm saying? For it to be hypocritical, the US and Europe have to think that BOTH need banning, not that one or the other need banning, because it's not inherently hypocritical to censor violence but not sex (unless you think that they are both equally wrong, which I certainly do not believe).
That hypocrite smokes two packs a day!<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hypocrisy is when I berate you for doing something I think you shouldn't, yet at the same time I'm doing something similar. For instance, I berate you for censoring sexual content while I myself censor depictions of imaginary violence. I say that censorship is bad and you shouldn't do it, yet I indulge in it myself. Doesn't that make me a hypocrite?
No, because they are different things?
Sex? Bad, Violence? Fine.
No hypocrisy.
If I said "censorship bad! But not when I do it" then yes.
As none of the people in this group condone censorship of any sort (or at least those that are arguing that it is bad), then there is no hypocrisy.
If it was the American game industry going "bad Germany! No cookie!" then sure, call em hypocrites.
No hypocrisy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Au contraire. I find that to be extremely hypocritical.
So it's not the censoring you find hypocritical, it's the picking and choosing of what they think ought to be censored? In your view, to avoid hypocrisy, the US would have to censor violence even though it doesn't think violence is objectionable. That seems like it doesn't make sense to me: we shouldn't call either country hypocritical. The US isn't being hypocritical in censoring sex because it's not claiming we should also censor violence and then failing to do so. Europe isn't being hypocritical when they censor violence but not sex because they're not claiming that we should censor sex in the first place. "Hypocritical" means doing something you say other should not do. Neither the US nor Europe is doing anything like that. The US is not saying "censor violence!" and then failing to do so. They're saying "censor sex!" and doing it. I see no hypocrisy.
Though frankly, I deviate from the literal meaning of being hypocritical here. "Double standard" doesn't work either. "Fundamentally ###### up values" is the closest I can get, really.
Also, Europe is not a country.
But if it isn't a country someone has to explain wtf the euro is.
The euro is the currency used by those nations that have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Monetary_Union" target="_blank">adopted the third stage of the European Monetary Union.</a>
The euro is the currency used by those nations that have <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Monetary_Union" target="_blank">adopted the third stage of the European Monetary Union.</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know what the euro is. I just think it's silly to say that if violence isn't objectionable, nothing is objectionable. I mean, just off the top of my head, I think it would be wrong to censor images of war because if we don't know what kind of brutality war represents that we won't realize what we're getting into, but I think it would make perfect sense to censor child pornography because its existence inherently implies sexual abuse and if it was allowed to be distributed freely it would invite more people to conduct that abuse, even if we were later able to track them down. This is just one example; you could come up with lots of other reasons to censor something other than violence without also censoring violence. I think you're just taking your specific feelings about what is and isn't okay, and universalizing them, so that you can't possibly understand why any country would have different ideas about what should be censored and what shouldn't. I'm able to understand why the US might have different ideas about what is okayt o show than I am, which means that I can evaluate whether or not they're being hypocritical in violating THEIR ideas of what is right rather than MY ideas of what is right.
If all it takes to be hypocritical is to go against what lolfighter or TychoCelchuuu or some other third part thinks is the right thing to do, we'd all be hypocritical in just about every aspect of our lives.