< PrevNext >1-10 of 17

New Game +

posted by David Doe, 29 Jun 2010
A little over 9 months ago, I started Gamers4Croydon with this post on the Steam forums. I could never have imagined how far it would go, nor how well it would be received. Every now and then I look at the Steam group, the Facebook page and the election results, and the enormity of what we did as a community hits home.

No, we didn't win any seats, but we certainly exceeded our pre-election expectations by a large margin. We put political pressure on and helped unseat an Attorney-General (who was oddly absent throughout the ALP's 2010 campaign). We (along with others) helped raise public awareness of the classification debate by getting on mainstream radio and television and outlaying the facts as they are, rather than as they are perceived or often portrayed. And personally, I'd like to think that we brought something genuine to the political process and managed to engage a previously disengaged and largely overlooked segment of voters.

But all good things come to an end, and it's time to pass the torch on to people with the resources and experience necessary to bring the change to bear politically. Having successfully been a part of removing one of the largest roadblocks to classification reform in this country, we feel that Gamers4Croydon has run its course as a party. As a result, we are in the process of de-registering the party. Once again, we'd like to thank everyone who contributed to the campaign.

We've been highlighting other political parties recently because we want to continue to engage people in the political process. Our platform of progressive and pragmatic change can still be represented in parliament, but you need to research your vote. It is no secret that the Australian Sex Party endorsed us for the South Australian election, and our preference deal with The Greens was something we unashamedly advertised (even if it didn't quite work out the way we'd negotiated). 

As one door closes, another opens. While we will not be contesting the upcoming federal election, the G4C team will continue to help gamers' voices be heard, and we will continue to hold our elected parliamentarians accountable. If you supported Gamers4Croydon's bid for election in South Australia, you aligned with our policies and you wanted to see us run federally, you should look very closely at both the ASP and The Greens. They're the closest aligned to us ideologically and we all share many common policies. Better, if you want to be a part of something special and something that you'll always remember, get involved with their campaigns. I know they would love any help they can get; we sure did, and it can be a lot of fun too.

2010 is the dawning of a new age of politics in Australia; the age of the informed voter. This election may not have gamers running in it, but it's certainly going to have them participating every step of the way.

Get informed, involved and talking.

Change the world.

Peace,
David Doe / r1nce

Federal Government update on R18+ debate

posted by Chris Prior, 7 May 2010
The below is a press release issued today by the office of Brendan O'Connor, Minister for Home Affairs, regarding the ongoing debate over video game classification.


The Standing Committee of Attorneys General today agreed to release a status report following public consultation about whether Australia's Classification Scheme should include an R 18+ classification category for computer games.

Minister for Home Affairs Brendan O'Connor said: "The report released today shows the initial outcomes of the public consultation process which received approximately 60,000 submissions - an overwhelming level of response."

Preliminary analysis indicates:

- approximately 98 per cent of submissions support an R18+ classification for computer games
- submissions were received individually by email (12 per cent), fax and post (2 per cent), as well as being delivered by retailer EB Games (59 per cent) and 'Grow Up Australia' (27 per cent), and
- a sample of approximately 24,000 submissions shows that while submissions were received in all age and both gender categories, the overwhelming majority were from males aged 18 to 34.

The status report also contains samples of frequent 'free text' comments and a summary of arguments raised by 34 community, church and industry groups who lodged submissions.

"It is not just the weight of numbers that need to be considered. It is also the strength of the arguments on each side. That is why Ministers today agreed that further work needs to be done before a decision can be made."

"This issue is of considerable interest to Australians so the Government is releasing a status report on the consultation to ensure the community is kept well informed of its progress."

"Censorship Ministers have not yet made a decision on whether or not an R 18+ classification for computer games should be introduced and have requested further analysis of community and expert views."

"The Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department continues to process and analyse submissions from the public consultation, so figures are preliminary and may change as the processing and analysis of submissions continues," Mr O'Connor said.

"Thank you to the thousands of people who made a submission," Mr O'Connor said.

