Jack Thompson's Violent Game Bill Signed Into Law

[Daniel-B]

That is stupid. Parents should just do their job, and it wouldn't be a problem.

[EpShot]

wait, i'm confused, it says "pulled from shelves"
i thought it was jsut giong ot make it illegal to sell them to minors.
Which i'm not really against, it forces the parents to watch their kids.
And they can't blame violence on the games, because it will be illegal to sell it to them.
there fore it would be the parents fault. i mean, it is anyways,

but legally they can't sue game companies since abviously they won't be targeted at kids who can't buy it.

[CelticArtist]

Well, this looks like it's local/state legislation, not federal, could be wrong though. And it only prohibits sales of mature games to minors, not adults, so i don't really see anything wrong with it other than the fact that WhackoJacko is involved.

[M.E.L.]

Why does it not surprise me that such a Bill was signed and passed in Louisiana, apparently parents are still looking for a reason but themselves to blame for their lack of parenting.

Either or, the mandate to pull a product from the shelves will be a hard one to pass as once the case is taken beyond the realms of State law and into a Federal jurisdiction it will be thrown aside and if the person was smart they would file a counter-suit :)

Wonder if Jack has even ever picked up a game controller before or if God 'told' him that it was against his bidding too.

[Arrghman]

The ESA will probably challange this one too... they're good at that!

[TheLostVertex]

Wonder if Jack has even ever picked up a game controller before...

Thats like asking if PETA activist go hunting for cute animals on the weekend. If i recall correctly, rock music is the devil, and movies are the spawn of satan.

This is a battle that will go on untill there is something new to place the blame on.

-Steven

[EpShot]

but if you minors can't play violent video games.. then you can't blame the video games.

[Artbot]

Great. Now only criminals will have games....

[flipnap]

i dont understand this article.. it says it will make it a crime to sell to minors, which i totally agree with. But then it says it will pull them from the shelves.. huh? how can it be a crime to sell it if your store cant sell it? are they saying it will pull them from the shelves, and if you secretly sell it you will be punished? if thats the case thats wacked!! alcohol, porn, cigs, everything that cant be sold to minors are still on the shelves, so what are they getting at? someone clarify for me please.

p.s. and MEL, dont start that up again please, no ones talking religion here - its against the rules

[NealTse]

"The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

First of all, I don't like that unbiquitous archetypal use of "the game." As for no value? The only reason I know computers as well as I do now is because of games. Some amazing stories have been told through games, some of which still stand in my mind as significant as all the shakespear I read. Games are art too. It doesn't have to be a painting, printed material, or sculpture to be art. Myst was art, FFIVII, Baldur's Gate 2, Starcraft, all had an amazing story, and there are games out there I'm sure that have a political element to them too. Or does she mean "the game" as GTA3?

Just look at the other crap we're feeding kids? Media with less then no value as culture, inane, commercial fluff that gets the okay because it doesn't harm our kids? It makes them stupid. As long as it lines the pockets of some corporate engine, it's okay.

Putting more restraints on minors buying games not targeted for them=good.
Blaming games for bad parenting=bad.
Blaming the gaming industry for juvenile delinquency=moronic.
Claiming this as a big moral victory=bad.

/rant.

[EpShot]

its jsut shoddy news reportign takgin things to the extreme. I think they are trying ot imply that since violent games can't be sold to minors and only minors buy video games, that they will be effectively pulled form the shelves.. or something like that. There is nothing in the ruling that would allow judges or anyone to actualy pull a shelf.


the reason i support this, is because there is no reason to dumb games down now for the "innocent kids" gta can now have the sex scene because its going to be sold to adults anyways. Plus parents can make a fuss because we an say, well don't by it for your kids now STFU! I couldn't go to a r rated movie myself, but that didnt' stop my parents from takign me. Parents SHOULD buy the games for their kids anyways.

are you all just afraid your parents aren't going to buy you your video games now?

[Arrghman]

are you all just afraid your parents aren't going to buy you your video games now?

I know I am :(

Everywhere I've read thus far says that games could potentially be pulled from shelves. So I'm not convinced that's just shoddy reporting.

Anyway, there's already been 5 similar bills declared unconstitutional and the ESA has announced that they will file suit against this one as well, so it's likely to be thrown out.

