One for Australian Gamers.

[mkultra333]

Australia has no R-Rated game classification, so lots of games end up banned. Left4Dead 2 was banned, for instance.

The government have released a discussion paper on the subject, it's basically 10 or so questions plus a small comments section. If you're Australian and you hate the current censorship, it might be a good idea to submit comment. You can download the paper here, http://www.ag.gov.au/gamesclassification

Your comments are extra necessary because the pro-censorship lobby is relativley organized and active compared to gamers, for instance, the conservative Christian lobby group The Salt Shakers are mobilized to flood the issue with comments to continue the current banning process, and no doubt other groups are too.

Submissions need to be in by 28th of February.

[Kyle_Katarn]

Technically, L4D2 wasn't banned here, it was Refused Classification (which is effectively banning it), then re-released in a version that should be criminal. But I do agree, this needs to be addressed and not vetoed by Michael Atkinson who is, in effect the only person standing in the way of us having an R18 rating (democracy? HA!) And reading through the arguements "against" having an R18 rating make me think they were all written (and not very well thought out), by Atkinson himself.

For example:

Computer games should be treated differently from films given the specific, negative
effects of interactivity on players, particularly their participation in violent and aggressive
content.

While yes there have been studies that suggest this, there are also many studies that say that there is no evidence linking violence in video games, and violence in the real world.

It would be difficult for parents to enforce age restrictions for computer games.

This is utter bull. The current system right now is that the max restriction is MA15+, but some games rated R18 can be appealed, or can slip through with an MA15+ rating, which exposes minors (read: Under 18's) to the graphic content that shouldn't be viewed by non adults. My point is that this makes the process more difficult for adults to know if the game they're buying for their 15 year old child is actually meant to be an MA15+ game, or an R18 game that slipped "under the radar".

Minors would be more likely to be exposed to computer games that are unsuitable for
them.

No. As I said in my above response, it gives parents a clear indication to what they're buying and what is in the game, content wise. This arguement could also be "minors would be more likely to be exposed to computer games that are unsuitable for them, at home." Which is not up for them to decide, if this was a big issue, why do we have R18 movies? They are just as accessible to minors at home as R18 games would be, so I believe the point is null and void.

An R 18+ for computer games would exacerbate problems associated with access to
high level material in Indigenous communities and by other non-English speaking
people

You know, Im still not exactly sure what this means, I didnt really address it when I wrote and submitted my response to this. If it means that non-English speaking teenagers will have trouble understanding why they cannot purchase an R rated game, it still goes back to movies, there's no problem with movies having an R18 rating, so why cant games?

Atkinson has been known for spreading general lies about games to prove his point. He believes that if we introduced an R18 rating to games, then games like Rapelay would make it to the shelves (in his point, he describes it as "raping a mother and her daughter to score points"), little does he know (or willingly chooses not to understand) is that the game has been banned, even in Japan. Having an R18 rating would still mean that these games could be banned due to their intense sexual content or whatever, and he also tries to vilify gamers because he believes that we WANT this sort of content on our shelves (extremist sexual games like rapelay). No, we want to have the same sort of rating system as everyone else.

Atkinson also talks about a game which you blow yourself up in a busy market place "to score points". The game he's referring to is actually an internet flash game that was made in 2001. Flash games are waaay outside the jurisdiction of our classification board as he should know. He's also had a go at Modern Warfare 2 because of the Airport level (shooting civilians "to score points" (see a pattern here?)), failing to mention this level can be skipped. Atkinson is not representing the people as he should do, but rather turned this into his own personal vendetta against video games, and is pretty much (at the very least) disliked by every gamer in Australia.

He also seems to hate the whole freedom of speech thing that we've got going on down here too.

[mkultra333]

Atkinson also just made it illegal to post blog comments on the upcoming election without supplying identification, although public outcry has made him state he'll repeal the law as soon as possible and no one will be prosecuted.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 5826154732

I agree completely with your post, so make sure you make a submission!

Only thing I disagree with is quibbling over the term "banned." Refused Classification means it is illegal to sell or promate AND, at least in WA, even own the material.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_ ... stralia%29

Classification is mandatory, and films that are rated Refused Classification by the OFLC are banned for sale, hire or public exhibition, carrying a maximum fine of $275,000 and/or 10 years jail. It is legal to possess Refused Classification material, unless it has been rated Refused Classification due to illegal content (e.g. child pornography). It is illegal for residents of Western Australia to possess Refused Classification Video Games ever since the Liberal Party came into power in WA in 2008, where the breach of this law incurs either a hefty fine or imprisonment.

