NationStates Jolt Archive

Found it on the site that was linked in the "JT Becomes A Judge" thread. http://gamepolitics.com/2006/10/21/nimf-walsh-educators-urge-bully-boycott/

NIMF, Walsh, Educators Urge “Bully” Boycott

The furor over Bully won’t be going away any time soon as several well-respected educational and child advocacy organizations appear to be joining the fight.

As reported by the Boston Globe, Dr. David Walsh, president of the National Institute on Media & Family, has weighed in on the Bully controversy. Walsh told the newspaper:

“We don’t think this game is appropriate for kids of any age. It glamorizes and rewards the kind of anti social behaviors that teachers struggle with every day… 1. In one scene, the so-called hero sits in a tree like a sniper. Instead of a firearm, he has a slingshot. His target is the football team… This is an example of the inadequacy of the rating system…”

NIMF is warning parents off of Bully and urging retailers not to sell the game to teens.

Marlene Snyder, a national training coordinator for the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program at Clemson University in South Carolina, 2. expressed concerns that Bully takes place in school and that it deals with interpersonal relationships rather than with inanimate objects:

“3. PT1 Because it’s torn from a teen’s real life, it becomes a how-to manual. In a world of escalating violence, 3. PT2 this is not the message we need to be giving kids.”

Barbara Coloroso, author of The Bully, the Bullied & the Bystander, told the Globe:

“For a young kid who’s been relentlessly tormented, afraid to go to school, socially isolated, the game provides a kind of comfort: `Yes! This guy gets back at them!’ …4. the more they play, the more the neural pathways in the brain connect violence to pleasure.”

The Globe piece also dings Rockstar spokesman Rodney Walker for an interview posture described as “not forthcoming.”

The article also cites a Jack Thompson letter to the ESRB which urges the ratings board to change Bully from a T (13 and older) to an M (17 and older). Thompson’s letter is described by the newspaper as “forceful.” Forceful, indeed. Addressed to ESRB head Patricia Vance, Thompson’s letter includes the following “forceful” excerpts:

5. * “Take-Two has just had sex with the Lady holding the scales of Justice.”
* “You, Ms. Vance, now have a really, really, really serious problem… you’re pwned.”
* “You’re broken, Ms. Vance, and we’re going to fix you.”
* “Fraud has been committed, and the price therefore is going to be exacted, not upon me but upon you and Take-Two, your constant ratings scandal companion.”
* “I would suggest that you stop primping for photo ops and do your job, while you still have it. You have until Wednesday, Ms. Vance, then all Hell is going to break loose.”

Commenting on bolded text.

1. Oh come on. How many of you British people on here wouldn't want to sit in a tree and shoot at the football (soccer for you Amerikaners) team? Didn't they push you around, act like they were so much better? Now this prick is defending these assholes? My god.

2. Wait... So now we DON'T want our children to experience interpersonal relationships, even virtual ones? I myself have never been that social, but jeez man... I thought you were supposed to advocate social experiences?

3. So... We aren't supposed to be showing kids how some other kids life probably is? Amazing. I thought we wanted to show them the real world. Maybe? Just maybe?

4. Umm... Yeah. Of course. It's called "Distinguishing Reality From Fantasy". A lot of us can do it. Sure, a few bad apples can't, but don't put the blame on the rest of us. We all want to be the guy/girl who beats up the idiots at school! Yes, even you, Mr. Jack Thompson, even you want that. That's what the virtual world gives us. We all know, of course, than in reality we couldn't go around beating the shit out of people we hate.

5. lollerskates all around. He even used the word "pwned" in his letter. Bet he doesn't even know what it actually means...

Discuss.

People always want someone or something to blame when their kids are screw up and either become a loser who lives in the basement, or they take the Columbine route. One of the thing that people tend to blame are the video games, when really, the blame should be on the parents. Parents have more influence on a child's life than some video game. If a kid become a screw up, or shoot up the school, it because somewhere along the way, the parents failed to properly raise the child. Parents need to teach the child that there is a diffrence between fanasty and reality, and while you can do some things in one plane of existance, you can't do the same thing in another. Also, yes it does feel good to kill some people in a virtual reality after a hard's day of putting up with crap. That's why I play FPS.

I play Star Wars Battlefront II all the time, but I don't blame it for my desire for the wholesale slaughter of Ewoks. I've longed for that since I first saw Return of the Jedi. :p

I play Star Wars Battlefront II all the time, but I don't blame it for my desire for the wholesale slaughter of Ewoks. I've longed for that since I first saw Return of the Jedi. :p

Are Ewoks teddy bears? :confused:

Are Ewoks teddy bears? :confused:

Think Teddy Ruxpin's primitive ancestors.

People always want someone or something to blame when their kids are screw up and either become a loser who lives in the basement, or they take the Columbine route. One of the thing that people tend to blame are the video games, when really, the blame should be on the parents. Parents have more influence on a child's life than some video game. If a kid become a screw up, or shoot up the school, it because somewhere along the way, the parents failed to properly raise the child. Parents need to teach the child that there is a diffrence between fanasty and reality, and while you can do some things in one plane of existance, you can't do the same thing in another. Also, yes it does feel good to kill some people in a virtual reality after a hard's day of putting up with crap. That's why I play FPS.

You must have had a very deprived childhood. When I was a kid, I was a fighter pilot, Batman, a train driver and a cowboy. But, of course, it was my parents fault that I had a childs imagination. :rolleyes:

Giving these games to children is a stupid thing. By all means, sell them to adults, but it doesn't take a genius to realise that giving 'Bully' games to children might just, just undermine a 'don't bully' message.

