NationStates Jolt Archive

This is completely stupid by the district...what is acceptable for a fundraiser then?

Puyallup School District Pulls Plug On Halo 2 Fundraiser

January 21, 2005

By Liz Rocca

PUYALLUP - Students in Puyallup hoped to use a video game tournament to raise money for tsunami victims. Parents signed off on the idea, but the school district suddenly said, "game over!"

The controversy surrounds the students' choice for the video game: Halo 2.

It's a game with space soldiers, guns, aliens, swords...

And plenty of death.

The game is so popular, Rogers High School seniors Mike Alston and Joshua Shake figured a Halo 2 tournament would be the perfect way to raise money for tsunami victims.

"$380 we were thinking was going to go straight into the Red Cross Tsunami fund," Alston said.

As a precaution, the boys even got parents to sign waivers acknowledging the graphic nature of the game.

But the Puyallup School District canceled the fundraiser, saying the game goes against its anti-violence policy.

"They never really talked to us and told us where they've seen that violent video games encourage violent behavior so I don't really believe it," Alston said.

But the school district says they don't think it's too sensitive.

"When you look at what happened with Columbine, when you look at acts of violence against young people, I think anything we do that even looks like we're endorsing violence is not appropriate," said Karen Hanson with the Puyallup School District.

The district is backing one tsunami effort at all schools. Students are packing 10,000 health kits destined for tsunami-torn countries.

But the boys remind us that the district canceled Halloween celebrations because they were insensitive to the Wiccan religion.

"It's just a question now of when do they stop?" Alston said.

The district says that question will be answered one case at a time. They also said it will support the students' fundraiser if they simply switch to a less violent video game.

http://www.komotv.com/stories/34923.htm

idiots, violent video games are a fuckngi scapegoat nto a cause, did you see the mother of one of the clumbine kids blaming everyone but herself, i saw her on a talk show, she looks like a fucknig crackwhore

When our school got modern computers they had GTA on them.
The fun didn't last very long.

So they are banning it because of the opinion that violent games create violent kids?

Just what this world needs.

More stereotypes.

In my other existance I am a IT Manager type. One of the best ways to test network resilence is via these games.

One of the first tests I like to run is a weekend long game.

But to do this for a fundraiser...well I see no major issue but it would depend on the charity. For example it would not do to have a Halo comp for a anti war charity....

From the comments I don't think that they are worried that it will cause students to be violent but rather seem like they are endorsing violence, which is a fine line. They are concerned that when a violent act occours someone will look back at the Halo 2 tournement and ask them 'What where you thinking/did you expect.' It is a slightly well founded concern, but is a symptom of a larger issue of pre-emptive prissyness. No group is calling for them not to play the game, they are heading it off in the anticipation of disaproval, which also seemed to motivate the Halloween thing. It's this anticipation that is usually behind the 'gone too far' claims, the jumping at ones own shadow. There are far more people who just want people to be sensitive enough to think about what they are doing and saying and realising it's realistic implications than there are people who want sterility in everything-but the fear of overreaction has far more effect than over-reaction itself. (and oddly enough can promote an over reaction)

From the comments I don't think that they are worried that it will cause students to be violent but rather seem like they are endorsing violence, which is a fine line. They are concerned that when a violent act occours someone will look back at the Halo 2 tournement and ask them 'What where you thinking/did you expect.' It is a slightly well founded concern, but is a symptom of a larger issue of pre-emptive prissyness. No group is calling for them not to play the game, they are heading it off in the anticipation of disaproval, which also seemed to motivate the Halloween thing. It's this anticipation that is usually behind the 'gone too far' claims, the jumping at ones own shadow. There are far more people who just want people to be sensitive enough to think about what they are doing and saying and realising it's realistic implications than there are people who want sterility in everything-but the fear of overreaction has far more effect than over-reaction itself. (and oddly enough can promote an over reaction)

Hmmmm good point. Would you then say that this is or has wider implications for fundraising or even society at large?

Hmmmm good point. Would you then say that this is or has wider implications for fundraising or even society at large?
I think the effect is already on the world at large. I was going to say that the larger a group is the more prone it is to jump at its own shadow on things like this, but I think in retrospect that's not neccisarily true.

Overall, it is an unwillingness to even appear in the court of public opinion, or make a plea of nolo-contendra(sp, thats probably not even close...). They would rather be seen as prudes than face the outside chance of having someone show up with a picket sign or a petition.

To a degree the 'gone too far' crowd have a point, if not all that well considered. Free speech has to protect unpopular speech or it's not really free speech. But, if you are going to do something that is inflamitory or irresponsable you have to own that and not play wounded victim when people are inflammed. If you are not willing to deal with other peoples right to be pissed at what you said, then you shouldn't say it. And that is the case with this school district. They are not prepared for someone to be pissed at them in hindsight if something violent happens.

Keep in mind, regarding the inflaming, the inflamed have every right to ask that you shut up. What they don't have the right to do is force you to shut up. Another distinction that is sometimes lost on the 'gone too far' crowd (and even sometimes the other way around).