[Kyle_Katarn]

Yeah, RC is effectively banning the game, but if the game was banned, then all copies of the game would be confiscated, including those that are already owned by people. RC just means it cant be sold legally, but you are allowed to keep the copy even if it's been RC'ed... unless you were in Western Australia, poor bastards. Besides, the game (L4D2) was censored (to a level that should be criminal) and re-released. Watching the video literally makes me retch, but dont get me wrong, I whole heartedly agree that the game should be rated R, I just dont want to have to use a fix, or buy from another country to get the game in full content just because our government (namely Atkinson) still thinks that games are for children.

I also submitted my copy long ago

And he's decided to repeal the law? That's good news, and as he should. The most disturbing fact about that though is that the opposition has fully supported the law as well.

Also my aussie friends, dont forget to drop into your local EB Games store and sign their Grow Up Australia petition (you can also sign an online one, but they really mean squat nowadays). And South Australians, show your support by if not voting for Gamers 4 Croydon, then not voting for the labor party.

[Kyle_Katarn]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/in-d ... 5843341005

Big yay for us, I hope.

[Kojack]

YAY!

But who will replace him?

[mkultra333]

Also, I fear that another AG will just become anti-R gaming. To give a example of the "mood" on this subject, Hockey recently gave a speech to the press club saying the internet filter was a terrible idea, but at the same time he said violent video games were a danger to society.

That's part of the problem with this whole debate, there isn't really any anti-censorship choice as far as 2 party preferred goes.

It's possible federal Labor will try to give us R rated games to distract us from their filter plans. To be honest though, given their pro-censorship agenda, I bet this was all just a big waste of time, and that there was never any intention of allowing R rated games. It was a ruse to distract us from the filter, to give the false impression that they actually listen to what technologically competent people think.

[Kyle_Katarn]

Also, I fear that another AG will just become anti-R gaming. To give a example of the "mood" on this subject, Hockey recently gave a speech to the press club saying the internet filter was a terrible idea, but at the same time he said violent video games were a danger to society.

That's part of the problem with this whole debate, there isn't really any anti-censorship choice as far as 2 party preferred goes.

It's possible federal Labor will try to give us R rated games to distract us from their filter plans. To be honest though, given their pro-censorship agenda, I bet this was all just a big waste of time, and that there was never any intention of allowing R rated games. It was a ruse to distract us from the filter, to give the false impression that they actually listen to what technologically competent people think.

I agree completely. Things like this have happened all the time, where they string out what really should be a non-issue (in most cases, a celebrity, etc), as a diversion to take the heat off of unpopular legislation and agenda's. Whilst gaming is a big part of my life, and I'm extremely happy that this gives us a good chance of an R-rating, the bigger issue is this internet filter, which I fear if not stopped now, then we wont be able to get rid of it when it's in place.

[Kyle_Katarn]

Pardon the double post, but my day just got brighter.

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2010/03/new-so ... 18-rating/

[mkultra333]

As one of the comments on the page said, I'm waiting to hear it from his own mouth now that he is AG.

[BTolputt]

Actually he has stated that he'd support R18+ games in an interview on radio. The interesting thing is that Atkinson claimed that there were Attorney-Generals that supported his view, but would not do so publicly. I'm not sure if he was lying or not when bolstering his apparent support with this claim (he has made "factually inconsistent statements" before); but it is plausible. After all, why wear the ire of voters if someone else is willing to stick their neck out for the cause?

The current "workaround" for the AG's not desiring to be publicly ridiculed for their position is to delay this by not talking about it at their next meeting. That should give them six months or so to come up with a plausible reason not to allow it (not likely) or to find themselves a new scapegoat.

[mkultra333]

Yeah, he said that before he was AG, I just want to see him say it now that he is AG.

I'm thinking maybe they'll bring this up at the same time as the internet filter debate comes up, to split people's attention. Get the kiddies excited about 18+ games and forget about the upcoming net censorship. The timing seems right, AG meeting is soon, as is parlimentary debate about the compulsory filter.

[Kyle_Katarn]

I agree Btolputt, but when I was writing a reply to the Classification Submissions, I felt that the arguments against having an R18 rating seemed very shallowly written, and Atkinson's concerns for an R rating seemed just as shallow, so you'll forgive me for making the assumption that they were all written by Atkinson?

And I also agree with both points mkultra has made, if there's anything the last american presidential election has taught me, it's that you simply cannot trust a politician in anything he, or she, says when they're trying to get elected, but that's off-topic. I will say that my focus will be on the debate over the 18 meeting.

Also, if any aussie's here live near Sydney, head to: http://gagthefilter.com/

They're having a protest in Sydney where people will be split up into groups, one person being the designated speaker, the others will wear gags. I'll try to be there, but I'm not sure if I can get off of work.

[reptor]

I once considered immigrating to Australia. I went to read the web pages of your immigration office and I was a bit shocked I have to say... I found it... how do I say in English... patronising? Something like that.