Personally, I think that game sales shouldn't be any different from movie ticket sales... I'm not familiar with all the laws on the subject, but if a guy sells a minor a ticket for an R rated movie, are they going to have to pay $2000 + a year of jail time and then have that movie pulled from theaters? I'm fairly sure not...

[GothTropic411]

I personally think this is a responsible measure. People, have you been ignoring the amount of violence present in games now? This isn't block-o-land FFVII or the delightfully stylish FFIX. This isn't Super Mario. This isn't Threads of Fate.
This is the GTA series. God of War. And you know what? These games have got huge amounts of graphic violence in them. A Greek god running around, ripping people's heads off, tearing an eye out of Cyclops? Screwing maidens along the way? Or in the case of GTA III. Running people over? Killing prostitutes? Sex games in a mod? Whatever happened to respect of women?
Or what of games that teach people to kill, such as Manhunt or Hitman? If I had my choice, I would prevent the Hitman sequel from ever reaching the shelves for its 'creative killing'.
The parents aren't always there. And since they aren't, who will be there to prevent kids from picking up this violent c***? Do we want our nation to be desensitized to violent or sexual acts because we see them near- constantly?
No. We should never want this.
I do not believe in blaming the game for a person's act of violence; I believe that if somebody was playing a game constantly before a crime, then it should be included as a plausible influence. It's not just shifting the blame because the crime can't be reversed.
Off my soapbox. You don't have to agree with my long-winded opinion here, but think of it as a wake-up call. I plan to join the gaming industry some years from now, but I will never be employed by companies that encourage violence.

[ParamountCell]

Wonder if Jack has even ever picked up a game controller before or if God 'told' him that it was against his bidding too.

lets not go there.

[Arrghman]

I personally think this is a responsible measure. People, have you been ignoring the amount of violence present in games now? This isn't block-o-land FFVII or the delightfully stylish FFIX. This isn't Super Mario. This isn't Threads of Fate.
This is the GTA series. God of War. And you know what? These games have got huge amounts of graphic violence in them. A Greek god running around, ripping people's heads off, tearing an eye out of Cyclops? Screwing maidens along the way? Or in the case of GTA III. Running people over? Killing prostitutes? Sex games in a mod? Whatever happened to respect of women?

But there's already a system in place to deal with this, the ESRB. And while they have made some questionable decisions in my opinion recently (Oblivion gets an M because someone moded the male chest texture onto the female model?) they have a good system in place and the regulation is already there. The only problem with this system is that the parents are buying the M rated GTA games for their 12 year olds. Additional legislation is, in my opinion, redundant and in this case over reactive. And unless we're going to start jailing people who sell tickets to R-rated movies to minors and TV channels for producing shows that are TV-M, it is hypocritical to put gaming up on this pedestal that will impede my ability as an adult to buy any game I want.

[flipnap]

Gothtopic.. I think a lot of people agree with you. I for one think a LOT of things going down shouldnt be, but they are. The point is, if they actually pass a law that will pull games off the shelf because of content then we are ALL in big big trouble. There are a lot of things that exist that i think shouldnt. Charging hefty fines for selling mature rated material to minors is a GREAT deterrent and will allow parents to do their job. But making a game illegal for content that exists in one out of three movies these days is just wrong. imagine the government stepping up to hollywood and saying "sorry, you arent allowed to make "die hard" because it is too violent. No, they rate it R and let the rest go. Society has a way of controlling itself when it comes to things that are really wrong (inhumane treatment of children, etc). We dont need government shutting down violent video games. Again, i totally agree in the thinking that we as a society would be better off without these things but this is not the way to go about stopping it.

[EpShot]

i remmeber when they were discussign this bill and i'm pretty f'n sure that theres nothign about removing any game from the shelves.

[flipnap]

allows a judge to rule on whether or not a video game meets established criteria for being inappropriate for minors and be subsequently pulled from store shelves. unless im reading this wrong, thats exaclty what it says

[lutonomy]

Barring any discussion of the principles of the law, I can't get passed that the law itself, regardless of content is so poorly written. It's exceptional in how vague and rediculous its wording is.

(1) The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the video or computer game, taken as a whole, appeals to the minor's morbid interest in violence.

The average person? What does that mean? Owns a house, makes above 40K, 3 kids? Single, married, etc?

Contemporary community standards? Of what community? There's more than one kind you know. There's like...a LOT. And what sort of standards applied to whom? Standards of child raising? Standards of what someone likes to see on TV? What the hell are they talking about?

