< PrevNext >11-17 of 17

Atkinson graciously allows free speech

posted by Chris Prior, 3 Feb 2010
After only a few hours of public outrage at his most recent attempt to limit free speech, Michael Atkinson has backed down. He has promised to repeal the legislation after the election, and not enforce it during this electoral period. Given the Rann Government's history of sticking to election promises (for example, regarding the banning of political advertising with public funds) we're not going to forget this ill-fated attack on civil liberties by the people who should be representing us.

Whether or not you trust Mr Atkinson to keep his word, this is an example of the kind of power the people can have over government. Mr Atkinson and his party have been handed a humiliating reminder of just how reliant they are on staying in the people's good graces.

Let's keep up the fight, keep up the pressure, and keep working toward another "humiliating" backdown from Mr Atkinson.

We game, we vote.

My name is Chris Prior, and I'm a Gamer4Croydon.

SA Government attacks free speech

posted by Chris Prior, 2 Feb 2010
South Australia was one of the pioneers of the secret ballot, acknowledging the importance of being able to express political opinion without being judged for it - or worse. Spitting in the face of South Australia's proud history as a democratic trailblazer, the Rann government (with the collaboration of the Liberal party) has modified the Electoral Act to shred the right to anonymity.

Now, whenever a South Australian writes a comment about a political matter during an election period, they must provide their full name and address. With accusations of government MPs threatening their constituents with legal action for expressing dissent, it is not difficult to imagine a possible motivation for these changes.

Already this state lacks an independent corruption watchdog to oversee its elected officials, and now those same officials want personal information from members of the public who disagree with them. The Rann government cannot be trusted with the civil liberties of South Australians, and Ms Redmond's Liberal party seems unable - or unwilling - to defend those liberties.

This is your chance - maybe your last - to be heard. Speak freely with your vote on March 20. Vote for Gamers4Croydon for accountability in government and civil liberties for all South Australians, not just those in Parliament.


We game, we vote.

My name is Chris Prior, and I'm a Gamer4Croydon.

Candidates Announced

posted by Chris Prior, 23 Jan 2010
There's been a lot of speculation from all corners about who our candidates are going to be. While they're not all decided yet, two have been.

The name everyone's been waiting for - that of our Croydon candidate - is Kat Nicholson. She has sustained a lifelong love of both gaming and politics and is a highly intelligent, motivated and educated young woman. She is passionate about Adelaide and its capacity for innovation and growth, and is certain that the ever-changing area in which the seat of Croydon lies is a potential beacon for the rest of the state.

Not everyone lives in Croydon though, which makes it hard for all our supporters to vote for us. So we're running a candidate for the Legislative Council - Chris Prior. A programmer with a passion for politics dating back since before he can remember, he aims to be a candidate for all South Australians who expect more from their government. He will fight for more openness in government, tighter controls to prevent the abuse of power and a fair go for everyone.

The full blurbs and contact details for our candidates can be found on our candidate page.

We game, we vote.

My name is Chris Prior, and I'm a Gamer4Croydon.

New site, same determination

posted by David Doe, 22 Jan 2010
Hello and welcome to the all-singing, all-dancing, new and improved, actually put together by someone with programming skills, Gamers4Croydon website.

In the top right corner, you should see a "Contact your Federal MP" area. If you enter your postcode, you will be told who your current Federal MP is, and it will give you the option to send them an email. You can use our mail template, or you can write it yourself. In either case, the option to speak directly with your representation in Federal Parliament is a few clicks away.

By now you would have seen our marketplace widget at the bottom of the page. Help spread the word about Gamers4Croydon by buying our merchandise. It not only helps fund the election campaign, but you wearing or displaying our logo helps build awareness of the party.

We still have our Donations area operating, and we will still be making all donations publicly viewable (with personal details withheld) throughout the campaign. All monies being spent on electioneering material can also be found on this page as a full and thorough account of what we're doing with your money. True to our initial promise, anything we do not use during the course of the campaign will be donated to the Child's Play Charity. (And just so you know, the first $1500 of donations to any political party are full tax deductible.) All of this is in line with our overall aim of more transparency in government.

You're going to hear an awful lot about Gamers4Croydon in the coming months. You may even hear some disparaging comments from elected ministers about us. What you need to know is this : We want to bring some semblance of dignity to Parliament. We want to give everyone the opportunity to make their own fully-informed decisions relating to the type of content they and their family engage with. And we want to develop South Australia into a progressive world leader in renewable energy production and manufacturing infrastructure.

We game, and we vote.

My name is David Doe, and I'm a Gamer4Croydon.

Officially Registered

posted by David Doe, 21 Jan 2010
On Thursday the 21st of January 2010, the Gamers4Croydon party was officially registered as a political party by the SA Electoral Commission.