I accept I have to obey the rules of the country but the texts I read did seem a bit over the top... it did put me off a bit.

Recently the Australian F1 driver Mark Webber called it "nanny state". I think that was funny. He lives in the UK but has to come to Australia at least once a year for the F1 Grand Prix. I recall he said something like "it pisses me off" too.

I'm still considering immigrating to Australia but it's not high on my list of things to do... inside the EU would be much easier to relocate to another country and that's much more likely to happen for me. I wouldn't have to deal with the visa crap at all...

[BTolputt]

Yeah, unfortunately there is a large enough proportion of the population that responds to the dog-whistling of politicians on immigrants coming to take our jobs, blow up out buildings, steal our women, and otherwise ruin our "wonderful country". It is, of course, piffle and most Aussies can see the bullshit being peddled, but there is a large enough number of xenophobic votes in it that both sides participate in the behaviour.

Which results in inhumane refugee policies, condescending immigration policies, and an citizenship test that had questions I, a born & bred Aussie, didn't know nor could care less about (for f*ck's sake people, most of us couldn't care less about cricket now let alone it's history!).

With the Internet Filter (read Great Firewall of Chin... sorry, Australia) being proposed by the current government, the alternative government refusing to rule it out, and neither of them willing to put it to a vote now when the balance of power is held by the independents (who are against it except for our resident "happy clapper" senator) - the title "Nanny State" is well deserved. Much to the shame of the average Australian.

[mkultra333]

Yeah, the media and politicians got in a fit last month because 15 boats of asylum seekers turned up... 15! Sure, if it was 100 I'd worry, but please, like the country will explode or something if the population goes up by 0.00001%. Meanwhile the greatest number of illegal immigrants are actually people who've flown here and outstayed their visa, but since most of them are white and wealthy the mob couldn't care less.

I think we are doomed, filter wise. With both the right and left lead by religiously motivated populist goons, it's virtually a done deal. So get your SSH proxy tunnels and encrypted p2p channels ready. The only good thing about the filter is that it doesn't work.

[Kyle_Katarn]

Well, it works in a sense that it's a major annoyance, slows our internet, and makes it more expensive.

And cricket's seriously in our citizenship test? Wow... of all our rich (outlaw) heritage, history, etc. they make you answer questions about a bloody SPORT?! What have we come to?

[mkultra333]

Howard loved cricket. He introduced special laws to protect Don Bradman's name from commercial exploitation. No-one else, just Don Bradman. He got annoyed because there was a sex shop named "Erotica On Bradman". The fact that it was on a street called Bradman Drive seems to have been considerd beside the point.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/busin ... 1000.shtml

I agree, questions about Ned Kelly and how Australians are descended mostly from immigrant criminals and a handful of sadistic police who everyone hates would make a much better citizenship questionnaire.

One thing that's really irritating me about Conroy at the moment is that whenever he goes on the media they never have anyone technical there to counter his lies. Sometimes the interviewers try to counter him but they lack the expertise to really pinpoint and illuminate the lies he's telling. Like how the filter is "100% accurate" and "won't slow down the internet at all."

[Kyle_Katarn]

Absolute bullshit, considering that Conroy kept firing all the professional research/opinion, until he found one that agree'd with him. And his whole mantra of "anyone who disagree's must be a pedophile".

He makes me sick.

[mkultra333]

First positive noise from the leader of the opposition on the mandatory filter. Abbot has said there's insufficient evidence to warrant his full support.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/austral ... 5850260443
Still somewhat weasel-ish language, but looks like a glimmer of hope that they might block the filter legislation.

[BTolputt]

Unfortunately, and I'm trying not to step into partisan politics, it is hard to believe what Tony Abbott is saying here. The man is a staunch social conservative and has been spouting off about things he hasn't got the agreement of his party on of late.

While Rudd's "softly softly Christian coalition" approach is as bad as it is sneaky; Abbott is literally nicknamed "Captain Catholic" & "Mad Monk" with a history of saying one thing only to back down on it within the fortnight. Given the weasel wording of his opposition, even if he wanted to knock the filter on the head (which I have trouble believing), he is obviously too afraid of the social conservative movement (primarily religious groups) to outright oppose it.

So what we have is Reverend Rudd waiting on the next election so he can pass the legislation without Senate compromise/opposition and the Angry Abbott saying only enough to give the impression of opposition without actually providing any.

[mkultra333]

Unfortunately, you're 100% correct. I was just trying to be happy for a moment.

I also find it hard to believe Abbott wouldn't implement the filter in a nanosecond if he had the chance. But Joe Hockey seems to be genuinely against it, his press club speech was much less ambigous. That, plus the opposition's love of blocking absolutely anything that comes its way means I do still cling to the tiniest bit of hope, however slim.