Morbid interest in violence? What are the requirements for such a classification? Watches things where at least 5 people are murdered at least 3 times a day? Once a day? Saw a horror movie at a friends house once and liked it? That doesn't make any sense.



(2) The game depicts violence in a manner patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors.

Again, what standards of what adult community?


(3) The game, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

Serious value? So lacking value on a smaller scale is not grounds for violating this law. Oh, and please define "value".

It's ludicrous. These people studyed law and make decisions regarding it on a daily basis when they've violated scores of logical fallacies, obvious vagueness, and nonsensical wording writing this? What a bunch of hacks. This was written to give a lawsuit the chance to prevail simply on the basis of someone who wants to force their opinion of "standard" on everyone else.

It's already been challenged and won't last very long in my opinion simply because of its ineptitude.

[NealTse]

I'd really like to see a list of what they consider "valuable" to a minor. Since when does value become quantifiable based on a person's legal status?

[PyRoT]

This is stupid. I have to firstly say that I don't believe that current games like GTA are bad. It's a very satirical game and even though SoF2 was not, I think its absolutely silly to blame say these games are bad in any way. People can very well tell the difference between games and reality. I personally liked the realism of SoF2 and wish that games included it more as an option. To me it doesn't glorify violence. To me it remains very comical and unrealistic while also letting me imagine how terrible such violence can be. While some small minority may be influenced there are much more influential things around.

What should maybe be looked at is rap and that gangsta style bs. Those videos and lyrics I believe do much more harm than a game could ever hope for. When you have gangs roaming the streets and loitering around, it is that kind of music that plays in the background. It explicitly glorifies being a "player", "pimp" and disrespecting "da po-lice". Still, it is just a post-hoc thing and maybe encouraging factor but not the cause.

I wouldn't really push for a ban on either but I do think that mainstream hip-hop should be heavily mocked for its unbelievably long-lived cliches and stereotypical fashion, videos with ho's etc. No innovation at all. Eminem would be one of the few innovative mainstream rappers. Underground is pretty cool though.

Anyway, I think that the media which makes it cool to be a slut, player, materialistic all before kids even reach puberty or have a proper childhood deserves a closer look than a game which doesn't explicitly carry any encouragement to be bad. When I was young you didn't need an iPod or latest mobile phone to be cool. Kids didn't think about losing wieght or having the latest fashion, hair style etc. Kids didn't start having sex at 14. (median age) Then there are bad parents and peers too.

But who cares anyway, let this world just corrupt itself while blaming things such as games .

[EpShot]

unless im reading this wrong, thats exaclty what it says

subsequently pulled from store shelves. A person found guilty of selling such a game to a minor

how are they going to "sell such a game" if its off the shelf?
like i siad when they were discussign this legislation, there was no mention of being able to remove products form stores, and that wouldn't make sence anyways. And i bet if you were to look at all the news sources, they all say the same thing because these days no one researches anymore, one news site jsut copy and pastes from another, it happens all the time with ign and gamespot.

[flipnap]

yeah Epshot, thats exaclly what i was confused about. Were they just making it llegal to sell to minors or pulling it from the shelves. I still am unsure about it. Im assuming what they mean is they will pull it from the shelves, and if someone is caught selling it (illegally and under the table) they will be prosecuted.. Kinda like prohibition era in the States.. regardless its all such a waste of time and taxpayer money..

[CupOWonton]

Wow... thats got to be some of the most openly fascist statements within a law.

Im surprised there isnt a clause about burning said games after theyve been removed.

*Insert snappy 'welcome to nazi-america' remark here*

[PyRoT]

yeah Epshot, thats exaclly what i was confused about. Were they just making it llegal to sell to minors or pulling it from the shelves. I still am unsure about it. Im assuming what they mean is they will pull it from the shelves, and if someone is caught selling it (illegally and under the table) they will be prosecuted.. Kinda like prohibition era in the States.. regardless its all such a waste of time and taxpayer money..

Well, Jack Thompson ain't the sharpest knife in the draw so maybe he was in such a frenzy when drafting it he overlooked this absurd inconsistency :P

I personally imagine his face looking like your avatar haha

[CupOWonton]

Personaly I think he looks high.
http://img.engadget.com/common/images/3060000000053169.JPG?0.6221369315618417

[EpShot]

yeah Epshot, thats exaclly what i was confused about. Were they just making it llegal to sell to minors or pulling it from the shelves. I still am unsure about it. Im assuming what they mean is they will pull it from the shelves, and if someone is caught selling it (illegally and under the table) they will be prosecuted.. Kinda like prohibition era in the States.. regardless its all such a waste of time and taxpayer money..

but they can sell it illegaly/under the table to a.. non-minor?

