All alien and predator movies when i was seven, violence was never a issue and horrors were a fav of mine at that age, but sex had a zero tolerance.
Strangely in the Uk you can buy any game with a adult, even when they know its for you but if your by yourself you always need proof of age. Im 19 and still get id'd till they realize your looking down on them, have lazy stubble, with HCI and effective GUI book under my arm.
I was refused some random game a while back since my uni Id wasn't enough, so i went on there site on my phone in front of them and bought it for pickup in there shop. They couldn't refuse then~
The point is by the fact that the kid was there you suddenly shifted the responsibility onto Gamestop to enforce some moral agenda, not a legal issue like selling alcohol to a minor, a purely social issue of how someone should raise their kid.
And why not expect them to enforce that? It's a case of ethics. They know full well they should not be selling this game to minors, especially very young ones, as there is a big 18's sign on the box, and the game features probably slightly more explicit content then your average 18's game, so why not? I probably wouldn't have batted an eyelid if it was a copy of Skyrim the kid was getting, but I haven't played it so I am unaware if it contains violence as graphic as in MW3.
Kid was so young he should have been getting Sonic Generations tbh.
Maybe the child's behavior is being closely monitored? Have you thought of that? Maybe the game was a reward for getting straight A+ on his report card.
Maybe they're from a broken home, and they want to play some MW3 as a way of bonding with his older brother and cousins on the other side of the country who were torn away from him in a messy custody battle.
lol whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat! I like how you went with the sentimental option for the last one there.
Many games out this Christmas that feature multiplayer for those loved up family times that don't feature shooting a million Russians, children being blown up, and a very graphic strangulation scene.
Really? Expecting them to have a refusal policy when it comes to selling incredibly graphic games to children borders on insanity, does it? A game that features children getting blown up and a scene where a guy gets slowly and brutally strangled from a first person view? What if that kid then goes and tries to re-inact that on his kid sister, thinking he's only playing, just like the game, and goes too far? That's ok though, right? You're not affected. So you can just say, 'MEH, parents fault, next thread'.
And next thing you know we'll all be dying from radio-waves.
But seriously, freak accidents with kids involved are tragic and will happen no matter the source of inspiration, there's often been cases of childrens shows being banned or censored due to some accident happening that no one could have forseen, and the only way to prevent these things is to be there with your kid as he/she plays.
Even if a kid has not played any violent games he will still come to experience the very core of being human and being violent, and parents should be there to teach the kid right and wrong, or that kid might end up hurting someone.
And then again, any parent will come to experience his kid being involved in violence during their youth, it's something they do, but at the point they play games the parent need to be there and tell them about things like that, they should at that point learn about consequences.
Of course? Who is particularly blaming the sales rep? Its Gamestops policy that is fucked here. They should be instructing the sales reps to say 'sorry, no way'. But they aren't. Not because stupid parents is a good enough excuse (Its not) but they just want their 65 and fuck it if a strangled kid turns up on the news
cause some 9 year old saw Price do it to Makarov
.
We can't have that, books aren't censored or not sold to people, and I wouldn't want to experience a world where someone can't buy something because someone else decided that he should be a better parent to the kid, even when the parent is there to buy it for the kid.
And why not expect them to enforce that? It's a case of ethics. They know full well they should not be selling this game to minors, especially very young ones, as there is a big 18's sign on the box, and the game features probably slightly more explicit content then your average 18's game, so why not? I probably wouldn't have batted an eyelid if it was a copy of Skyrim the kid was getting, but I haven't played it so I am unaware if it contains violence as graphic as in MW3.
Kid was so young he should have been getting Sonic Generations tbh.
Should pharmacies stop fulfilling prescriptions for emergency contraception because a lot of people find it morally and ethically objectionable?
I'm all for the view that it's the entire responsibility of the parent. A shop is just a vendor, the parent made the purchase. It doesn't matter who else is present at the time. The same goes with supermarkets and it pisses me off when they will refuse to sell alcohol to someone of age (with identification) because they are accompanied by someone who isn't or does not.
It's not the responsibility of supermarket checkout staff to be judging my ability to make decisions or my morality, nor are they even vaguely qualified to do so in the first place.
As for censorship of books, they are censored. In case you've missed it, in both the US and the UK, you can serve jail time just for owning certain texts thanks to 'anti-terrorism laws'.
The conspiracy theorist in me wants to point out how all these things are slowly culminating in the removal of your ability to make your own informed decisions and placing them in the hands of random other people.
As for censorship of books, they are censored. In case you've missed it, in both the US and the UK, you can serve jail time just for owning certain texts thanks to 'anti-terrorism laws'.
Can you please link to the source of this because it's the first I've ever heard of it.
they should have been flat out denied a copy by the sales assistant
"As a employee at the church of Gamestop, I am morally obligated to refuse sale of this game to you and your son. I may not know him or anything about him, but clearly he is an impressionable idiot based on the age I have roughly guessed him to be. Might I suggest a Tickle Me Elmo doll instead?"
What if that kid then goes and tries to re-inact that on his kid sister, thinking he's only playing, just like the game, and goes too far?
This is the kind of thought process that leads to mass censorship, not just for kids, but adults as well. I'm pretty sure there's entire novels written on what's wrong with your thought process here.
Can you please link to the source of this because it's the first I've ever heard of it.