You must have had a very deprived childhood. When I was a kid, I was a fighter pilot, Batman, a train driver and a cowboy. But, of course, it was my parents fault that I had a childs imagination. :rolleyes:

Giving these games to children is a stupid thing. By all means, sell them to adults, but it doesn't take a genius to realise that giving 'Bully' games to children might just, just undermine a 'don't bully' message.

You do realize the game is about a kid trying to fit into a new boarding school by fighting back against the bullies?

You do realize the game is about a kid trying to fit into a new boarding school by fighting back against the bullies?

Indeed.

Giving these games to children is a stupid thing. By all means, sell them to adults, but it doesn't take a genius to realise that giving 'Bully' games to children might just, just undermine a 'don't bully' message.
In the UK the game is a 15 rating, and it's illegal to sell it to anyone below that age (games are rated by the BBFC, same as films). If kids get their hands on it, whose fault is it? Either the shops, for breaking the law and selling it to kids, or the adults who bought it for the kid. Oftentimes that adult will be one of the child's parents.

In the US it's marked Teen. They don't have a legally-binding age-rating system, so it's up to the parents to check what their children are playing; much like it's up to the parents what television their children watch. Except, as far as I know, television doesn't have ratings clearly visible on the box.

I would say that a good 90% of any blame due to problems with children playing this game go on the parents. Why? Simple, the game has a 16+ rating on it. It means that no children below the age of 16 should purchase or play the game. If there are young children playing it 9 times out of 10 it was bought by the parents. Hell, my mum works in a nursery and more than 1 of the kids have come in after playing their copy of GTA. They're 3 but they're parents have bought them an 18 game!!!

In the UK the game is a 15 rating, and it's illegal to sell it to anyone below that age (games are rated by the BBFC, same as films). If kids get their hands on it, whose fault is it? Either the shops, for breaking the law and selling it to kids, or the adults who bought it for the kid. Oftentimes that adult will be one of the child's parents.

In the US it's marked Teen. They don't have a legally-binding age-rating system, so it's up to the parents to check what their children are playing; much like it's up to the parents what television their children watch. Except, as far as I know, television doesn't have ratings clearly visible on the box.

Damn. Beat me to it!!!

You must have had a very deprived childhood. When I was a kid, I was a fighter pilot, Batman, a train driver and a cowboy. But, of course, it was my parents fault that I had a childs imagination. :rolleyes:


Meh, having surgeries all the time tend to rob you of your childhood. Ah well. I did enjoy Batman though.

In the UK the game is a 15 rating, and it's illegal to sell it to anyone below that age (games are rated by the BBFC, same as films). If kids get their hands on it, whose fault is it? Either the shops, for breaking the law and selling it to kids, or the adults who bought it for the kid. Oftentimes that adult will be one of the child's parents.

In the US it's marked Teen. They don't have a legally-binding age-rating system, so it's up to the parents to check what their children are playing; much like it's up to the parents what television their children watch. Except, as far as I know, television doesn't have ratings clearly visible on the box.

It's true that there are definite issues regarding how the children get their hands on the game; the OP, however, was arguing that there was no harm in them having it, not how they get it.

Giving these games to children is a stupid thing. By all means, sell them to adults, but it doesn't take a genius to realise that giving 'Bully' games to children might just, just undermine a 'don't bully' message.

Only if you have no fucking idea what the game is about.

In the UK the game is a 15 rating, and it's illegal to sell it to anyone below that age (games are rated by the BBFC, same as films). If kids get their hands on it, whose fault is it? Either the shops, for breaking the law and selling it to kids, or the adults who bought it for the kid. Oftentimes that adult will be one of the child's parents.

In the US it's marked Teen. They don't have a legally-binding age-rating system, so it's up to the parents to check what their children are playing; much like it's up to the parents what television their children watch. Except, as far as I know, television doesn't have ratings clearly visible on the box.

Television does come with a rating system, and the restrictions offered by the V-chip, in the US at least.

Only if you have no fucking idea what the game is about.

What a cunning and brilliant retort. How you wound me with your genius tactic of not saying anything worthwhile at all.

It's true that there are definite issues regarding how the children get their hands on the game; the OP, however, was arguing that there was no harm in them having it, not how they get it.
There are only two ways of preventing children getting their hands on unsuitable games, though:

1) Stop making all games with content some might find objectionable,

2) Get parents and shops to heed the clearly-marked age-ratings on the boxes.

I would not be at all happy with 1, and I suspect that an industry larger than Hollywood would have something to say about it. If a legally-enforced age-rating-system in the USA would help shut these people up, then go for it.
The problem lies in many people think that "computer games are for children!", when that is clearly not the case. In fact, the average age of a gamer is somewhere in the region of 30, and people who aren't familiar with gaming really need to realise this before buying games like Grand Theft Auto for their eight-year-old.

Television does come with a rating system, and the restrictions offered by the V-chip, in the US at least.
Fair enough; in the UK it doesn't, and there's no such thing (AFAIK) as a "V-Chip" here. I thought it'd been made up for South Park ;)

Giving these games to children is a stupid thing. By all means, sell them to adults, but it doesn't take a genius to realise that giving 'Bully' games to children might just, just undermine a 'don't bully' message.

Have you played the game?

Giving these games to children is a stupid thing. By all means, sell them to adults, but it doesn't take a genius to realise that giving 'Bully' games to children might just, just undermine a 'don't bully' message.

Have you played the game?

Giving these games to children is a stupid thing. By all means, sell them to adults, but it doesn't take a genius to realise that giving 'Bully' games to children might just, just undermine a 'don't bully' message.

Have you played the game?