Hillary Vs. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

[Datamonkee]

Parents can create a password protected account on their computer that they use, and one that their kid uses. The password protected account could be the only account that you are permitted to install software onto the machine from. Problem solved. Now you have the final word as to what's on your computer. You have the final say as to what your child has access to. Don't want them to install the mod? Say "no" when they have to walk up to you and ask them.

I know of 0 stores that don't follow ESRB guidelines, and card kids when they buy an M rated game. My experience with both Hollywood Video and Blockbuster when I attempted to rent an M rated or R rated game (up until this year! Being 17 is convenient), was that they would call my home and ask my parents if this was okay.

There are plenty of things a parent can do to restrict access to this kind of game.

As to Rockstar knowing the game would be cracked (how could they know this? Are you sure it wasn't just a slip-up and was left in there in the editing process? I don't quite follow that bit, it seems there is more than 1 way content can end up on a disc), it is immaterial. They aren't the ones that cracked it, they didn't endorse the crack, or offer it for download. They made a mistake. They may have lied about that mistake (which is probably the worse offense of the two), but they did not crack it.

Well, your experience is rare. I know of several places that never card kids. I had to fire 2 of my employees because they didn't follow the rules at a Blockbuster. I know the Blockbuster by my house doesn't card. I know that 3 of the movie theaters I frequent don't card kids. I know that the one of the Gamestop stores and the one of the Electronics Boutique stores I go to don't card kids. "It is a hassle and a waste of time." It is no different for beer or cigarettes. It is illegal to sell them to minors, and yet they seem to get their hands on them anyhow. It was a simple thing to remove the code for that section of the game.
As to Rockstar not thinking that their game would be cracked, well, that's just plain naive, and they shouldn't be in business if they are that irresponsible. But they knew. Everyone that does ANYTHING with computer code knows that someone will try and crack it. Programmers make it extremely difficult to crack for necessary functions, or remove weak links in the code. It was irresponsible for them to put that game on the market with that bit of code in. It would be like your local doctor keeping his drugs in a cabinet on the street corner with a zip-tie for a lock.

 

[ElGringo17]

The problem isn' the sex, it is the violence that is glorified...humans of just about all ages are designed to have sex, but injuring and killing another human has no value.

Hillary is just an opportunistic leach trying to make a name for herself in preparation for 08....she is useless and a danger to society.

 

[Zebulon]

It is still their responsibility to not put that kind of material into a game that children would have easy access to.

Define "easy". I'm pretty sure my 11 year old could not, if given free range to the Internet (which he doesn't have) could have modded the game on his own. As far as being able to DOWNLOAD the mod... is that RockStar's responsibility? Is it the beer manufactures fault that someone drinks and then drives? How far back can you push culpability before it becomes a parody of justice?

It is no different for beer or cigarettes. It is illegal to sell them to minors, and yet they seem to get their hands on them anyhow.

Speaking of beer... beer is MUCH more harmful than video games. Beer can make you stupid. Beer can increase your likelihood of getting pregnant, or getting someone pregnant. Beer can kill you in excess. Beer can kill other people, if you drink and drive. GTA:SA can do NONE of these things, even modded.

So why isn't Hillary up in arms about beer?

Because video games are a safe, easy target, and beer is old school PAC money, plain and simple.

 

[gordontravels]

OK. My VIEWS are simplistic. That's fine. You may not way to use

"You are very simplistic if you think you can say parents should do this or that."

as that can be misconstrued.

OK. So you are a parent, as am I, and we can both agree that we don't have control over everything our children do. Why would more laws and regulations change that? Even with age regulation processes and exploding video game boxes, if the parents BUY these things for thier kids, and then get upset because they were "duped" somehow, it makes an end run around any form of legislation you can think of, and then we're back to square one.

Why not simply tell these parents that DO complain "Hey, what are you complaining about? Didn't you see that Big "M" on the box? Don't you research what you buiy for your kids?" Why do we need legislation for that? What is wrong with expecting at least SOME responsibility??

Because you are willing to say "SOME responsibility". How can you instill responsibility in anyone. You can teach. Will they learn? You can yell. Will they listen? You can push. Will they move? What about the carrot and the stick. What if they don't want the carrot?

My example of the people exceeding the speed limit should show you one thing. Traffic tickets. You want to keep getting them? Insurance goes up; fines keep going up; maybe at some point you understand there will be consequences for getting caught; for ignoring the situation you are allowing yourself to create.