The law basically says that it is illegal to own information that may potentially be of interest to someone interested in commiting an act of terrorism. The text for it can be found here - but otherwise it's near impossible to find information about it: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000011.htm
Edit: Cock, they even make it so you can't link directly to it!
Here's another question for you Andreas if the first one was too hard:
What did you do about this situation while you were in the store? Did you speak up to the parent, lecture her on how damaging this game was? While you're at it lecture the employee on how he did the wrong thing too. Maybe you could have made a more compelling argument to this woman. If that failed you could have always grabbed the game and ran with it if it was that risky to the child. Or was your gut reaction to run home and ask polycount what it thinks?
Because it sounds like you and this gamestop employee did the exact same thing: You both witnessed a woman trying to buy a game for her kid that was probably ill advised...
The gamestop employee put the burden onto the parent so that he could accept it as "well this is the womans decision" without involving himself further.
You put the burden onto the employee so that you could accept it as "well this was the gamestop guys decision" without having to involve yourself at all.
You held the gamestop employee to a morally idealistic standard, blaming his acceptance of the situation on how they just want the money. What would you blame your own acceptance of the situation on?
The law basically says that it is illegal to own information that may potentially be of interest to someone interested in commiting an act of terrorism. The text for it can be found here - but otherwise it's near impossible to find information about it
Not that this is a condonement but has anyone actually been prosecuted for it? I'm not entirely sure how the judicial system works in the UK but I'm virtually 100% certain that would never fly in U.S. court which is why I find this so difficult to believe.
Should pharmacies stop fulfilling prescriptions for emergency contraception because a lot of people find it morally and ethically objectionable?
Well that's a silly argument... who is emergency contraception hurting exactly? What harm is it causing?
Are you seriously going to ask in return what harm there is in an 8 year old boy seeing a young girl getting blown up, and a man getting slowly and torturously strangled with a metal chord, while also having shot/blown up a million russians among the ruins of Europe after its had its population halved in a terrorist attack? :poly142:
For any parents on here who had kids in 2001... did you come into the room and see your kids watching 9/11 footage and change the channel to cartoons or something? Whats the difference here?
It all comes down to shielding children. Sure, a kid who has never played a violent videogame could turn out the be a serial killer and a kid who has played MW all his childhood could turn out to be a well adjusted person, but we are talking about just giving a shit enough about kids that we protect them from stuff they shouldnt be seeing.
Kids are gonna see shit, sure. They are gonna see violent movies at friends houses etc. But if you see your 8 year old sitting there playing MW3 and see nothing wrong with it, sorry, but you are a shit parent.
But we are getting off-topic; my original post was that I was shocked Gamestop didnt have a flat out refusal policy for certain games. Which they are in every right to have. It's just about giving a shit really, and very little people seem to anymore. Ho hum.
Well that's a silly argument... who is emergency contraception hurting exactly? What harm is it causing?
In scenario A you find something morally objectionable about the sale of an M rated game to a mother willing to give it to a child, so you expect other people to live up to your personal moral code.
In Scenario B a catholic bishop finds something morally objectionable about the sale of emergency contraception, so he expects others to live up to his personal moral code.
Edit: @Ambershee, wow you're right I managed to find it:
In 1997, Congress voted unanimously to add an amendment to a Department of Defense spending bill forbidding the distribution of instructions that teach "the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction" if those instructions are intended to assist in the actual building and use of such a device. This was known as Feinstein Amendment SP 419.
Edit: Good job on finding it - they do keep it well hidden, but it is in there! There are numerous small others in there too, that read similarly regarding various type of material (for potential example laws against material that could be construed as 'hate speech'). Amusingly, you could actually argue that a good high-school science textbook falls into that category...
Not that this is a condonement but has anyone actually been prosecuted for it? I'm not entirely sure how the judicial system works in the UK but I'm virtually 100% certain that would never fly in U.S. court which is why I find this so difficult to believe.
In the UK, yeah people have been convicted for it. The number is very small, but the number of arrests made using the law as an excuse numbers well into the thousands. I haven't followed the US situation, but as I understand it it is easier to arrest them using said law as an excuse, then just label them an 'enemy combatant' once they are in custody and transfer them over to Defence to process instead.
Blame parents 100%. When I think they are old enough mentally for it, I'll let them deal with it.
When I'm reading some news sites and it shows dead people (men/women/children), instead of covering it up, I'll answer his questions if he has any and he usually does. Violence in whatever medium(games/movies/TV) doesn't matter, he knows it's fake, but if I don't want him to see it, he won't see it. Sex in movies, don't try to cover it up as it's not the context of the movie and it's usually a short segment.
As a kid I knew what sex was all about: You put your wiener in the girl and pee in her. You keep peeing in her and eventually a baby comes out for some reason. This was passed around the playground. And this was sex. Sex and porn are not the same things. As a kid I thought it was, and that's something you don't want to ruin because porn hits so many different areas of satisfaction...
If I hadn't been exposed to porn at such a young age, I would not have developed the BBW/BWW lesbian-clown-cos play-crush-skat-Roman shower-pegging plushie-milk play-choking fetish. Thanks a lot dad.
Kids are gonna see shit, sure. They are gonna see violent movies at friends houses etc. But if you see your 8 year old sitting there playing MW3 and see nothing wrong with it, sorry, but you are a shit parent.
Parenting has little to do with that,
You can protect your kid against everything you imagine and still be the most shit parent, in fact, this is the most normal scenario of shitty parenting you'll find.