This is exciting news and is a special moment for me personally. In the 120 odd days since Gamers4Croydon was started, we've gone from outright obscurity to only relative obscurity, from 1 member to close to 700, from no finances to over $7000 raised (and almost spent), from knowing nothing about how to get on the electoral roll to finding that most beautiful of notices in the SA Government Gazette earlier today.

We've come a long way, yet we still have a long way to go. There are 57 days until the election on March 20, and every day needs to be used as best we can to promote our message, our goals, our policies and our intent.

We NEED your help to make this happen!

Remember - All we're trying to do is have videogames labelled appropriately so that everyone can make an informed choice about the kinds of content they want to engage with, or want their kids to engage with. The R18+ rating will make it more difficult for those under 18 years of age to engage with that content. It will keep money flowing into OUR retail sector, instead of heading offshore when people choose to import an uncensored copy. It will cause less confusion by having consistent ratings for all of our media, instead of one set of rules for film and another set of rules for videogames.

We're in this election now so let's get our voices heard. Tell your friends. Tell your family. Tell everyone you meet.

We game, we vote, and we will be heard.

My name is David Doe, and I'm a Gamer4Croydon.

Interview Bingo!

posted by David Doe, 4 Jan 2010
A Happy New Year to all. I trust that everyone saw in the new year responsibly, or at least made some resolutions about trying that next year.

Over the break, I had the chance to listen to and read a few old interviews on the R18+ rating issue and between the fits of apoplectic rage at the blaring injustice of it all, I noticed a few words cropping up time and time again. So I decided to make a game of it.

I give you "Attorney-General Interview Bingo" !

In order to spice up the next interview you hear on the topic, print out these cards beforehand (they are set for A5, so set two to a page) and pass them around to friends and family. The middle square is given to everyone as a freebie, and whenever you hear any of the words listed, cross off the square that word is in. The first person to have a line of five completed squares (horizontally, vertically or diagonally) should yell "BINGO!" at the top of their lungs to indicate that they have won the game.

This game can be played while watching tv/YouTube, listening to the radio/webstream, or attending a press-conference covering the topic or being attended by relevant individuals (not that we would condone such an action, however hilarious the results might be).

Extra bingo cards: Card 2,  Card 3,  Card 4


Have fun!

Peace,
r1nce / David Doe

A thoughtful rebuttal

posted by David Doe, 16 Nov 2009
As some of you may have seen about the place, and as I've had mailed to my inbox about half a dozen times today, the Member for Croydon has replied to gamers around the country about their concerns that he is vetoing the implementation of an R18+ classification rating for videogames, effectively ensuring that videogames that contain graphically violent content are given an MA15+ rating.

One of the founding members of Gamers4Croydon, Chris Prior, has written a rebuttal to Mr. Atkinson's contradiction-filled, strawman-posing, condescending piece of correspondence - which I am going to post here for the benefit of everyone.

Peace,
r1nce/ David Doe

By Chris Prior

In response to The Hon Michael Atkinson's form letter on R18+ for games.

Mr Atkinson's claims that there are other Attorneys-General supporting his position cannot be verified until they announce themselves (which has not happened so far). He is a senior minister in a state and country founded on the principles of representative and accountable government. If it is indeed the case and he is shielding other AGs from public scrutiny, he is undermining one of the very basic principles of our democracy: that the people know what their representatives are doing. Oddly, elsewhere in the same letter, Mr Atkinson claims to be "the one minister and member on SCAG who has stood against" an R18+ classification for games, a statement which directly contradicts his earlier claim of support from other Attorneys-General.

He says that he is "baffled and worried about why proponents of R.18+ games are putting up their hands and saying 'Give us more cruel sex and extreme violence!'" This is a shamelessly emotive statement, and a classic straw man. While that may be what a tiny minority of people are saying, the majority of R18+ supporters merely wish to be allowed the same level of freedom as people who are allowed to watch R-rated films. Concurrently, there is a desire to prevent that same adult content from being accessed by minors.

Mr Atkinson refers to a number of games, suggesting that they would be allowed into Australia if an R18+ classification was introduced. He describes incentives for the use of illegal drugs, as well as a game concerned with the rape of a mother and daughter. In making these suggestions, he is either ignorant of, or wilfully ignoring the section of the classification guidelines which clearly states that "material that contains drug use and sexual violence related to incentives or rewards is Refused Classification". If this is from ignorance then perhaps he should not be making decisions on a system he does not understand, while deception suggests he is more concerned with his prejudices against games than reality. The violence he describes as being present in some games refused classification can be found in any number of MA15+ titles, accessible to minors. The introduction of an R18+ classification would not allow the sexual violence and drug abuse content he described into the country and would make it more difficult for minors to access violent content.