To leave the solution at "parental responsibility" may be fine for you and me. Yes I investigate before I buy for my kids but, how do you know the person five doors down does. :duel

 

[gordontravels]

Parents can create a password protected account on their computer that they use, and one that their kid uses. The password protected account could be the only account that you are permitted to install software onto the machine from. Problem solved. Now you have the final word as to what's on your computer. You have the final say as to what your child has access to. Don't want them to install the mod? Say "no" when they have to walk up to you and ask them.

I know of 0 stores that don't follow ESRB guidelines, and card kids when they buy an M rated game. My experience with both Hollywood Video and Blockbuster when I attempted to rent an M rated or R rated game (up until this year! Being 17 is convenient), was that they would call my home and ask my parents if this was okay.

There are plenty of things a parent can do to restrict access to this kind of game.

As to Rockstar knowing the game would be cracked (how could they know this? Are you sure it wasn't just a slip-up and was left in there in the editing process? I don't quite follow that bit, it seems there is more than 1 way content can end up on a disc), it is immaterial. They aren't the ones that cracked it, they didn't endorse the crack, or offer it for download. They made a mistake. They may have lied about that mistake (which is probably the worse offense of the two), but they did not crack it.

Good post. :duel

 

[Zebulon]

Because you are willing to say "SOME responsibility". How can you instill responsibility in anyone. You can teach. Will they learn? You can yell. Will they listen? You can push. Will they move? What about the carrot and the stick. What if they don't want the carrot?

My example of the people exceeding the speed limit should show you one thing. Traffic tickets. You want to keep getting them? Insurance goes up; fines keep going up; maybe at some point you understand there will be consequences for getting caught; for ignoring the situation you are allowing yourself to create.

To leave the solution at "parental responsibility" may be fine for you and me. Yes I investigate before I buy for my kids but, how do you know the person five doors down does. :duel

I must admit I'm lost. Have you given up on people taking responsibility, then? Or do you believe in MORE punsihment for those that choose to ignore thier responsibility? I can't tell from your post.

 

[gordontravels]

I must admit I'm lost. Have you given up on people taking responsibility, then? Or do you believe in MORE punsihment for those that choose to ignore thier responsibility? I can't tell from your post.

I think my post is quite clear. If you leave responsibility to people some will and some won't. If you enforce it then not only will some while some won't but there will be those who will find out what it means to abrogate responsibility. I said, you may be responsible and so may I but what about others? Just to say parents should take responsibility only states the obvious. Saying that many parents don't also states the obvious. I haven't given up on anything.

I think the game situation is cause that may have effect. I further say that if children break laws, for whatever reason, they should be punished to a point of meaning. Face it, if a child isn't taught or won't learn then let them pay. I think many children should stand for their actions as adults. They know what is right and wrong. Enforce it. :duel

 

[Hoot]

I heard on the news today that some grandmother is suing Grand Theft Auto because she bought the game for a grandchild and didn't realize what kind of game it was.

If I was the judge...I'd laugh her right out of court.

It says quite plainly on the game "Mature." Plus, look at the title..."Grand Theft Auto." Doh! Did she think she was buying a Winnie the Pooh adventure?

She's just some low life trying to make a quick buck because of all the recent fervor over the game.

I'd fine her court costs for both parties and tell her she's lucky she's not imprisoned for 30 days for contempt.

 

[Zebulon]

I think my post is quite clear. If you leave responsibility to people some will and some won't. If you enforce it then not only will some while some won't but there will be those who will find out what it means to abrogate responsibility. I said, you may be responsible and so may I but what about others? Just to say parents should take responsibility only states the obvious. Saying that many parents don't also states the obvious. I haven't given up on anything. :duel

OK... that I understand. But HIllary deosn't want to pass laws that will force parnets and children to obey the ratings on the box, Hillary wants to stop the video game makers from making games WITH those ratings in the first place. She's never once said "those damn parents", she's only been saying "those damn video game makers". That's MY problem, and THAT'S what I've been arguing. I have absolutely NO problem with passing laws that will smack parents around. I'm all for that. But don't limit my ability to buy the content!!

I think the game situation is cause that may have effect. I further say that if children break laws, for whatever reason, they should be punished to a point of meaning. Face it, if a child isn't taught or won't learn then let them pay. I think many children should stand for their actions as adults. They know what is right and wrong. Enforce it. :duel

Absolutely, 100% agree with you here. FORCE responsibility on the people involved in purchasing the game, or force punishment for NOT accepting responsibility.

 

[debate_junkie]

I heard on the news today that some grandmother is suing Grand Theft Auto because she bought the game for a grandchild and didn't realize what kind of game it was.

If I was the judge...I'd laugh her right out of court.