[CupOWonton]

Instead of REMOVING them, why not just start a company that prints Rating Change stickers. SO if the ESRB decides " woopse... we made a mistake" The retailers can quickly yank out rating stickers and plaster the new rating on the boxes.

[PyRoT]

Instead of REMOVING them, why not just start a company that prints Rating Change stickers. SO if the ESRB decides " woopse... we made a mistake" The retailers can quickly yank out rating stickers and plaster the new rating on the boxes.

Genius!

Haha I would like to see a movie have its ratings changed because a fan on the net re-edited a certain shot. THey should concentrate on trash parents. As a start sterilise everyone who goes on Jerry Springer :P

[mlmiller1983]

Instead of REMOVING them, why not just start a company that prints Rating Change stickers. SO if the ESRB decides " woopse... we made a mistake" The retailers can quickly yank out rating stickers and plaster the new rating on the boxes.

That was actually done for Elders Scroll IV: Oblivion when its Teen rating was changed to a a mature rating. At the gamestop I work at we had to place mature stickers over the T rating. We at gamespot don't sell rated M games to minors and if they somehow get their parents to buy it for them we tell them that the game is intended for those 17 and over. Most of the time the parents says no but some of them say "well its no worse than what he sees on television".

[Peddy]

i agree with Sue, at least in regards to women in games. I enjoyed the old GTA's, but when they started milking it, and creating exactly the same game again, it got boring really quick.

games like hitman never really appealed to me, mostly because theres so much focus on its violence and i cant really tell if it has a decent story because of that.

pretty much all of my favorite non-nintendo games involve violence. but thats because violence is facet of drama (yes, im aware its not the only available facet.)

this bill makes a certain amount of sense, except for the shelf pulling stuff. when minors manage to purchase cigarettes or alchohol or pornography, they dont pull them all from the shelves....

[AdrianLazar]

I know that GTA isn't the main subject here but I’ve seen this game taken as a bad example so many time, and so many peoples complaint about how it's to violent because you can shot innocent people, you can hit them with the car, you can beat-up prostitutes... and i never had the chance to ask, so I’ll do it now, WHY DO YOU DOIT?! you can finish the game without killing any innocent people, you can even finish the game without killing any cop (ok, that's kind of hard, but it's possible)... the only thing that you need to kill are people from your rival gangs... and this is like any other game, you must kill the enemy to advance in the game... so, if you are not forced to kill innocent people, but you do it, then how is the game fault? just because it's possible? Then you all that are against GTA should say that GTA it's a violent game because you CAN KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE IF YOU WANT TO and not saying GTA is a violent game because you kill innocent people, because the game is not forcing you to do this... but you do it, i did it, i killed a lot of innocent people in GTA... and cops... and anything that could be killed... why? because i choused to (for various reasons) and not because the game forced me... and that's why I’m saying that GTA it’s a violent game only if you want to play like that...

[CupOWonton]

Personaly I still think the original GTA's for PC were better when it came to just driving around and having fun. The point was simply to steal vechicles, thats why they called it GTA. You grabbed a car, and drove it into a chopshop. I dont remember missions saying I had to kill anyone. Though there may have been a few, I dunno, I doubt it was a " Lets hit all pedestrians" mission to complete the game.

[TumikSmacker]

And the parents get a fine too right? riiiiiight???

[PyRoT]

Personaly I still think the original GTA's for PC were better when it came to just driving around and having fun. The point was simply to steal vechicles, thats why they called it GTA. You grabbed a car, and drove it into a chopshop. I dont remember missions saying I had to kill anyone. Though there may have been a few, I dunno, I doubt it was a " Lets hit all pedestrians" mission to complete the game.

You could still run over people and shoot police. Running peope over was probably worse in GTA1 since it didn't slow you down and if you ran over a large enough row of people you would get a big bonus.

[ThePumpkinKing]

Great. Now only criminals will have games....

When games become outlawed, only outlaws will play games.

