Buy and Bye

[Phryxus]

I was browsing the crazy net today and I ran across this thread in the Gamespot sub-forums, about one man's viewpoint on selling mature games to younger consumers. Now, most of the chat in there is either mindless drivel or incomprehensible ranting, but one point that was raised did bear some significance. Alongside the issue of violent videogames and their effects upon less developed minds, came one that I haven't seen considered anywhere else - is it actually our right, let alone our privilege, to tell people what they can or can't buy?

Of course, you may say, especially when it comes to dangerous and skill specific equipment, but if for example a parent ambled into your shop with child in tow, slapped down the most violent and inappropriate game on the counter and demanded it was in their son/daughter's best interests for them to have said product, either having no knowledge of its contents or complete recognition, would your obligation to point out the nature of the game still stand? Is it socially acceptable for you, the unknown, to place judgement upon them and influence their decision?

To break it down further, what I am also asking is whether it is acceptable for us to choose what is right for other people using our own guide-lines. Do we really have the ultimate power, if given the backing by the law, to decide for other people what they can and can't do? If such power does exist, should we be able to have it?

Depending on your own views and concerns, the answer to all of the above could be either crushingly simple or a philosophical nightmare, but in either case the little parable of the parent in the game store is only an instigator to the real debate. Many may have shrugged off such a question as either too trivial or inconsequential compared to the weekly events in the news, but in an era of shrinking civil liberties due to the ongoing 'war on terror' is this one right that we have slowly let slip from our grasp?

 

[Haven]

Ahhh rights and social contracts - the basis of any community and yet things that are thought about so little.

Before I go any further I ask this question.

Is a right given, implied or earnt ?

Yes it is relavent to the conversation at hand. For example if right are earnt by being an upstanding citizen then what about those who are not so upstanding. If a right is earnt by position of authority then who enforces such a thing. Is a right implied by being of a particular nationality, race, creed or religion ?

In short what gives you the right to anything ? If we can answer that question then we can surely answer the easy question of the example that you have given

 

[Phryxus]

That's an interesting thought Haven, and not one that I thought of before you mentioned it.

Having thought about your own question, I would imagine that any right, especially the one in question from my little anecdote, would be first implied then earnt/given and as a result accepted and acknowledged as the social norm. Whilst it may just seem like saying the same thing, as an example, in the case of the right to privacy, what was originally just an implied facet of humanity has been protected by law (to some extent) and has become fully recognised as a boon that we all possess.

To relate it to my first post, The right to live our own lives and make our own choices is, in my opinion, connected. While not fully recognised and empowered by the law, the freedoms which we retain from privacy would seem to carry on to the implied right to make our own personal decisions and those that affect everyone in our sphere of influence. To put it bluntly, if the right to live our own lives without interference from others is ours to keep, is not the ability to make choices without them being scrutinised (as long as they are of no danger and effect to unknowns)?

The problem with such implied freedoms I suppose, is that due to their unconfirmed status they are open to such interpretation, another one of those questions that has multiple answers.

 

[Blammo!]

Well in case of children, their minds are not yet developed enough to choose what's right for them and what's not. Of course there are some exceptions but you have to draw the line somewhere. The responsibility is with the parent but because parents can't always moniter what their children are doing (and are not always a good parent) we have these rules. If the parent think voilent video games are harmless (s)he can always go to the store with their child and buy the game.

 

[Wraith]

Well in case of children, their minds are not yet developed enough to choose what's right for them and what's not. Of course there are some exceptions but you have to draw the line somewhere. The responsibility is with the parent but because parents can't always moniter what their children are doing (and are not always a good parent) we have these rules. If the parent think voilent video games are harmless (s)he can always go to the store with their child and buy the game.

That's a fair point, but I think the sales assistant in that situation has a responsibility to ensure the parent understands the content of the game. The parent is the legal guardian and needs to have all the details in order to make an informed decision that has the best interests of their child in mind. I used to work in Game, and I lost track of the number of kids as young as 10 (yes ten) who brought their parents in to buy them GTA 3 / GTA Vice City. Nearly every single time I explained the content (often just the basic concept of "you play a criminal working for the Mafia") the parent would say the kid had told them it was "just" a "driving game". The kids clearly knew their parents would not approve and tried to trick them. I can only remember two occasions where the parent allowed the kid to have the game. And Phryxus, I don't think that by doing this you are "placing judgement on them to influence their decision. I don't doubt that knowing the full details of GTA influenced the parents decision, but so did the information provided by the kid in the first place.

To bring myself back to the original topic, I would suggest that, depending on the maturity of the individual minor, it sometimes is unfair to restrict the options of a child (using "child" in the "under - 18" sense). I would also suggest that some over 18's are not mature enough to handle some films/ games etc. However, the younger a person is, the less likely they are in general to be able to deal with the content maturely. With that in mind, a judgement had to be made as to what content is appropriate for which age group. I applaud the attempt to protect those who are too young to understand. I even think that standards have slackened as time progresses. A prime example of this would be The Excorcist. When it wa first released, the film was banned, but in recent years I have seen films with content which disturbed me significantly more than The Excorcist, yet have 15 (and in one case a 12) rating.

On Haven's question of rights, I think most rights are given, with a few being inherant. The Human Rights Act specifies that rights such as shelter, food, privacy and freedom are inherant and should be available to everyone. We are then given other rights through laws - i.e. the right of an over 18 to vote, the right to free, quality education etc. To answer the specific examples in Haven's post: 1) rights are not earned by being an upstanding citizen, they are lost by not being an upstanding citizen, and 2) rights earned by a position of authority are enforced (possibly only theoretically depending on your level of trust in the system ) by the democratic process.

Wraith

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

Why, it was on the Christmas of 1996 that my parents bought me my first Playstation - and Alien Trilogy 8) If it was 1996, then I was ... 8 years old when my parents introduced me to 18+ violent videogaming.
Ill be honest here, at first when I played the game I got so scared I actually asked my parents to lock it away (ha ha ha! oh the memories) but about a month down the line I asked for it back out and loved every minute of it. Who says kids cant make independent decisions?

Oh, in my parent's defence here - Alien Trilogy came in a bundle of games with the PS1 so it was the cheapest option, if not the wisest for their 8 and 6 yr old sons