It says quite plainly on the game "Mature." Plus, look at the title..."Grand Theft Auto." Doh! Did she think she was buying a Winnie the Pooh adventure?

She's just some low life trying to make a quick buck because of all the recent fervor over the game.

I'd fine her court costs for both parties and tell her she's lucky she's not imprisoned for 30 days for contempt.

If only these frivalous suits would get laughed out of court. McDonalds anyone? How many of you put hot coffee between your legs, and then sue when you get burnt? Have we enabled a society lacking in personal responsibility? errr.. nevermind from the post above, I answered my own question.

 

[gordontravels]

OK... that I understand. But HIllary deosn't want to pass laws that will force parnets and children to obey the ratings on the box, Hillary wants to stop the video game makers from making games WITH those ratings in the first place. She's never once said "those damn parents", she's only been saying "those damn video game makers". That's MY problem, and THAT'S what I've been arguing. I have absolutely NO problem with passing laws that will smack parents around. I'm all for that. But don't limit my ability to buy the content!!

Absolutely, 100% agree with you here. FORCE responsibility on the people involved in purchasing the game, or force punishment for NOT accepting responsibility.

I agree with you. I don't want you to think I am for censorship of products that are meant for adults nor do I want adults to be restricted from buying legal products. Having said that I would oppose only the most heinous product if it needed improving for safety or was blatantly offensive. What would be blatantly offensive to me? A video game depicting terrorists killing my fellow citizens.

I know there are those here that would consider anything such as a game that utilizes rape or murder as blatantly offensive but I am talking about glorification. As an example of the different way to look at this situation you would have to consider a novel. There are novels that deal with terrorists, rape, murder and pornography. Is the written word deserving of more protection than a video game? I am an author writing a novel that deals with a ghost, fetish, sex and murder. I would wonder about my government if I were to have to pass some test to have it even published.

I am not sure about where Senator Clinton's bill will go or even if it contains content that will absolutely censor. What I do know is that we have enough representatives to question anything abridging our freedoms and stand to protect those freedoms I spent my military days fighting for. I didn't go to Vietnam for titanium or to spit in the face of Communist China or the Soviets. I went for my country. :duel :cool

 

[Zyphlin]

Couple of things.

To the guy that talked about "selling kids porn". Have you seen the scene? I downloaded it to see exactly what the hub-bub is. It is no worse then what you would see on an episode of "Sex in the City", or maybe a little less since it is Animated. Ever check the rating on the "sex in the city" DVD's? Currently thier NR as far as the amazon website for them goes. So honestly if you consider this porn better through the "X" label on sex in the city because it is no worse then yo usee in that.

I fully agree with the people talking about the parents. Look, AO and M is a 1 year difference. ONE. I highly doubt most parents are going to look at AO and think "Hmm, maybe i shouldn't buy this" if they looked at M and thought "Yeah, i'll get this for my kid." With how much GTA has been in the news for almost half a decade now I can't imagine HOW a parent wouldn't know what kind of game thier getting for this kids.

And no freaking way should they start having a way to make the game test if the person is 17 or whatever every time they start the game. That is such an idiotic slippery slope I can't even imagine it. I'm a horribly non-violent guy, and I grew up playing Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter. I don't think I ever remember trying to rip someone's spine out. If i choose to think my child (when i have one)is responsible enough to play a game with a bit of blood splattering you're damn right its my choice. What next? Age verifications for DVD movies? "Oh i'm sorry, you wanted your child to watch Saving Private Ryan because you believe it is a meaningful and powerful movie and you believe they're old enough to handle it...but we the government think you're wrong so screw off, its not happening". No way.

I do however find it funny that Hillary Clinton, one of the prime liberals in the eyes of the people, is the one trying to sensor freedom of speech. This doesn't have jack to do with a "sex" scene. This basically has to do with the fact that her and others wanted the game to be AO when it first came out, they didn't get thier way, and now this gives them something to renew the crusade. With all the things already mentioned you can do in this game I don't really see a sex scene that is no more raunchy then an animated piece of "sex in the city" is the straw that really breaks the camels back..

 

[gordontravels]

If only these frivalous suits would get laughed out of court. McDonalds anyone? How many of you put hot coffee between your legs, and then sue when you get burnt? Have we enabled a society lacking in personal responsibility? errr.. nevermind from the post above, I answered my own question.

You mention the McDonald's suit. Long ago I read an article that said manufacturers had improved the cups and lids on these coffee cups so that if they did tip or fall the lid would have a much better chance of staying on. The suit also led to the temperature of the liquid sold being lowered to a point of preventing permanent injury to a customer. I had an incident in which I lost a supersized coke because it had to sit on the floor. Since then they have redesigned the cup so that the bottom fits in a cup holder.