"This feedback will play an important role in assisting Ministers to make a decision on this important public issue."

The status report is available at www.ag.gov.au/gamesclassification.

Stakeholder submissions and samples of submissions received from individuals will also be made available on this website.


We'll be looking closely at the submissions made by various groups, and reporting on them soon.

A brief update on the R18+ classification rating debate

posted by David Doe, 13 Apr 2010
While it is difficult to pin down the various Attorneys-General on their actual and substantive views on the matter, there have been several breakthroughs.

Firstly, and it's important to note that this was flagged as a potential issue way back in February, it would appear that the overwhelming number of responses to the Discussion Paper have effectively ensured that we will not get any firm response at the next SCAG meeting to be held on May 7th. It has been indicated that there are simply too many responses to collate in the timeframe they have been given, and this has received soft confirmation from two Attorneys-General offices that their understanding of this meeting was that it would contain information on progress and not the completed report in its entirety.

Secondly, it's hard to gauge what's actually going to be discussed at any SCAG meeting in any event, as a spokesperson for the SCAG stated that the "meeting agenda is confidential" in order to allow the Attorneys the ability to have "open and frank discussion with each other". And aside from being in Melbourne, the location of the meeting is also not disclosed for reasons of confidentiality. Try not to let your irony-detector break when considering that it describes a meeting between censorship ministers.

So where does this leave us in regards to the R18+ rating? In limbo. We're probably going to have to wait until the following SCAG meeting to be held in July to get a clear confirmation on this. Nailing politicians down on any policy point, especially so close to a federal election, is tricky at best, but we will continue to try and do so, and we want to encourage everyone else to try as well.

So... get active. Email your local and federal members. Forward their replies to us and we'll put their answer into a 'yes', 'no', 'lazy' or 'coward' category for everyone to see at a glance who supports it, who doesn't support it, who copies and pastes form-responses, and who deliberately evades the question. And if you're really energetic, get in touch with their opponent, or all of the candidates in your electorate and send us their responses too.

As for the future of Gamers4Croydon... Stay tuned. =)

Thank you.

posted by David Doe, 4 Apr 2010
As a large portion of the world celebrates the first Sunday after the first full moon after the northern hemisphere's vernal equinox, a time traditionally spent celebrating the rebirth of the Sun and the day's renewed dominance over the night - a time seen as a period of thanks and renewal, I want to take the opportunity to give some thanks of my own.

The Gamers4Croydon journey started out very small, and while I'm sure that my friends were placating me and what seemed like an incredibly silly idea, to those early few; Cathy (Smeggette), Scott (ThinkNo), Kevin (sherx), Adam (K1L3RB) and Jim (JRepeat); Thank you! If it weren't for your initial confidence and support, Gamers4Croydon would never have happened.

Over time, we've managed to develop something of a working relationship with the press, but the gaming press in particular was generally keen to print something about our journey. From ScreenPlay's Jason Hill, to TOG's BookBuster, AustralianGamer's George and Luke, the team at Good Game, Richie from GameArena, GameSpot, Ethan from GamersRequest, Bennett and the gang at games.on.net, and the legendary David Wildgoose of Kotaku AU whose timely column on the morning of the first sign-up event way back in early November almost singlehandedly made Gamers4Croydon possible - they all had a hand to play in our success. To the guys and gals of the gaming press, thank you! If it weren't for your coverage and exposure to larger audiences, Gamers4Croydon would never have happened.

When I started Gamers4Croydon, I was told that in order to register as a political party, I would need to sign up 150 electors to say that they would not only be a member of the party, but that they would vote for us at the coming election. To all of our 800+ members nationally, but particularly those 241 South Australian members who were part of our initial lodgment with the Electoral Commission - You either came to a sign-up event of your own volition, had me knock your door in Croydon (thanks for the beer that day, Karen) and explain the aims of the party, or had me or another member badger you at a barbecue; Thank you. Without your implied support for the party to the Electoral Commission, Gamers4Croydon would never have happened.