Or you can be a perfectly good parent, and sit there with your kid as he/she plays the game, and explain stuff, and learn the most basic rule of all time: fiction isn't real.
Look, what if an 8 yearold girl strangles her sister to death, thinking she's just playing, because she thinks it's okay to take emergency contraception? I don't think you're going to be cracking joke when that happens!
I have one of the awful retail jobs, and this is such a silly thread I can't even understand how it got this long. As a sales rep your job is to provide the customer a service, not pass arbitrary moral judgements on them. Denying someone access to a product because you made some judgement on their lifestyle is such a ludicrous idea.
Minors are not sold these products because they do not have legal rights, only their guardians are legally empowered to make these choices. But with very few exceptions, adults are allowed to purchase whatever they want.
It would be tremendously immoral and wrong to deny people access to certain things or services just because of the type of person you think they are -- Can i refuse to sell a product to a bad parent, or to a homosexual, or to a woman, because it's not meant for them?
Protect the children and all, yeah, but the steps you're proposing are so backwards and wrong.
One problem I see here is people are assigning "blame" to the parent as if some sort of wrong doing has taken place. The clerk explained the situation to the parent. The parent decided that, no, this kid can handle the game so I'm buying it for them. The word you're looking for is "responsibility" which means much the same thing but has much better connotations.
A saw a parent bring their son into a record store yesterday and buy him an Elvis album! The clerk warned the parent that Elvis's gyrating hips would surely condemn the young lad to a life of perversion and devil worship but she bought it anyway!
To throw some anecdotal evidence into the ring: A family friend has 3 young kids, 6, 9, and 11, all boys. They're assholes, they're spoiled and obnoxious. They have a ps3, and among other games, mw2. They're not violent, they dont freak out when they play it, they aren't fixated on the graphic nature at all, and the one who plays the most videogames would much rather play stuff like lego batman most of the time anyway. If there's some kind of deep emotional wounding going on because they played some cartoony tacticool bullshit videogame I certainly couldn't see it. The other factors in their life -- their family, their parents, their friends -- you know, the ones more important than mediocre videogames -- seemed to effect their behavior a hell of a lot more.
As a sales rep your job is to provide the customer a service, not pass arbitrary moral judgements on them. Denying someone access to a product because you made some judgement on their lifestyle is such a ludicrous idea.
Bingo. Please inform Walmart / Tesco / Sainsburys / equally large chain superstore on this obvious observation that they repeatedly seem to miss
Bingo. Please inform Walmart / Tesco / Sainsburys / equally large chain superstore on this obvious observation that they repeatedly seem to miss
The same thing cuts both ways -- when you get bad service at walmart, its because the person providing that service is paid minimum wage -- barely enough to support one person in most of the country -- to bend over backwards and serve your every need. Probably they're not going to actually do that! But at least they'll sell you mw3, as long as you can produce ID.
This kid could get MW3 today but i couldn't even get Metroid prime when it released...its was rated T
i blame the guys at the register not only at game stop but every where that sells games they all have there own opinion when making a sell policy or not. Theres 3 game stops in my area 2 are well rounded and get shit done while one needs to be removed. They ask my mother for ID or my friends mother for ID when purchasing a M/AO game they look old as hell but still need an ID but i never seen them ask the College students for ID, i was Asked once but after that never again.
At the better game stops they ask you every time and put you out if your not buying anything
For any parents on here who had kids in 2001... did you come into the room and see your kids watching 9/11 footage and change the channel to cartoons or something? Whats the difference here?
Kids are gonna see shit, sure. They are gonna see violent movies at friends houses etc. But if you see your 8 year old sitting there playing MW3 and see nothing wrong with it, sorry, but you are a shit parent.
But we are getting off-topic; my original post was that I was shocked Gamestop didnt have a flat out refusal policy for certain games. Which they are in every right to have. It's just about giving a shit really, and very little people seem to anymore. Ho hum.
Ok... I didn't want to go this route but Andreas you have gone "FULL RETARD!" Seriously. You literally just compared the real events of 9/11 to make believe in a video game. If you don't think there is a difference then you are sorely mistaken.
Why are you a shit parent if you think your child is grown up enough to understand the difference between real life and fantasy of video games.
Let's take your theory about this and use this example. Am I a shit parent if I let my son watch Star Wars? Planets blown up? People sliced up by light sabers, x-wings crashing, Death Star filled with millions blown to bits, Ewoks slaughtered by evil troops?
OR how about Lord of the Rings?
Seriously your argument for anything here is horrible and this whole thought process is a major reason why our world has so many issues. Parents should be the parents. I don't need some god damn Game Stop, Best Buy, Sears, or Target employee telling me a fucking thing about what I should or shouldn't do. It is MY decision. Not yours, not the store managers. MINE
The issue is when it comes to the aforementioned 'purchasing alcohol when accompanied by a minor'. It would seem company policy has decided that I wouldn't be fit to make appropriate decisions about what I would like to (legally) purchase.
Why is Game Stop to blame? FUCK THAT! It's the parents decision here. No one elses. So tired of people think it's someone elses fault. Oh my god McDonalds made my kids fat!!! Fuck that! It is the parents fault and their decision.
If this mother feels her son is mature enough to play and I'm sure he has already played then that is up to her.