I couldn't agree more that someone eating themselves into oblivion at McDonald's doesn't deserve a penny because they have gotten fat or sick but.... I know some lawsuits send companies into research and development that improves products for the public either for convenience or safety. I would not use a blanket of personal responsibility or the lack thereof to define frivolous. It could lead to something better. :duel

 

[gordontravels]

I will say that Senator Clinton hasn't spoken out about Hollywood and their violence, bashing and sexual content. Could it be the huge donations she depends on from the Hollywood crowd and those in Hollywood that she considers her personal friends? I don't know that this should color other legislation she may write or take part in promoting but I think it is a valid question. :duel

 

[debate_junkie]

You mention the McDonald's suit. Long ago I read an article that said manufacturers had improved the cups and lids on these coffee cups so that if they did tip or fall the lid would have a much better chance of staying on. The suit also led to the temperature of the liquid sold being lowered to a point of preventing permanent injury to a customer. I had an incident in which I lost a supersized coke because it had to sit on the floor. Since then they have redesigned the cup so that the bottom fits in a cup holder.

I couldn't agree more that someone eating themselves into oblivion at McDonald's doesn't deserve a penny because they have gotten fat or sick but.... I know some lawsuits send companies into research and development that improves products for the public either for convenience or safety. I would not use a blanket of personal responsibility or the lack thereof to define frivolous. It could lead to something better. :duel

The cup was PUT between her legs while she was driving. Number 1... movement of her legs would cause the lid to pop off, because of the pressure put on the cup. Number 2, this had nothing to do with tipping over. She consciously put a cup of hot liquid between her thighs... did she not KNOW she ran a risk of being burnt with that action?

Number 3... a cup tipping over because it was on the floor.. uhh yeah.. in a moving car, it's going to happen.

She sued because she got burnt. She was stupid... but saw dollar signs. Ahh McDonald's makes coffee too hot. Errmmmm isn't coffee SUPPOSED to be hot. That would be like suing a freezer manufacturer because your freezer makes ice TOO cold.

Where's the logical thinking in that? Tell me why stupidity is being monetarily rewarded by juries? Please tell me why it is the responsibility of the company to prevent stupidity on the part of the American public?

 

[Zebulon]

I agree with you. I don't want you to think I am for censorship of products that are meant for adults nor do I want adults to be restricted from buying legal products. Having said that I would oppose only the most heinous product if it needed improving for safety or was blatantly offensive. What would be blatantly offensive to me? A video game depicting terrorists killing my fellow citizens.

I know there are those here that would consider anything such as a game that utilizes rape or murder as blatantly offensive but I am talking about glorification. As an example of the different way to look at this situation you would have to consider a novel. There are novels that deal with terrorists, rape, murder and pornography. Is the written word deserving of more protection than a video game? I am an author writing a novel that deals with a ghost, fetish, sex and murder. I would wonder about my government if I were to have to pass some test to have it even published.

I am not sure about where Senator Clinton's bill will go or even if it contains content that will absolutely censor. What I do know is that we have enough representatives to question anything abridging our freedoms and stand to protect those freedoms I spent my military days fighting for. I didn't go to Vietnam for titanium or to spit in the face of Communist China or the Soviets. I went for my country. :duel :cool

First off, thank you very, very much for serving our country in Vietnam. As my ancestor once said, war is Hell, and you went through that for us back home here. You have my undying appreciation for that, sir.

As far as censoring only the most blatantly heinous material... I believe society does that itself. If I came out with a video game where you get to play as Bin Laden, and got points for flying airplanes into buildings and for how many people I could kill, the public would go insane. I wouldn't be able to walk the streets. A few people would buy the game, if they could find a place that would sell it, but there'd be no WAY I could actually make money on it, which is the way it should be. In a capitalistic society, the one of the BEST way to regulate business practices can be to hit them in the wallet. Look what happened with "dolphin safe" tuna.

REGULATING who can ACCESS material, based on age, is not a bad thing, but CENSORING material should always be a very last resort.

 

[stsburns]

WTF how did Iraq get into a thread on a VIDEO GAME! :spin: Discuss Issue At Hand! Changing the rating doesn't change much! The game was ESRB rated Mature (17 years old), Hilary pushed for it to be ESRB's highest rating "Adults ONLY!" (18 years old), so either way by the kids next birthday, he will legaly be able to buy the game (That is if he was 17 years old when it came out). Not to mention the "varibles" that the kid can go over to a friends house and play it, or download it illegally of the internet! No law can stop that!