[flipnap]

And the parents get a fine too right? riiiiiight???


if you had a 13 year old boy, and one day the police showed up at your house and fined you a thousand dollars for your child skipping school, would that be okay? Parents cannot control 100 percent of their childrens activities. if a child buys a restricted game, then the penalty should be on the one who sold it to them. Im getting really tired of everyone saying "its the parents faults".. Jeez, is such an escapist answer to these complicated problems. Everytime a stroy comes up about video games and children gone wrong, the staple reply is always "oh, its the parents"... you know, theres more to all this than parenting; i wish it WAS that simple

[Andre Jackson]

if you had a 13 year old boy, and one day the police showed up at your house and fined you a thousand dollars for your child skipping school, would that be okay? Parents cannot control 100 percent of their childrens activities. if a child buys a restricted game, then the penalty should be on the one who sold it to them. Im getting really tired of everyone saying "its the parents faults".. Jeez, is such an escapist answer to these complicated problems. Everytime a stroy comes up about video games and children gone wrong, the staple reply is always "oh, its the parents"... you know, theres more to all this than parenting; i wish it WAS that simple

Where's the kid getting the money? Even if the kid has a job, the parents can require the child's employer to give the money directly to them instead of the kid.

If the kid is outright disobeying the parents or stealing from the parents, then the kid is obviously not being disciplined adequately by the parents. Clearly such parents would be incapable of raising their children, and therefore need to have their child taken out of their custody.

Really, the answer is simple: any parent who complains about a lack of legislation to keep such media out of the hands of children should be deemed unfit to raise children and have their kids taken away and placed into institutions that can raise them properly.

It's already bad enough that I have to pull out an ID card to buy porno and beer, but now video games are being threatened as well. All to placate fearful people want their children to grow up sheltered from the world. At least they could have the courtesy to cover their children's eyes themselves and get in the way of the rest of the world.

[CIM]

if you had a 13 year old boy, and one day the police showed up at your house and fined you a thousand dollars for your child skipping school, would that be okay? Parents cannot control 100 percent of their childrens activities. if a child buys a restricted game, then the penalty should be on the one who sold it to them. Im getting really tired of everyone saying "its the parents faults".. Jeez, is such an escapist answer to these complicated problems. Everytime a stroy comes up about video games and children gone wrong, the staple reply is always "oh, its the parents"... you know, theres more to all this than parenting; i wish it WAS that simple

Parents are responsible for what their child does, so they are still at least partly to blame.

[Arrghman]

if you had a 13 year old boy, and one day the police showed up at your house and fined you a thousand dollars for your child skipping school, would that be okay? Parents cannot control 100 percent of their childrens activities. if a child buys a restricted game, then the penalty should be on the one who sold it to them. Im getting really tired of everyone saying "its the parents faults".. Jeez, is such an escapist answer to these complicated problems. Everytime a stroy comes up about video games and children gone wrong, the staple reply is always "oh, its the parents"... you know, theres more to all this than parenting; i wish it WAS that simple

By the existing legislation before this new law was passed, an M rated game couldn't be sold to a minor without a parents permission. There were plenty of stories about parents buying GTA for their kids and ignoring the game's rating and then complaining about the violence level afterwords. That is nothing other then irresponsible.

Ultimately, it is a parent's responsibility to control what their kid can and can't do. It's their job to make sure they're not watching TV programming that is too violent. Or going to see R rated movies that are too violent. Video games should be no different.

Video games are protected by free speech just as other forms of media are. This is why all the other recently passed state laws have been declared unconstitutional and it's why this one will too. It's a really big 'hot button' issue right now which is why so many states are trying to pass this sort of legislation, but it's also a costly one... the state of Illinois is being asked to pay the ESA's legal costs of ~$600k because of their own unconstitutional law.

[M.E.L.]

i dont understand this article.. it says it will make it a crime to sell to minors, which i totally agree with. But then it says it will pull them from the shelves.. huh? how can it be a crime to sell it if your store cant sell it? are they saying it will pull them from the shelves, and if you secretly sell it you will be punished? if thats the case thats wacked!! alcohol, porn, cigs, everything that cant be sold to minors are still on the shelves, so what are they getting at? someone clarify for me please.

they will pull the product from the store shelf if it is sold to a minor and the store will be fined.


p.s. and MEL, dont start that up again please, no ones talking religion here - its against the rules

cram it with walnuts. :thumbsup:

[M.E.L.]

