Dec 3rd 2006 10:32AM @Curtis
want a tip? https://www.worldofwarcraft.com works just fine ;)
Aug 13th 2006 6:47PM I wonder how many uneducated people (by uneducated people I mean people who have no immediate background in the issue either by looking up previous research, the backgrounds of the parties in the debate, or even play and understand video games and the ratings that they are given) and think that Jack Thompson was the most rational and well presented one out of the three of them and are willing to agree with his stance.
That is the danger about having debates like these. They are aimed not at changing the minds of the people that they are against (heck I don't think that Jack Thompson would change his mind even if God himself came down from the heavens and proclaimed all games holy), but waving the opinions of those are trying to decide which side they are on or those who don't have a firm belief in the side that they've chose. If you pit a laywer whose job is to present his side of an argument as factual and professional and objective against a video game show host and the CEO of a videogame website, who do you think is going to win?
Granted I've, along with many other readers of these and many other gaming sites, have done our research and read up on not only the topic but the actual people who represent each side. I know how Thompson feels about games and gamers themselves and read his dialogue with many professionals and average gamers with up most disgust for his behavour. However he knows when it counts and the average person, even some of the avid gamers have no idea who he is.
When G4 managed to get Thompson into a debate, something that most of us have wanted to see for an increadibly long time now, they did it in the worst way possible. Yes I am aware that G4 is certainly not CNN or FOX or NBC but they finally had him in a place where not every spacecadet anchorperson would agree with every word he said. To me they should have give the debate a longer timeslot, and let other people who have done thier research and could represent us gamers in a profession and responsible mannor.
While I do appreciate Sesslers passionate response to Thompsons position, it wasn't the time or the place for it. Sure he had some good points but they get lost in the way he presented them. All Sessler managed to do was prove what Thompson has been saying all along, we are emotional idiots incapabable of presenting ourselves professionally.
I hope that the gaming community gets another chance to take on one of the biggest voice for game legislation, and this time instead of trying to say he's wrong, prove with facts and a professional argument that his grounds for game legislation is not just against the freedom of speech, but is not the solution to preventing under age violence and crime. We shouldn't have to hide behind freedom of speech with a topic like this. We should be able to show that it is not the answer that Thompson wants people to believe. If we can do that, we take away all of Thompson's power.