The discussion paper mentioned at the outset has been in the works for some time. Contrary to Mr. Atkinson's claims, , insisting on the inclusion of images of content he claims would be allowable under and R18+ classification. Given his erroneous claims about allowable content within an R18+ classification, it would follow that these 'examples' would be equally dubious.

He raises concerns that, due to the widespread popularity of gaming, it would be difficult to prevent children from accessing R18+ games that their parents or older siblings had purchased. He claims this is not a problem faced by R18+ films, ignoring (again, either wilfully or through ignorance) that the massive popularity of DVDs means that films are equally accessible in the home. The regulation of this, however, is not the government's responsibility, but that of parents. All three current generation consoles have parental controls that, if used properly, are significantly more difficult to bypass (if even possible) than it would be for a child to download an illegal version of an adult game. The same is true of recent home computer operating systems, where all have password protection capabilities to stop unauthorised use, and failing that, all have power cords that would easily prevent unsupervised use if removed.

Claiming that the infringement on adult freedom of choice is acceptable if it keeps the most extreme content off the shelves is problematic on a number of levels, the first of which being that 'the most extreme content' would still be kept off shelves with R18+ for games. The slightly less extreme content would be harder for children to access. As for the infringement being 'acceptable', that really isn't his call. His job is to represent the people his decisions affect. A newer version of the Bond University study quoted by Mr Atkinson in his letter stated that roughly 90% of people were in favour of an R18+ classification for games, and to ignore that is anything but representative.

Talking further on the "trifling" impact on consumer choice of the lack of an R rating, he says that only a handful of games are RC, which must mean there is very little impact. What he doesn't mention is that the overwhelming majority of games rated suitable for 15 year olds in Australia are rated higher elsewhere in the world. Over 90% of games classified MA15+ between June and November '09 were rated 17+ in the US. All but one was rated either 16+ or 18+ in Europe. The "trifling" impact is that games intended for adults - recognised as such internationally - are available to Australian children. This is a failing of a classification system that says - first and foremost - that "adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want", while not providing an appropriate classification for that content.

The claim that exposure to violent media is harmful, and more-so when that media is interactive is not by any means accepted as fact amongst the scientific community. For every study that finds video games cause violence, others find that there is no such link. The studies that have found causal links have received significant peer criticism of their methods, which have gone so far as ignoring the evidence(1) gathered to come to a seemingly predetermined conclusion. Similarly, there is no reliable evidence that interactivity increases the impact of media. Regardless, given that interactivity is explicitly taken into account in the classification guidelines, an R18+ game and R18+ film should have the same 'impact'.

It is true that edits can be made to prevent a game from being refused classification. But this usually means games are slightly edited and made available to teenagers. When Fallout 3 was edited to be allowed an MA rating, the edited version was distributed worldwide. Still, it was rated 17+ or 18+ in the US, Europe and New Zealand. Contrary to Mr Atkinson's claims, the solution to this problem is to introduce an R18+ classification for games. It would provide an appropriate rating for adult-oriented games, while providing a clearer warning about the nature of the game to parents who might otherwise buy an unsuitable game for their child. While he is correct in saying the Classification Board must follow the guidelines provided by law, it is not something that can be done: the current system contradicts itself, and so the board must decide which directive to follow. The only solution to this is to amend the guidelines and remove the contradiction.

Mr Atkinson suggests that if you ask "an adult" how they feel about playing video games, they will "give you ... opinion only." Putting aside that the asked question was in fact about opinion, the implied meaning is that gamers are incapable of examining how games affect them. I, as "an adult" have a range of experiences with games of varied genres. The violent games Mr Atkinson so reviles help me reduce stress and express frustration, just as some people hit a boxing bag or go for a run. While this has not been empirically studied in me personally, studies have discovered such a response among those who play video games.

On the surface, the desensitizing effect seen in the Comfortably Numb study seems worrying. However the study fails to address the difference between immediate and lasting impact. It shows only a short-term acclimatisation to violence, and any claims of long-term desensitisation based on the results of this study are unfounded speculation.

What Mr Atkinson's letter demonstrates is little more than that he has a prejudice against violent video games. Much of the 'evidence' he provides to support his claim is dubious or patently false, and it shows a much greater interest in distracting people with emotive arguments than thoughtful consideration of available information. While he is of course entitled to dislike violence in video games (and any other media for that matter), his personal distaste is not sufficient reason to curtail the rights of responsible adults, expose minors to adult content, and ignore the opinions of an overwhelming majority of Australians.

He is, after all, supposed to be a representative.

(1) Media Violence and Its Effect on Aggression: Assessing the Scientific Evidence

< PrevNext >11-17 of 17