Im getting really tired of everyone saying "its the parents faults"..

So if a 13 year old goes and buys a 9mm off someone and shoots another on the street then who's responsible in your eyes? I'd be pointing the finger at the parents immediately, it ALL starts at the parental level and teaching the children to discern between right and wrong, fictional and non fictional. It's a pretty simple scenario if you look at it from the responsible point of view.

We went through this shit with Columbine where every media ****ass blamed music, games, movies and all that shit but hey where were the parents when these kids were blowing off entire rounds from Mp5's into local forests and shit?

It begins with the parenting and it ends with the parenting. End of story.

[Rebeccak]

Hmmm, who wants to take the next shot? Not a very good idea, Shawn. Good times ahead. ;)

Cheers,

~Rebeccak

[M.E.L.]

Hmmm, who wants to take the next shot? Not a very good idea, Shawn. Good times ahead. ;)


Just curious what the relevance of this post has to the entire topic? Are we violating any forum policies here by taking our "shots" at each others opinions in an argumentative fashion? I think this debate is quite healthy and all points across the board are being made quite well so if you are here to give a warning then do so in a more direct fashion.

If there is nothing else to be said about rules broken here then lets get back on topic with fair contributions to the thread shall we?

Lead, don't police :)

-s

[LoTekK]

if a child buys a restricted game, then the penalty should be on the one who sold it to them. Im getting really tired of everyone saying "its the parents faults".. Jeez, is such an escapist answer to these complicated problems.
And where's he playing it? What lessons is he getting out of it? If he's getting the wrong lessons, that's squarely on the parents' shoulders. If you're not playing an active part in your child's development enough to care about what he/she is doing with his/her time, I suppose the natural response is to not want to take responsibility for their actions.

To be honest, what a lot of people are sick and tired of is parents trying to place the blame on anything but themselves. I never hear "I didn't spend enough time with him" or "I should have taught him better". Instead all we hear is "those evil videogames taught him to kill".

[Rebeccak]

Originally posted by Shawn: Just curious what the relevance of this post has to the entire topic? Are we violating any forum policies here by taking our "shots" at each others opinions in an argumentative fashion? I think this debate is quite healthy and all points across the board are being made quite well so if you are here to give a warning then do so in a more direct fashion.

If there is nothing else to be said about rules broken here then lets get back on topic with fair contributions to the thread shall we?

Lead, don't police :)
Originally posted by Shawn: cram it with walnuts. :thumbsup:
- Crude, derogatory, inappropriate, or disrespectful remarks aimed at any individual(s)
Offensive or unnecessarily abrasive comments directed at any individual are not tolerated in any form. These include anything from personal vendettas to unnecessarily insulting comments directed at the work of any individual. Critiques of work displayed should not include unnecessarily derogatory remarks (whether aimed at the user or the work itself) in any form.
Dear, you know the rules, having once been a mod. ;)

Cheers,

~Rebeccak

[EpShot]

By the existing legislation before this new law was passed, an M rated game couldn't be sold to a minor without a parents permission.

uh.. not true

[imashination]

You could still run over people and shoot police. Running peope over was probably worse in GTA1 since it didn't slow you down and if you ran over a large enough row of people you would get a big bonus.

Yeah, the newer 3d versions would be much better if they brought back the mass elvis murder bonus, although getting those last 2 was always difficult

[Arrghman]

uh.. not true

You're right, I did my research a little better. The ESRB rating system is apparently voluntary on part of the game stores.

But by a similar token, the MPAA movie rating system is also voluntary and not enforced by legislation. It is the same way with the television rating system which was created by the FCC but is not legally enforced, as far as I am aware. So my original point that games should be held to the same standard as movies and television still stands.

[M.E.L.]

Dear, you know the rules, having once been a mod. ;)


Hence how I know I've not crossed the line and violated any rules, though right now you are violating the Forum Leader Rules, might wanna go read that handbook again :)

Thanks for coming out, don't bother posting in this thread again unless it's on topic.

/end off-topic

EpShot is right, the ESRB bit is entirely voluntary based on the stores though now there is more pressure than ever on the ESRB checking but the certain fines and whatnot aren't really enforced much. I'm curious to see what happens here as the ESRB seemed to play a pass-the-buck in the last instance staking claims that they were lied to when they are obligated to play the entire game before labeling it.

[RobertoOrtiz]

Time for this thread to go bye bye...

-R