I played mk and all the other games as a kid and was taught the difference between reality and fantasy.
er... while i agree that on the one hand it's down to the parent, in this instance it's really both parties at fault.
if this were tobacco product or alcohol, the parent would be fined, and the store clerk fired and fined.
if this were a pornographic movie, the parent would be fined, and the store clerk fired and fined.
the ONLY reason this doesn't always happen with games, is that the majority of games only recieve ESRB ratings, which are a form of self restriction, and aren't "legally binding". if however they had the big red "15" label on the front it would be a different matter.
edit: this is coming from the perspective of someone who worked for Gamestation, in the UK, our equivilent of Gamestop i think.
if a game has one of the symbols seen on the right hand side of this site: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/ then it's illegal to serve that game to a person under the age restriction present OR a person you suspect to be supplying a person under the age restriction present.
HOWEVER, if the game has one of these symbols: http://www.esrb.org/index-js.jsp then the clerk needs to only advise the parent or young person of it's content, it is not a legally binding thing.
the ONLY reason this doesn't always happen with games, is that the majority of games only recieve ESRB ratings, which are a form of self restriction, and aren't "legally binding". if however they had the big red "15" label on the front it would be a different matter.
And it isnt legally binding because it's media and most of the west accepts that censorship is morally appalling.
the ONLY reason this doesn't always happen with games, is that the majority of games only recieve ESRB ratings, which are a form of self restriction, and aren't "legally binding"
Nope. The fact that the system is voluntary is irrelevant (in the United States at least.)
Some of you may remember a while back the Supreme Court ruled that video games were protected as free speech... well that decision was the result of a law California passed to do precisely what you just described -- criminalize the sale of violent video games to minors.
But unlike tobacco and alcohol; Video games are like movies, music, and books, which fall under protected speech. You cannot criminalize their sale to minors unless they're pornographic (which is yet another matter all together...)
if a game has one of the symbols seen on the right hand side of this site: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/ then it's illegal to serve that game to a person under the age restriction present OR a person you suspect to be supplying a person under the age restriction present.
Maybe from a distinctly american perspective, but that's pretty horrifying to me. Government deeming creative media illegal to consume in certain ways is pretty much the only place that crosses a line and gets me really caring about politics.
The notion that a governing body of individuals can tell me what books, films, and games i'm allowed to view or let people under my care view is completely disgusting.
So the mother bought the game for her kid big deal? I am glad I'm not your kid, or employee.
and for those wondering why parent's don't let their kids watch porn but let their kids play violent video games.... Look at teenage pregnancy statistics vs. Kid going on a rampage because of video game statistics. You will notice a difference :thumbup:
Andreas... how old are you? Seriously? Reason for this is because if this makes you so outraged yet you did nothing and just stood by and watched then aren't you in fact part of the problem that you have with how the system works?
I actually have a good example from my own experiences kinda like this. My wifes brought our son into best buy with her to pick up games for me as a surprise.. He's 6 and he put a mature rated title that I had wanted on the counter for the lady at the register. Was my wife buying it for him? No. Should some person deny that sale because of these very circumstances? NO. Why should they?
Look at teenage pregnancy statistics vs. Kid going on a rampage because of video game statistics.
See, now you realize the horrors of contraceptions! We should not teach our kids about sex or condoms in school, it will only unleash their baby making abilities!
And yet... everybody else seems to disagree with you. Apparently this is 100% down the parents. So, the sale is the parents fault, but the fact that the kid actually plays it isnt?
:poly142:
This chick was a Malaysian woman, not a fucking word of english (her daughter had to translate what the clerk was saying). She didn't exactly seem to be 'city folk' either. I'm not trying to be offensive here. But she was a little on the simpler side. I'm sure she loves her son, and I can understand not wanting to dissapoint him. But if she sees him playing
a goddamn QTE event where you smash Makarovs head against glass and then strangle him, before lighting a cigar,
I guarantee you she will feel the clerk did not express himself well enough on what this game contained.
Gamestops policy should be to say no if its that clear that a game this violent will be played by a child. I'm not even talking about all games that have a higher age rating, though the warnings should still be given to the parents. But games like Manhunt, GTA, MW3 and any others that go beyond what I would consider to be bog standard adult entertainment should not be provided to minors that ridiculously young by any retailer who had knowledge that this is what is going to happen. It's really simple.
If it was me, I would have flat out said no, irrespective of company policy, no one was around to hear anyway. If I was working in an off-licence and a mother came in and asked me for a bottle of jack that was for her 8 year old son, I'd tell her to fuck off too. Same if I worked in a porno shop, or if I worked in gun shop and a woman came in wanting to buy her son a desert eagle which he was going to play with completely unsupervised. Different examples, and wildly different levels of danger to the child involved, but its the same principle.
I am a supervisor in a store. ANY age related sale should be refused IF they think it is being bought for the minor in question. If a ten year old comes to me with an 18 video game, or even a pack of paracetamol I am obliged to refuse them BY LAW or I stand at risk of being fined up to a few thousand quid, losing my job and losing the stores license.
However using the kid and mother situation as an example this is dirty water as with most things you cant totally say its a yes or no situation You have to use intuition. If the kid says I want that beer then you have good grounds to assume they are buying it for a minor and parent or not you as the sales clerk have the right to refuse sale. If you even THINK they may be buying it for a minor then you have the right to refuse the sale (or let anothe rmember of staff sell it to them if they are willing to).