All of that being said, we are a culture that has made a pastime at jumping at our own shadows, and nuance and self reflection are not a crowds' strong points. One would assume that a pendulum would eventually rest in the middle, but we seem to have turned it into a perpetual motion machine that swings just as violent both ways, with nuance left wanting.

The exact same thing happened at my school, except we were using the original halo. We were expecting to raise over $300 for orphans during the holidays. They cancelled on us the day before, after we had already gotten everything set up and had gotten nearly 70 dollars in donations for prizes. It was rediculous, and the guys over in the district offices won't even talk to us about it. We had waivers of consent signed by all the participants and their parents and we had even collected some of the entrances fees already. Needless to say it hasn't gotten any news coverage.

Hasn't violent gaming be found to reduce violence more than it propagates it?

The exact same thing happened at my school, except we were using the original halo. We were expecting to raise over $300 for orphans during the holidays. They cancelled on us the day before, after we had already gotten everything set up and had gotten nearly 70 dollars in donations for prizes. It was rediculous, and the guys over in the district offices won't even talk to us about it. We had waivers of consent signed by all the participants and their parents and we had even collected some of the entrances fees already. Needless to say it hasn't gotten any news coverage.

Hasn't violent gaming be found to reduce violence more than it propagates it?
Again, it's that fine line between propagating violence and endorsing violence. It seem nebulous, but it's that line they are trying to walk. They aren't afraid that you'll come out of the tournement and start shooting each other, but rather to be put in a position of seeming to endorse violence or accept it. It's a fuzzy line, but a line all the same.

What I would say is this:Do the tourney anyway-do the fundraiser anyway. Just don't use the school as your sponser. You know who would sponser you, and likely make matching donations? Microsoft. Any chance to not look evil, MS will jump all over it, and they certainly wouldn't be afraid of what the game implies about them.

arrr.. don't you love the plasma sword

Again, it's that fine line between propagating violence and endorsing violence. It seem nebulous, but it's that line they are trying to walk. They aren't afraid that you'll come out of the tournement and start shooting each other, but rather to be put in a position of seeming to endorse violence or accept it. It's a fuzzy line, but a line all the same.

What I would say is this:Do the tourney anyway-do the fundraiser anyway. Just don't use the school as your sponser. You know who would sponser you, and likely make matching donations? Microsoft. Any chance to not look evil, MS will jump all over it, and they certainly wouldn't be afraid of what the game implies about them.
lol, that's a good plan. We were actually thinking of maybe having it away from the school, especially since we just got a new shop around here that does lan parties and would probably let us play for free because it's a charity. Unfortunately, at least half the kids were going away on Christmas, and since we didn't have a particularly huge number to begin with it just sort of faded away. Aditionally, they banned our club (webmasters) from being allowed to play it during meetings, which is the only way we're really getting membership up. We still play behind their backs, but it's gotten harder because the teacher who moderates us fears greatly the chance of getting fired if an administrator was to find out.

The biggest advantage to having deep freeze on the computers here is that we can install any game and play it in a matter of seconds, and all we have to do is restart and poof, it's gone :). I still plan to remove it one day during a dull period, my school has the slightest hole in its computer security.

Schools need to pull the sticks out of their asses. Here's some violence that those concervitives can't stop!
:mp5: :gundge: :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :sniper:
Look! :eek: the emoticons are shooting each other!

The school is obviously making a common cause fallacy.

For, it be true that violent kids play violent video games, but I doubt that it is the games that are making the games violent, but it is far more likely that the kids are violent by nature. And they play violent games that are equally popular with non-violent kids.

Hence: Kids can play violent video games and not by nature be violent. :)

But to do this for a fundraiser...well I see no major issue but it would depend on the charity. For example it would not do to have a Halo comp for a anti war charity....

Would a game of chess by more appropriate in your opinion? (in other words, is an abstracted war game suitable).

If you are not willing to deal with other peoples right to be pissed at what you said, then you shouldn't say it.

I think this is one of the wisest things I have ever seen posted here on the NS Forums! Being free takes courage and it's high time people came to grip with this issue. If you can't stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen, but don't pretend you're a burn victim if you elect to leave!

Look, violent video games don't make kids violent. It just makes the violent kids more violent.

Violent video games make me want to kill!

School is probably worried about being sued. Some whacko parent would come along, in spite of the waiver, and sue the school for corrupting their precious little darling. :headbang:

I think the effect is already on the world at large. I was going to say that the larger a group is the more prone it is to jump at its own shadow on things like this, but I think in retrospect that's not neccisarily true.

Overall, it is an unwillingness to even appear in the court of public opinion, or make a plea of nolo-contendra(sp, thats probably not even close...). They would rather be seen as prudes than face the outside chance of having someone show up with a picket sign or a petition.

