Gamers of the World, Unite

[Occhidiangela]

Yes. But "not unlimited" is not the same as "none." If there is no strong, ethically defensible reason for denying kids access to something, then they shouldn't be denied. "No unlimited rights" is not a license for unlimited moralistic interference.

-Jester
[right][snapback]104987[/snapback][/right]

What you term unlimited moralistic interference fall into the category of parental responsiblity, which should be morally founded to be of any use. The concept of crawl, walk, trot, run, sprint -- in terms of developing judgment -- has to be tailored to each child, arbitrary age guidelines need not be inflexible. So, one child may be able to handle more advanced material than another.

It is a parent's responsibility to make judgments, to say "Yes" and to say "No." One cannot remain oblivious. The ideal aim is that by the late teens, one has taught one's children well enough that their own judgment will suffice when they leave the nest.

MSRB is an aid to judgment making, but video games are sold for profit: there is incentive to cheat at the margins, just as the Hollywood rating system has done.

The core issue being addressed here is the need, or not, for governmental legislation. One position is that the industry can't be trusted to police itself -- not a completely bogus position given the profit motive, and that Government can police it better. I disagree with the latter premise.

Government has better things to do with its time. The judgment and discretion forces parents to make decisions, and to sometimes say "No." Once out of the nest, it is caveat emptor in any case.

We still don't have an XBOX in our house. Kids 16 and 13. Why? Not worth fighting with my wife over. She says No, and I support her decision.

We didn't need a government to do that. To make a decision. :whistling:

Occhi

EDIT: finished the sentence fragment that previously ended with "need."