In this case IF it was obvious it was for the child in question (i wasnt there so I can only assume it was obvious) then the salesperson had no business selling that game and infact was blatantly breaking the law by doing so. If this had happend infront of police or infront of senior staff (if they even give a sh*t about the law) then he would at least get an £80 fine on the spot. It has actually happend to me before.
As said above the kid putting the game on the counter is not proof that it is for them, but common sense would suggest in most cases (at least when reading it in this context) that if the kid is holding the game then chances are it is theirs and infact just letting the child hold the game at all in the store would be grounds enough to refuse the sale.
Also as a note the clerk is under no obligation to tell customers if the game is suitable or not. That is the customers responsibility. The only thing at fault here is the sale itself which if it was for the child was totally illegal (and lets face it, it probably was)
And yet... everybody else seems to disagree with you. Apparently this is 100% down the parents. So, the sale is the parents fault, but the fact that the kid actually plays it isnt?
You missed my point there,
bad parenting can happen without the game involved, and good parenting can happen WITH the game involved.
The uber perfect family could all be involved in a deathmatch of modern warfare 3 and they could be the most happy and normal family ever.
In this scenario the parent has to take responsibility, and in the case of buying a violent game that the child wants, be present when he/she plays it, know what your child is doing and what games he/she plays, get involved.
You missed my point there,
bad parenting can happen without the game involved, and good parenting can happen WITH the game involved.
The uber perfect family could all be involved in a deathmatch of modern warfare 3 and they could be the most happy and normal family ever.
In this scenario the parent has to take responsibility, and in the case of buying a violent game that the child wants, be present when he/she plays it, know what your child is doing and what games he/she plays, get involved.
Right, it isn't up to gamestop to decide what is and isn't good parenting. Its a completely impossible judgement to make.
Yes it is the parents responsibility. Had they been denied the sale they would have just walked across the street to Wal Mart and bought it there. Now if the child had been by himself, that would have been different. And plus a warning to the parent is more than adequate. The clerk could have not said anything at all. In the end it is up to the parents.
For the record, I was not allowed to play M games until 17.
I actually played a game called Nerf Arena Blast which was basically Unreal Tournament re-skinned with Nerf guns! :P
It still had the great game play that Unreal Tournament had.
That game actually is what sparked my interest in the industry. Because it even came with it's own version of UnrealEd, or NerfEd.
Apart from satisfying your own moral compass, there's not much point denying a sale if the parent is the one buying it. They think their child will be okay playing it, and it's up to them. Denying them is just making it a big deal for everyone. You can just order it online or buy off steam/origin if it's on pc.
Ok... I didn't want to go this route but Andreas you have gone "FULL RETARD!" Seriously. You literally just compared the real events of 9/11 to make believe in a video game. If you don't think there is a difference then you are sorely mistaken.
I'm not talking about real events vs games, I'm talking about what is suitable for a child to witness, and what isn't. You following now?
Seriously your argument for anything here is horrible and this whole thought process is a major reason why our world has so many issues.
Ironically, it's the exact opposite. The world has so many problems because Americans scream about how they have the right to say and do whatever the hell they want cause some old piece of paper says so. KKK marches are fucking LEGAL in your country. Think about that when you say my world view is messed up just cause I think companies should make a tiny effort that wouldn't even affect them in order to protect a few kids from seeing this
If Star Wars involved showing Ben Kenobi's death from a first person view, with blood gushing from his neck as he gags on it, then smashed against glass, then hanged, then Vader pulls out a cigar and says 'Job Done', ALL THE WHILE WITH THE VIEWER INPUTTING THESE ACTIONS, then yes, Star Wars would be inappropriate for a child to take part in.
LOL, Your extremely subjective moral argument is silly!
Mine is just and right!
Talk about being a hypocrite.
Thanks EQ.
Forgive me but I think there is a difference between being a religious nutjob, and a guy who just thinks that kids should be protected from some things that their little brains aren't properly ready to process.
Andreas... how old are you? Seriously? Reason for this is because if this makes you so outraged yet you did nothing and just stood by and watched then aren't you in fact part of the problem that you have with how the system works?
Porno is well shouldn't be sold or given to kids at any point...
lol. Oh man. So, can you explain to me why a kid can witness the content of the video I posted, but not of two people doin it. Are you from the south by any chance? Religious?
This really is not a moral dilemma, it is against the law plain and simple. Wether or not you let your child play the game is completely up to you as the parent. But in this instance selling the game was completely wrong. Personally the biggest thing that annoys me about this is that the clerk and evengamestop clearly has no respect for the industry as they dont take the age ratings seriously. Its like 'this is an 18 rated game' *wink* That attitude drives me mad, on one hand parents go mad saying we are destroying their childrens minds then on the other they buy them the games in the first place which are clearly marked and even the stores wont stop them and yet WE are the bad guys in this?
We meaning developers btw, I know im not in industry yet.
Replies
Strangely in the Uk you can buy any game with a adult, even when they know its for you but if your by yourself you always need proof of age. Im 19 and still get id'd till they realize your looking down on them, have lazy stubble, with HCI and effective GUI book under my arm.
I was refused some random game a while back since my uni Id wasn't enough, so i went on there site on my phone in front of them and bought it for pickup in there shop. They couldn't refuse then~
And why not expect them to enforce that? It's a case of ethics. They know full well they should not be selling this game to minors, especially very young ones, as there is a big 18's sign on the box, and the game features probably slightly more explicit content then your average 18's game, so why not? I probably wouldn't have batted an eyelid if it was a copy of Skyrim the kid was getting, but I haven't played it so I am unaware if it contains violence as graphic as in MW3.