Something of a point of pride for me personally is the grass-roots nature of Gamers4Croydon. With zero corporate money coming into our coffers, I can hand on heart say that every piece of electioneering material, advertising, merchandise and administrative costs were completely paid for by the community itself. As a group, we raised over $16000 (and probably spent more than that) towards the cause. It needs to be said that every donation (From $5 to $500) played a part in our success at the polls, no matter how large or small, because by the end, much like every vote, every dollar counted. To everyone who donated their hard-earned; Thank you! Without your contribution, no matter the size, Gamers4Croydon would never have happened.

Our volunteers made our party the success that it is. We had volunteers from almost day one, the earliest of which was Zoran, quite literally limping around the eGames expo in Melbourne handing out our first sequence of fliers while he was on crutches. There are almost too many people to thank, because we all made an effort somehow. To everyone who told a friend, re-tweeted us on Twitter, invited friends to join on Steam, got on Facebook and spread the word, came to any of our events, wore our badges, bought our merchandise, displayed our bumper-stickers, forwarded our emails, changed your avatar, commented positively and shared their goodwill; Thank you! Without everything you did, Gamers4Croydon would never have happened.

Election Day was always going to be interesting, and our special host of how-to-vote cards volunteers made it even more so. From dressing as Sailor Moon, to driving hours to get to Croydon itself, to getting drafted with a night to go (thanks Erin!), but mainly just for being there and taking part; Thank you! Every vote we garnered outside our demographic and by the simple fact that you were there helped set the stage for our successes on the day.

A few very quick mentions to a host of people whose input changed the way we were able to interact with the populace at large, and without whom, we would have seen a very different Gamers4Croydon.

To the StreetGeek team, who not only gave rise to the line "church-based activities" for most of our candidate bios, and indeed gave us most of our candidates, but who gave us time at multiple LANs to proselytize (and stay sane); Thank you!

To Lee Gaywood and the team at Unlimited Space who gave us free hosting and answered my many, many tech-support related enquiries, generally quite late at night and with me sounding like not having email was the world coming to an end; Thank you!

To Stephen Rangott for making the How-To guides for the parental controls on the PS3 and XBOX - I know they must have been boring to make; Thank you!

To Tim Jupe for giving us access to his home studio, his expertise and his photoshop, to get our fantastic campaign corflute photos done; Thank you!

To Lee Harriss for giving us a website that not only didn't make people cringe as soon as they saw it (as my effort before his surely did), but for providing us the sexy framework to give people access to information we thought was important; Thank you!

To Katie for covering more ground than anyone else in Croydon while letter-dropping our fliers; Thank you!

To that one guy who said that he didn't know who Gamers4Croydon was before he went into the poll booth, but googled us and found out that what he thought we were about was right; Thank you!

To Bob, Tim, Jason, Matt, Alan and everyone else who got their hands dirty (from the cheap ink) while letter-dropping, Thank you!

To the girls at Officeworks Croydon, I don't think photocopying has ever been as much fun as you helped make it; Thank you!

To Julian (FunkyJ) for always having something positive to say, and for always asking the tough questions ahead of the press; Thank you!

To Eggs, for braving the steps of parliament house and edging into as many photos as possible; Thank you!

To Sandy Biar for the stimulating conversation, the heads-ups, the polite rivalry, the understanding, the information on the process; Thank you!

There are a few very special mentions for some very special contributors to Gamers4Croydon that need to be recognized. These aren't in any order, but they are all incredibly significant and without any of these people helping as much as they did, this whole effort, this whole party, this whole movement would never have happened.

To Rupert (Stinky) for single-handedly inviting almost every South Australian on Steam to the G4C group. Who custom-made our email widgets to spec in his spare time, who always had something positive to say, no matter the situation; Thank you!

To Adam Rudd, Gamers4Croydon's principle artist. Without Adam's selfless help and ongoing (often nightly) contributions, we wouldn't have had our logo, any of our fliers, our how-to-vote cards, our merchandise, our website looking so slick, our advertisements or any of a hundred other things that I asked him to provide, and he did it all with his trademark upbeat attitude, and all over the phone via teleconference between Melbourne and Adelaide. Adam, thank you!