To a degree the 'gone too far' crowd have a point, if not all that well considered. Free speech has to protect unpopular speech or it's not really free speech. But, if you are going to do something that is inflamitory or irresponsable you have to own that and not play wounded victim when people are inflammed. If you are not willing to deal with other peoples right to be pissed at what you said, then you shouldn't say it. And that is the case with this school district. They are not prepared for someone to be pissed at them in hindsight if something violent happens.

Keep in mind, regarding the inflaming, the inflamed have every right to ask that you shut up. What they don't have the right to do is force you to shut up. Another distinction that is sometimes lost on the 'gone too far' crowd (and even sometimes the other way around).

All of that being said, we are a culture that has made a pastime at jumping at our own shadows, and nuance and self reflection are not a crowds' strong points. One would assume that a pendulum would eventually rest in the middle, but we seem to have turned it into a perpetual motion machine that swings just as violent both ways, with nuance left wanting.

This is rather amusing. You wrote the above and after I read it I went to read my paper. And what was in my paper? An article by Salman Rushdie asking if we need to fight the Enlightenment again...

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=603426

The idea that any kind of free society can be constructed in which people will never be offended or insulted, have the right to call on the law to defend them against being offended or insulted, is absurd. In the end a fundamental decision needs to be made: do we want to live in a free society or not? Democracy is not a tea party where people sit around making polite conversation. In democracies people get extremely upset with each other. They argue vehemently against each other's positions. (But they don't shoot.)

At Cambridge I was taught a laudable method of argument: you never personalise, but you have absolutely no respect for people's opinions. You are never rude to the person, but you can be savagely rude about what the person thinks. That seems to me a crucial distinction: people must be protected from discrimination by virtue of their race, but you cannot ring-fence their ideas. The moment you say that any idea system is sacred, whether it's a belief system or a secular ideology, the moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible.

Would a game of chess by more appropriate in your opinion? (in other words, is an abstracted war game suitable).

For an anti war fundraiser?

Well it depends how anal the organisation is to be honest. The best fundraising activities (if not all??) are based around some kind of competition which can/does/will give rise to warfare or simulates warfare.

Being the shallow kinda guy I am I'd be happy with the activity that raises the most funds...

This is rather amusing. You wrote the above and after I read it I went to read my paper. And what was in my paper? An article by Salman Rushdie asking if we need to fight the Enlightenment again...

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=603426

The idea that any kind of free society can be constructed in which people will never be offended or insulted, have the right to call on the law to defend them against being offended or insulted, is absurd. In the end a fundamental decision needs to be made: do we want to live in a free society or not? Democracy is not a tea party where people sit around making polite conversation. In democracies people get extremely upset with each other. They argue vehemently against each other's positions. (But they don't shoot.)

At Cambridge I was taught a laudable method of argument: you never personalise, but you have absolutely no respect for people's opinions. You are never rude to the person, but you can be savagely rude about what the person thinks. That seems to me a crucial distinction: people must be protected from discrimination by virtue of their race, but you cannot ring-fence their ideas. The moment you say that any idea system is sacred, whether it's a belief system or a secular ideology, the moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible.

Yeah, well-that's why Rushdie gets paid to do that and I don't. But good to know I was on the same page.

Yeah, well-that's why Rushdie gets paid to do that and I don't. But good to know I was on the same page.

:)

You and I both.

I just wonder at how stupid a person would have to be, to see a Halo-Tsunami fundraiser, and only be able to get "endorsement of violence" out of it.

Apart from the fact that personally I find the idea that things have come to this completely absurd and idiotic, I can understand why they did it.

I see it as a symptom of the american "compensation culture" one which is growing here in the UK.

Should, god forbid, any violent crime ever occur between students and or staff in that school, parents and or the defendants can implicate the school for allowing a culture that promotes violent behaviour. This can result in either their implication in criminal proceedings or civil proceedings, which could attach a large pricetag to suits of this type against the school. It makes a sad form of sense, a very sad form of sense...

All in all, its just depressing.

At our school, they made what I thought was the WORST way to donate to a charity: a frickin' PENNY "war". People DIED in the tsunami. We shouldn't be trying to make this into a GAME! Now I could see the HALO 2 tourney as legitimate as long as it is a fee to get into the tourney. I highly doubt that my school actually sent any of the money and they used it for probably a redneck lunch. Also in my neck of the woods, people think the 't' isn't silent. I keep telling them it is. Oh well, most of the folk at my school are all closed minded anyway.

Those guys must be closed minded too. So the district can allow bullying of defenseless kids like me, but you can't allow a game where you killl fake people? They're even giving it to Tsunami victims for cryin' out loud! You can't get most teens to donate a PENNY to ANYONE! Remember this, the pain of death only last until you're dead, but the pain of bullying lasts a LIFETIME.

When our school got modern computers they had GTA on them.
The fun didn't last very long.
Well, GTA is not good for school, but Halo is against aliens, so it shouldn't really be an issue. GTA celebrates vice, but Halo has you battle to save the earth.