Kid was so young he should have been getting Sonic Generations tbh.
Harmful materials being sold to (very young) minors? Would have thought that was an obvious comparison...
lol whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat! I like how you went with the sentimental option for the last one there.
Many games out this Christmas that feature multiplayer for those loved up family times that don't feature shooting a million Russians, children being blown up, and a very graphic strangulation scene.
And next thing you know we'll all be dying from radio-waves.
But seriously, freak accidents with kids involved are tragic and will happen no matter the source of inspiration, there's often been cases of childrens shows being banned or censored due to some accident happening that no one could have forseen, and the only way to prevent these things is to be there with your kid as he/she plays.
Even if a kid has not played any violent games he will still come to experience the very core of being human and being violent, and parents should be there to teach the kid right and wrong, or that kid might end up hurting someone.
And then again, any parent will come to experience his kid being involved in violence during their youth, it's something they do, but at the point they play games the parent need to be there and tell them about things like that, they should at that point learn about consequences.
We can't have that, books aren't censored or not sold to people, and I wouldn't want to experience a world where someone can't buy something because someone else decided that he should be a better parent to the kid, even when the parent is there to buy it for the kid.
all i have to say
It's not the responsibility of supermarket checkout staff to be judging my ability to make decisions or my morality, nor are they even vaguely qualified to do so in the first place.
As for censorship of books, they are censored. In case you've missed it, in both the US and the UK, you can serve jail time just for owning certain texts thanks to 'anti-terrorism laws'.
The conspiracy theorist in me wants to point out how all these things are slowly culminating in the removal of your ability to make your own informed decisions and placing them in the hands of random other people.
"As a employee at the church of Gamestop, I am morally obligated to refuse sale of this game to you and your son. I may not know him or anything about him, but clearly he is an impressionable idiot based on the age I have roughly guessed him to be. Might I suggest a Tickle Me Elmo doll instead?"
This is the kind of thought process that leads to mass censorship, not just for kids, but adults as well. I'm pretty sure there's entire novels written on what's wrong with your thought process here.
The law basically says that it is illegal to own information that may potentially be of interest to someone interested in commiting an act of terrorism. The text for it can be found here - but otherwise it's near impossible to find information about it:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000011.htm
Edit: Cock, they even make it so you can't link directly to it!
Edit 2: Try this one:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/contents
There's a similar thing in the US, but it's probably also pretty well hidden, probably in something like the USA PATRIOT act.
edit: ack, missed a page.
What did you do about this situation while you were in the store? Did you speak up to the parent, lecture her on how damaging this game was? While you're at it lecture the employee on how he did the wrong thing too. Maybe you could have made a more compelling argument to this woman. If that failed you could have always grabbed the game and ran with it if it was that risky to the child. Or was your gut reaction to run home and ask polycount what it thinks?
Because it sounds like you and this gamestop employee did the exact same thing: You both witnessed a woman trying to buy a game for her kid that was probably ill advised...
The gamestop employee put the burden onto the parent so that he could accept it as "well this is the womans decision" without involving himself further.
You put the burden onto the employee so that you could accept it as "well this was the gamestop guys decision" without having to involve yourself at all.
You held the gamestop employee to a morally idealistic standard, blaming his acceptance of the situation on how they just want the money. What would you blame your own acceptance of the situation on?
Not that this is a condonement but has anyone actually been prosecuted for it? I'm not entirely sure how the judicial system works in the UK but I'm virtually 100% certain that would never fly in U.S. court which is why I find this so difficult to believe.
Well that's a silly argument... who is emergency contraception hurting exactly? What harm is it causing?
Are you seriously going to ask in return what harm there is in an 8 year old boy seeing a young girl getting blown up, and a man getting slowly and torturously strangled with a metal chord, while also having shot/blown up a million russians among the ruins of Europe after its had its population halved in a terrorist attack? :poly142:
For any parents on here who had kids in 2001... did you come into the room and see your kids watching 9/11 footage and change the channel to cartoons or something? Whats the difference here?
It all comes down to shielding children. Sure, a kid who has never played a violent videogame could turn out the be a serial killer and a kid who has played MW all his childhood could turn out to be a well adjusted person, but we are talking about just giving a shit enough about kids that we protect them from stuff they shouldnt be seeing.
Kids are gonna see shit, sure. They are gonna see violent movies at friends houses etc. But if you see your 8 year old sitting there playing MW3 and see nothing wrong with it, sorry, but you are a shit parent.
But we are getting off-topic; my original post was that I was shocked Gamestop didnt have a flat out refusal policy for certain games. Which they are in every right to have. It's just about giving a shit really, and very little people seem to anymore. Ho hum.
It's up to the parents to educate their childreen the way they see fit, that's the way it is.
In Scenario B a catholic bishop finds something morally objectionable about the sale of emergency contraception, so he expects others to live up to his personal moral code.
Edit: @Ambershee, wow you're right I managed to find it: Disappointing to say the least.
In the UK, yeah people have been convicted for it. The number is very small, but the number of arrests made using the law as an excuse numbers well into the thousands. I haven't followed the US situation, but as I understand it it is easier to arrest them using said law as an excuse, then just label them an 'enemy combatant' once they are in custody and transfer them over to Defence to process instead.