To my parents, for not only giving me permission to use your "Office" as the Gamers4Croydon office, however 'mysterious' Channel 7 might have thought it was, but for feeding me, providing financial aid and giving me space in your house to run the campaign for the entirety of January. Though I was a long way from home, you made the transition into full-time campaigning much easier; Thank you!

To Granma, for giving me space in your house to run the campaign from February to March, and for reminding me that a lot of people think there are only two parties; Thank you!

To Matt Allpress, Tom Birdseye and Ben Ernst, for being our candidates for Light, Adelaide and Mawson, for taking part, for ponying up the cash to run as a candidate, for the beers, for the badges, for handing out how-to-vote cards on the day, for the lols; Thank you!

To David Egge, for being there from the start, for being our candidate for Norwood, for always offering to do the hard yards, for the pizza, for the movies, for Firefly, for the d20s; Thank you!

To Kat Nicholson, for coming forward and offering to take a stand with us, for being the Croydon candidate in good humour, for seeking your own media, for heading out to the election panels, for the fliers, for the corflutes, for being the 'face', for challenging the status quo; Thank you!

To Chris Prior, for getting in my face that first sign-up day and forcing your way into being an integral and irreplaceable part of the party, for doing all the things I didn't want to do, for the reams and reams of paperwork you made me read (or read for me and gave me the gist of), for taking the 'truthiness' out, for getting press, for literally beating down the press' door, for knowing the rules, for making sure that I knew the rules too, for the countless hours dropping letters, watching photocopiers, folding fliers, licking envelopes, keeping morale high, for the uber-charges, for the late night and early morning chats, for guiding the process just as much as I was, for keeping me sane, for updating the website, for putting up with me not updating the website, for the shared cynicism, for the laughs, for the policies, for the ideas, for the interviews, for being a friend and for being the best candidate we could have possibly fielded (proven by getting 7934 votes -so far- in the Legislative Council); Thank you!

The final person I need and want to thank is my wife, Nicci. Nicci let me take time off from my real life to go off on this crusade. While I was away from home, Nicci looked after our house, did renovations, paid all of our bills, tended the garden, organized a holiday and never uttered a word about the inconvenience of not having her husband at home or the financial burden of my not pulling a wage. She was a constant source of support and inspiration and without her understanding, without her love, without her unceasing and unflinching support of the idea what was Gamers4Croydon, I can safely tell you all, that Gamers4Croydon would never, ever, have happened. Thank you, Nicci, none of this would have been possible without you!

I mentioned before that this time of year was traditionally seen as a sign of renewal and rebirth. Here's to looking forward and to being positive about the future. Together, we've planted the seed of something special. Let's nurture it into something extraordinary.

My name is David Doe, and if it wasn't for you, I wouldn't be a Gamer4Croydon.



TL;DR - Thank you.

Here's your 1%

posted by Chris Prior, 22 Mar 2010
Not long after Gamers4Croydon's founding, Michael Atkinson dismissively stated that we wouldn't get even 1% of the vote. Come election day, Kat Nicholson garnered 3.7% of the vote, contributing to Atkinson losing almost 14% of his primary vote. Less than a day after polls closed Mr Atkinson announced he would not seek to retain his position as Attorney-General.

Seeing the role of Attorney-General filled by someone other than Mr Atkinson was a primary founding goal of Gamers4Croydon. With less than 6 months to prepare, no political experience, and only a few thousand dollars funding, we have achieved that goal. With so very little to work with, we have contributed to two other incumbents losing their seats, and all of our lower house candidates polled higher than the 1% we apparently wouldn't get. In the upper house, we outpolled the majority of groups, including a significant number with more resources, more experience, and much more time.