 

[Hoot]

>>Tell me why stupidity is being monetarily rewarded by juries? Please tell me why it is the responsibility of the company to prevent stupidity on the part of the American public?<<Debate junkie
__________________

I know I'm getting off subject here, but my wife bought one of those windshield visor screens that unfolds to help keep the car interior cooler.

On the back of the screen it says..."Please remove before driving."

Damm...I was gonna sue their butts off after my accident! Oh well.

As far as GTA, put a rating on the game if you must, but otherwise...keep the government out of it...it's the parents responsibility.

 

[Hoot]

I just had a great idea...maybe the makers of GTA should have a likeness of Hillary as one of the local Ho's in their game? In fact, why stop there? Why not use all types of political figures in the game? Bush could be some sort of corrupt mob boss, and Rove and Cheney his hired protection, Bill Clinton could run the local cat house empire, Ted Kennedy the gin runners organization, and Osama could have a fanatic religious cult hiding out in the hills like some sort of Manson family?

The list could be endless!

I'd buy it! LOL!

 

[gordontravels]

First off, thank you very, very much for serving our country in Vietnam. As my ancestor once said, war is Hell, and you went through that for us back home here. You have my undying appreciation for that, sir.

As far as censoring only the most blatantly heinous material... I believe society does that itself. If I came out with a video game where you get to play as Bin Laden, and got points for flying airplanes into buildings and for how many people I could kill, the public would go insane. I wouldn't be able to walk the streets. A few people would buy the game, if they could find a place that would sell it, but there'd be no WAY I could actually make money on it, which is the way it should be. In a capitalistic society, the one of the BEST way to regulate business practices can be to hit them in the wallet. Look what happened with "dolphin safe" tuna.

REGULATING who can ACCESS material, based on age, is not a bad thing, but CENSORING material should always be a very last resort.

As long as you are thanking me for going to war I want to thank those that didn't. I don't care whether they were supporting the effort or not. They kept the country working til I got home and found it here again.

Censorship should only be used by those that originate. Any other censorship abridges freedom of speech and expression. Ban if you must. Regulate if you must. Make em grow to 4'6" to ride the ride if you must but... NO CENSORSHIP EVER :duel

 

[quietrage]

I would just like to point out that the mini-game was hidden script and this hacker first off knew to look for the game and then was able to then crack in and release the full version of GTA:SA right before the game was going to come out on the Xbox who would have thought?

Oh ya and if Hillary got her way what would happen the game would be rated for adults only??

 

[stsburns]

I would just like to point out that the mini-game was hidden script and this hacker first off knew to look for the game and then was able to then crack in and release the full version of GTA:SA right before the game was going to come out on the Xbox who would have thought?

Oh ya and if Hillary got her way what would happen the game would be rated for adults only??

Actually the "Hack/Crack" ONLY works on the PC version, so no kid with an Xbox or Playstation 2 will be able to enable the script through tradition gaming consoles. Also Hilary has already gotton her way, I just saw on the news that the game was bumped up to Adults Only rating, which seems like the kid will have to wait anther year if they were 17, which many 17 year olds already know about games suggestive themes and violence, but lets not forget that this in no way persuades them to perfom these actions that they do in games.

 

[stsburns]

I just had a great idea...maybe the makers of GTA should have a likeness of Hillary as one of the local Ho's in their game? In fact, why stop there? Why not use all types of political figures in the game? Bush could be some sort of corrupt mob boss, and Rove and Cheney his hired protection, Bill Clinton could run the local cat house empire, Ted Kennedy the gin runners organization, and Osama could have a fanatic religious cult hiding out in the hills like some sort of Manson family?

The list could be endless!

I'd buy it! LOL!

What a vivid mind you have! :think:

 

[quietrage]

well the free advertising that Rockstar gets is that fact I was driving at

 

[ncallaway]

Actually the "Hack/Crack" ONLY works on the PC version, so no kid with an Xbox or Playstation 2 will be able to enable the script through tradition gaming consoles. Also Hilary has already gotton her way, I just saw on the news that the game was bumped up to Adults Only rating, which seems like the kid will have to wait anther year if they were 17, which many 17 year olds already know about games suggestive themes and violence, but lets not forget that this in no way persuades them to perfom these actions that they do in games.

I think there was a way to get to it on the PS2 version. Something about using a device that can be bought for the PS2 to transfer save files to the computer. Since there is no such (legal) device for the Xbox, I don't think the mod's gotten there.

The last time I checked was about a week and a half ago, so there may be some inaccuracies there.