When I'm reading some news sites and it shows dead people (men/women/children), instead of covering it up, I'll answer his questions if he has any and he usually does. Violence in whatever medium(games/movies/TV) doesn't matter, he knows it's fake, but if I don't want him to see it, he won't see it. Sex in movies, don't try to cover it up as it's not the context of the movie and it's usually a short segment.
As a kid I knew what sex was all about: You put your wiener in the girl and pee in her. You keep peeing in her and eventually a baby comes out for some reason. This was passed around the playground. And this was sex. Sex and porn are not the same things. As a kid I thought it was, and that's something you don't want to ruin because porn hits so many different areas of satisfaction...
If I hadn't been exposed to porn at such a young age, I would not have developed the BBW/BWW lesbian-clown-cos play-crush-skat-Roman shower-pegging plushie-milk play-choking fetish. Thanks a lot dad.
Parenting has little to do with that,
You can protect your kid against everything you imagine and still be the most shit parent, in fact, this is the most normal scenario of shitty parenting you'll find.
Or you can be a perfectly good parent, and sit there with your kid as he/she plays the game, and explain stuff, and learn the most basic rule of all time: fiction isn't real.
LOL, Your extremely subjective moral argument is silly!
Mine is just and right!
Talk about being a hypocrite.
I have one of the awful retail jobs, and this is such a silly thread I can't even understand how it got this long. As a sales rep your job is to provide the customer a service, not pass arbitrary moral judgements on them. Denying someone access to a product because you made some judgement on their lifestyle is such a ludicrous idea.
Minors are not sold these products because they do not have legal rights, only their guardians are legally empowered to make these choices. But with very few exceptions, adults are allowed to purchase whatever they want.
It would be tremendously immoral and wrong to deny people access to certain things or services just because of the type of person you think they are -- Can i refuse to sell a product to a bad parent, or to a homosexual, or to a woman, because it's not meant for them?
Protect the children and all, yeah, but the steps you're proposing are so backwards and wrong.
Bingo. Please inform Walmart / Tesco / Sainsburys / equally large chain superstore on this obvious observation that they repeatedly seem to miss
The same thing cuts both ways -- when you get bad service at walmart, its because the person providing that service is paid minimum wage -- barely enough to support one person in most of the country -- to bend over backwards and serve your every need. Probably they're not going to actually do that! But at least they'll sell you mw3, as long as you can produce ID.
i blame the guys at the register not only at game stop but every where that sells games they all have there own opinion when making a sell policy or not. Theres 3 game stops in my area 2 are well rounded and get shit done while one needs to be removed. They ask my mother for ID or my friends mother for ID when purchasing a M/AO game they look old as hell but still need an ID but i never seen them ask the College students for ID, i was Asked once but after that never again.
At the better game stops they ask you every time and put you out if your not buying anything
Ok... I didn't want to go this route but Andreas you have gone "FULL RETARD!" Seriously. You literally just compared the real events of 9/11 to make believe in a video game. If you don't think there is a difference then you are sorely mistaken.
Why are you a shit parent if you think your child is grown up enough to understand the difference between real life and fantasy of video games.
Let's take your theory about this and use this example. Am I a shit parent if I let my son watch Star Wars? Planets blown up? People sliced up by light sabers, x-wings crashing, Death Star filled with millions blown to bits, Ewoks slaughtered by evil troops?
OR how about Lord of the Rings?
Seriously your argument for anything here is horrible and this whole thought process is a major reason why our world has so many issues. Parents should be the parents. I don't need some god damn Game Stop, Best Buy, Sears, or Target employee telling me a fucking thing about what I should or shouldn't do. It is MY decision. Not yours, not the store managers. MINE
er... while i agree that on the one hand it's down to the parent, in this instance it's really both parties at fault.
if this were tobacco product or alcohol, the parent would be fined, and the store clerk fired and fined.
if this were a pornographic movie, the parent would be fined, and the store clerk fired and fined.
the ONLY reason this doesn't always happen with games, is that the majority of games only recieve ESRB ratings, which are a form of self restriction, and aren't "legally binding". if however they had the big red "15" label on the front it would be a different matter.
edit: this is coming from the perspective of someone who worked for Gamestation, in the UK, our equivilent of Gamestop i think.
Porno is well shouldn't be sold or given to kids at any point...
if a game has one of the symbols seen on the right hand side of this site: http://www.bbfc.co.uk/ then it's illegal to serve that game to a person under the age restriction present OR a person you suspect to be supplying a person under the age restriction present.
HOWEVER, if the game has one of these symbols: http://www.esrb.org/index-js.jsp then the clerk needs to only advise the parent or young person of it's content, it is not a legally binding thing.
again, this is speaking from a UK point of view.
And it isnt legally binding because it's media and most of the west accepts that censorship is morally appalling.
Some of you may remember a while back the Supreme Court ruled that video games were protected as free speech... well that decision was the result of a law California passed to do precisely what you just described -- criminalize the sale of violent video games to minors.
But unlike tobacco and alcohol; Video games are like movies, music, and books, which fall under protected speech. You cannot criminalize their sale to minors unless they're pornographic (which is yet another matter all together...)
Maybe from a distinctly american perspective, but that's pretty horrifying to me. Government deeming creative media illegal to consume in certain ways is pretty much the only place that crosses a line and gets me really caring about politics.