What this now means for the introduction of the R classification remains to be seen. Unfortunately there are never any guarantees in politics, but we have removed the largest impediment to classification reform. We have raised a significant amount of awareness in the community about the problems with the classification system. We have sent a major warning to every Attorney General in the country that blocking positive reform is not only bad for the community but will hurt them politically. We have led by example, helped improve the level of discourse in the online community, and placed gamers in a better position than ever before to be heard and taken seriously.

The fight for an R18+ classification, genuine representation, and proactive and accountable government is far from over. Gamers4Croydon's campaign is far from over. Together with the gaming community and fellow progressives, we have heralded a new generation of politically savvy voters, and sent a strong warning to all who would use the power entrusted to them by the people, for themselves:

We game, we vote.

My name is Chris Prior, and I'm a Gamer4Croydon.

Moments from history

posted by David Doe, 19 Mar 2010
There are now less than 23 hours to go before the start of the historic 2010 election.

Everyone has a unique opportunity to make a statement with their vote, and we want you to make it as loud and as clear as you can.

More than that, everyone should feel proud to have been a part of a completely grassroots campaign; bound together by social networking, word-of-mouth, and a shared vision of the future - where equal rights and transparency in government are commonplace, instead of inconsistent and haphazard at best.

That we've come so far in such a short time highlights our passion, our will to be heard, and our lack of acceptance of the status-quo.

We have 33 hours until the polls close and the counting begins. We need everyone to stand up and be counted. We need everyone to tell others to stand up and get counted too. Only through sheer force of numbers will we affect change.

Vote for a Gamers4Croydon candidate in your lower-house seat if you can. Electors in Light, Mawson, Norwood, Adelaide and Croydon have a chance to determine the government of the day.

More than just determining government, we have a chance to oversee it. By voting 1 in box "Z" in the upper house, we're giving Gamers4Croydon president, Chris Prior, the best platform to raise our issues, to have our voices heard, and to hold the rest to a higher standard by leading by example.

Below is an image with a How-to-Vote card for Chris and Gamers4Croydon for the Legislative Council. Print as many copies as you feel you can, and hand them out at your local booth on election day after you've voted there.

You might not get everyone to change their vote, but the very fact that you've tried to engage others in the process might mean that you'll get us one, or ten, or a hundred more votes.

Every vote counts.

Stand up and be counted. Tell others to do the same.

This is our chance to write history.

Write it with me.


My name is David Doe, and I'm a Gamer4Croydon.

Backroom Dealings Laid Bare: Hey other parties, remember that transparency thing?

posted by David Doe, 11 Mar 2010
Here's a graphical representation of where preferences are heading on March 20, if you vote above the line on the Legislative Council ballot. This information is invaluable for the voting public, so they know who the parties really are, and who they really support. Some people might be put off Gamers4Croydon by our preferences, but that is the price we pay for our commitment to transparency in politics. How many other parties would so publicise their preferences?

This image assumes that the only groups that have a chance at landing a seat in the Legislative Council are : Australian Labor Party, David Winderlich, The Greens, Family First, Australian Democrats, Liberal Party and Gamers4Croydon.

Disclaimer - this could be wildly and hilariously wrong.

To explain the image - Each of those groups has been assigned a block colour. ALP is blue, Winderlich is orange, Greens are ... green, Family First are black, Democrats are yellow, Liberals are red, and Gamers4Croydon are purple.

There are a series of outlines around each group that indicate where, among those seven groups, the first preferences would land should any group be eliminated.

The ALP will not be receiving any preferences from any group in front of the seven listed above.

David Winderlich will ultimately be receiving preferences from Christians for VE, Dignity for Disability, SA Change, Stewart Glass, No Desal No Dams, F.R.E.E. Australia Party, Garry Mighall, Kelly Henderson, Joseph Williams and Howard Frayne Coombe.

The Greens will ultimately receive preferences from the ALP (after over quota overflow), Legalise VE, Frank Williams, Gamers4Croydon, Michelle Drummond and Doug McLaren.