The notion that a governing body of individuals can tell me what books, films, and games i'm allowed to view or let people under my care view is completely disgusting.
Yeah that's my biggest issue with all of this... Was it new or used? Did our industry at least get a cut?
and for those wondering why parent's don't let their kids watch porn but let their kids play violent video games.... Look at teenage pregnancy statistics vs. Kid going on a rampage because of video game statistics. You will notice a difference :thumbup:
I actually have a good example from my own experiences kinda like this. My wifes brought our son into best buy with her to pick up games for me as a surprise.. He's 6 and he put a mature rated title that I had wanted on the counter for the lady at the register. Was my wife buying it for him? No. Should some person deny that sale because of these very circumstances? NO. Why should they?
See, now you realize the horrors of contraceptions! We should not teach our kids about sex or condoms in school, it will only unleash their baby making abilities!
Do you really need me to answer that. Are you going to go on about how violent jumping on a mushrooms head is?
And yet... everybody else seems to disagree with you. Apparently this is 100% down the parents. So, the sale is the parents fault, but the fact that the kid actually plays it isnt?
:poly142:
This chick was a Malaysian woman, not a fucking word of english (her daughter had to translate what the clerk was saying). She didn't exactly seem to be 'city folk' either. I'm not trying to be offensive here. But she was a little on the simpler side. I'm sure she loves her son, and I can understand not wanting to dissapoint him. But if she sees him playing
Gamestops policy should be to say no if its that clear that a game this violent will be played by a child. I'm not even talking about all games that have a higher age rating, though the warnings should still be given to the parents. But games like Manhunt, GTA, MW3 and any others that go beyond what I would consider to be bog standard adult entertainment should not be provided to minors that ridiculously young by any retailer who had knowledge that this is what is going to happen. It's really simple.
If it was me, I would have flat out said no, irrespective of company policy, no one was around to hear anyway. If I was working in an off-licence and a mother came in and asked me for a bottle of jack that was for her 8 year old son, I'd tell her to fuck off too. Same if I worked in a porno shop, or if I worked in gun shop and a woman came in wanting to buy her son a desert eagle which he was going to play with completely unsupervised. Different examples, and wildly different levels of danger to the child involved, but its the same principle.
However using the kid and mother situation as an example this is dirty water as with most things you cant totally say its a yes or no situation You have to use intuition. If the kid says I want that beer then you have good grounds to assume they are buying it for a minor and parent or not you as the sales clerk have the right to refuse sale. If you even THINK they may be buying it for a minor then you have the right to refuse the sale (or let anothe rmember of staff sell it to them if they are willing to).
In this case IF it was obvious it was for the child in question (i wasnt there so I can only assume it was obvious) then the salesperson had no business selling that game and infact was blatantly breaking the law by doing so. If this had happend infront of police or infront of senior staff (if they even give a sh*t about the law) then he would at least get an £80 fine on the spot. It has actually happend to me before.
As said above the kid putting the game on the counter is not proof that it is for them, but common sense would suggest in most cases (at least when reading it in this context) that if the kid is holding the game then chances are it is theirs and infact just letting the child hold the game at all in the store would be grounds enough to refuse the sale.
Also as a note the clerk is under no obligation to tell customers if the game is suitable or not. That is the customers responsibility. The only thing at fault here is the sale itself which if it was for the child was totally illegal (and lets face it, it probably was)
You missed my point there,
bad parenting can happen without the game involved, and good parenting can happen WITH the game involved.
The uber perfect family could all be involved in a deathmatch of modern warfare 3 and they could be the most happy and normal family ever.
In this scenario the parent has to take responsibility, and in the case of buying a violent game that the child wants, be present when he/she plays it, know what your child is doing and what games he/she plays, get involved.
Right, it isn't up to gamestop to decide what is and isn't good parenting. Its a completely impossible judgement to make.
For the record, I was not allowed to play M games until 17.
I actually played a game called Nerf Arena Blast which was basically Unreal Tournament re-skinned with Nerf guns! :P
It still had the great game play that Unreal Tournament had.
That game actually is what sparked my interest in the industry. Because it even came with it's own version of UnrealEd, or NerfEd.
Look it up, it's interesting.
I'm not talking about real events vs games, I'm talking about what is suitable for a child to witness, and what isn't. You following now?
Ironically, it's the exact opposite. The world has so many problems because Americans scream about how they have the right to say and do whatever the hell they want cause some old piece of paper says so. KKK marches are fucking LEGAL in your country. Think about that when you say my world view is messed up just cause I think companies should make a tiny effort that wouldn't even affect them in order to protect a few kids from seeing this
[ame="
If Star Wars involved showing Ben Kenobi's death from a first person view, with blood gushing from his neck as he gags on it, then smashed against glass, then hanged, then Vader pulls out a cigar and says 'Job Done', ALL THE WHILE WITH THE VIEWER INPUTTING THESE ACTIONS, then yes, Star Wars would be inappropriate for a child to take part in.
Thanks EQ.
Forgive me but I think there is a difference between being a religious nutjob, and a guy who just thinks that kids should be protected from some things that their little brains aren't properly ready to process.
I said something to the clerk. I am 27.
lol. Oh man. So, can you explain to me why a kid can witness the content of the video I posted, but not of two people doin it. Are you from the south by any chance? Religious?
We meaning developers btw, I know im not in industry yet.