Family First will ultimately receive preferences from the Climate Sceptics, One Nation, Mark Aldridge, Save RAH, SA Fishing & Lifestyle, Democratic Labor Party, Liberals (after over quota overflow), Shooters Party and Trevor Grace.

The Australian Democrats will receive preferences from David Winderlich and United Party.

The Liberal Party will be receiving preferences from Family First (after over quota overflow), Joe Ienco, The Nationals and Joe Carbone.

Finally, Gamers4Croydon will receive preferences from The Greens (after what I hope is an over quota overflow smaller than our primary vote), Fair Land Tax Party, Australian Democrats and Peter Panagaris.

Confused? Read the disclaimer again.

In any event - the best way to ensure that we get a seat is to make sure that our primary vote is over quota (roughly 85,000 votes), so make sure that you tell everyone you know - family, friends, friends' families, students (university), teachers, colleagues, people in the street, etc - that you're voting for Gamers4Croydon and that you hope they do too.

It's time for change. It's time for transparency. It's time for accountability.

It's time to be Gamers4Croydon.


David Doe.



The full details of preferences can be downloaded here.

Gamers' push for equality and common sense angers (lying) fundamentalists

posted by Chris Prior, 2 Mar 2010
Yesterday, the Australian Christian Lobby (a firm supporter of the internet filter, and a whole swag of other things to do with limiting individual liberties) fired a shot over the bow of those fighting for common sense classification, with a sizable helping of lies. In a press release, the ACL compared the games industry to big tobacco attempting to cover up the risk of lung cancer. Speaking to The Age newspaper, the ACL complained that the discussion paper was biased. Both the press release and the article dredge up tired old arguments about media and interactivity, while attempting to rewrite history.

Contrary to the blatant lie from the ACL that the discussion paper did not address issues of content in R18+ video games, the core of the debate is content. The content allowable under and R18+ classification was extensively discussed in the discussion paper. Coincidentally, the lies about the content of the paper were told after submissions closed, and the paper was removed from the government website, making it harder for people to check for themselves.

The discussion paper may well have been biased, but not in the way the ACL would like people to think. The "anti-r18+" arguments within the paper were based on selective research at best, ignoring the realities of the modern world, and in some cases were little more than unfounded emotional arguments. Despite this, they were given the same credence as the more factually based pro-R18+ arguments; a layman could not be expected to differentiate.

Despite this bias, despite the ACL's own efforts to promote responses in line with its agenda, by all accounts the response has been overwhelmingly in favour of an R18+ classification for video games. Is it coincidental that these complaints about 'bias' seemed only to arise after results started coming in?

The comparison to big tobacco is tenuous. A more appropriate comparison would be to the proponents of every new form of media in recorded history - television, pop music, jazz, film and the printing press have all been decried as the harbingers of society's downfall. As with video games, there was no evidence of these claims beyond biased research and fallacious arguments. Last time we checked, mass produced books hadn't destroyed civilisation.

The argument about the impact of violent media has no founding in reality. Despite claims of extensive, reliable research and implied scientific consensus, neither exists. Much of the research claiming to find that consumption of violent media caused violence and aggression has been extensively criticised for ignoring results that do not fit with the prejudice, and even taking research that suggests one thing, and claiming it proves the opposite. The single researcher cited by the ACL, Craig Anderson, has been called out specifically by his peers (notably Prof Christopher J Ferguson) for making extensive use of a test that has no scientific grounding to 'prove' the harmfulness of violent media. His habit of ignoring bias in others' work that fits his prejudice has also been criticised.

Similarly, claims of increased impact from interactivity in games are spurious at best. There is no evidence proving this, while a study by Britain's classification body found that children are more affected by TV news than violent video games because they can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. The constant need for input (pressing buttons) also reinforces the artificial nature of video games.

Regardless, the current classification guidelines require that interactivity be taken into account during the classification process. This process - and thus the accounting for interactivity - is undertaken by professionals, people with experience in the field. In an interview with Gamespot AU, Jim Wallace of the ACL said that the Classification Board was "quite an appropriate body to do the job." It is not undertaken by gamers, or by a lobby group seeking to impose its morals on others.

The ACL called for an open, public discussion of the issue. That seems to be the only thing we agree on. The facts need to be aired, old prejudices need to be challenged with reality, and it needs to happen where the world can see - where people can hear the respective arguments and judge them on their merits. Consider this an open invitation to the ACL - or any other opponent of common sense classification - to discuss the facts surrounding this issue with me, in public, and allow the people of Australia to make up their minds.

Further information about the impact of video games can be found in "Grand Theft Childhood", a book based on research funded by the US government, and conducted by the founders of Harvard Medical School's Center for Mental Health and Media

We game, we vote.

My name is Chris Prior, and I'm a Gamer4Croydon.

Former censor weighs in on classification debate

posted by Chris Prior, 24 Feb 2010
Paul Hunt is a former Deputy Director of the Classification Board and OFLC. He spent 6 years in that post, and is a parent of gamers, a child of gamers, and a gamer himself. He has submitted a 17 page response to the Federal Discussion Paper on R18+ classification. It's a worthwhile read, from someone who has vast experience in the field and a common-sense approach we can only hope will rub off on others.

Yes, that other.

Below are some excerpts from Mr Hunt's submission.

It is also insulting to me as a parent to suggest that I am not competent enough to manage access to computer games in the same way that I manage access to other adult content or products.

I doubt the competence of persons who continue to make the decision to exclude an R18+ from our National Classification Scheme.

Despite the assertions from some commentators, an R18+ classification would not result in the increased availability of, or accessibility to, games containing excessive violence or sex. Material within the R18+ classification must be strictly limited with permissible content set out in the classification guidelines consistent with film.

However, the arguments against an R18+ classification consist largely of unsubstantiated emotional outbursts, and it is disappointing that they have been included in a document designed to elicit measured responses.

Any assertion that an R18+ classification for computer games would permit sexual abuse, criminal activity and extreme violence is misleading.

Using [NARC and Blitz: The League] as an example of the content that would be available in an R18+ classification for computer games suggests a deliberate attempt by the commentator to mislead the community, or alternatively a complete lack of understanding of the requirements of the Classification Guidelines.

Of even greater concern is the fact that Mr. Atkinson does not understand that most Australians are gamers, and therefore the majority of the population is familiar with game content ... Whilst Mr. Atkinson may wish to marginalise gamers, and put down the knowledge of all Australians, I trust the Government will accept all submissions at face value as representative of the Australian community's feelings on this issue.

The Government has only asked the Australian community on one previous occasion if they would like an R18+ classification for computer games, as part of the 2000/2002 guidelines review. The answer then was an emphatic "YES". During the decade since the question was last asked, research and polls have indicated overwhelming community support for the introduction of an R18+ classification.

There is a need to follow South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson's advice on a recent similar issue regarding the rights and freedoms of Australians - an attempt to restrict political comment on the internet: "When one gets public opinion wrong, as I did, one has to change one's mind."

The close of submissions is the end of February, so if you haven't already, make your voice heard.

We game, we vote.

My name is Chris Prior, and I'm a Gamer4Croydon.

Surprise: Atkinson slurs Gamers again.

posted by Chris Prior, 15 Feb 2010
Michael Atkinson is at it again. Last time he paid attention to gamers, we were criminals who engage in dirty tricks. In an interview on the year's first Good Game episode, he said the following:

"I feel that my family and I are more at risk from gamers than we are from the outlaw motorcycle gangs"

We shouldn't be surprised. Mr Atkinson's stock in trade is generalising and demonising. But again, a group of people drawn from the entirety of Australian society (half of South Australians, according to a recent study) have been insulted. And why? Because Mr Atkinson seems more interested in his own prejudice than being a good representative.

After confirming Mr Atkinson declined to do an interview for ABC National News it's little wonder we haven't seen Mr Atkinson in the media recently, if this is the kind of performance we can expect. Baseless accusations and broad, sweeping generalities are all he has to offer.

< PrevNext >1-10 of 17