< PrevNext >1-10 of 11

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.

Atkinson graciously allows free speech

posted by Chris Prior, 3 Feb 2010
After only a few hours of public outrage at his most recent attempt to limit free speech, Michael Atkinson has backed down. He has promised to repeal the legislation after the election, and not enforce it during this electoral period. Given the Rann Government's history of sticking to election promises (for example, regarding the banning of political advertising with public funds) we're not going to forget this ill-fated attack on civil liberties by the people who should be representing us.

Whether or not you trust Mr Atkinson to keep his word, this is an example of the kind of power the people can have over government. Mr Atkinson and his party have been handed a humiliating reminder of just how reliant they are on staying in the people's good graces.

Let's keep up the fight, keep up the pressure, and keep working toward another "humiliating" backdown from Mr Atkinson.

We game, we vote.

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

SA Government attacks free speech

posted by Chris Prior, 2 Feb 2010
South Australia was one of the pioneers of the secret ballot, acknowledging the importance of being able to express political opinion without being judged for it - or worse. Spitting in the face of South Australia's proud history as a democratic trailblazer, the Rann government (with the collaboration of the Liberal party) has modified the Electoral Act to shred the right to anonymity.

Now, whenever a South Australian writes a comment about a political matter during an election period, they must provide their full name and address. With accusations of government MPs threatening their constituents with legal action for expressing dissent, it is not difficult to imagine a possible motivation for these changes.

Already this state lacks an independent corruption watchdog to oversee its elected officials, and now those same officials want personal information from members of the public who disagree with them. The Rann government cannot be trusted with the civil liberties of South Australians, and Ms Redmond's Liberal party seems unable - or unwilling - to defend those liberties.

This is your chance - maybe your last - to be heard. Speak freely with your vote on March 20. Vote for Gamers4Croydon for accountability in government and civil liberties for all South Australians, not just those in Parliament.


We game, we vote.

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

Candidates Announced

posted by Chris Prior, 23 Jan 2010
There's been a lot of speculation from all corners about who our candidates are going to be. While they're not all decided yet, two have been.

The name everyone's been waiting for - that of our Croydon candidate - is Kat Nicholson. She has sustained a lifelong love of both gaming and politics and is a highly intelligent, motivated and educated young woman. She is passionate about Adelaide and its capacity for innovation and growth, and is certain that the ever-changing area in which the seat of Croydon lies is a potential beacon for the rest of the state.

Not everyone lives in Croydon though, which makes it hard for all our supporters to vote for us. So we're running a candidate for the Legislative Council - Chris Prior. A programmer with a passion for politics dating back since before he can remember, he aims to be a candidate for all South Australians who expect more from their government. He will fight for more openness in government, tighter controls to prevent the abuse of power and a fair go for everyone.

The full blurbs and contact details for our candidates can be found on our candidate page.

We game, we vote.

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

New site, same determination

posted by David Doe, 22 Jan 2010
Hello and welcome to the all-singing, all-dancing, new and improved, actually put together by someone with programming skills, Gamers4Croydon website.

In the top right corner, you should see a "Contact your Federal MP" area. If you enter your postcode, you will be told who your current Federal MP is, and it will give you the option to send them an email. You can use our mail template, or you can write it yourself. In either case, the option to speak directly with your representation in Federal Parliament is a few clicks away.

By now you would have seen our marketplace widget at the bottom of the page. Help spread the word about Gamers4Croydon by buying our merchandise. It not only helps fund the election campaign, but you wearing or displaying our logo helps build awareness of the party.

We still have our Donations area operating, and we will still be making all donations publicly viewable (with personal details withheld) throughout the campaign. All monies being spent on electioneering material can also be found on this page as a full and thorough account of what we're doing with your money. True to our initial promise, anything we do not use during the course of the campaign will be donated to the Child's Play Charity. (And just so you know, the first $1500 of donations to any political party are full tax deductible.) All of this is in line with our overall aim of more transparency in government.

You're going to hear an awful lot about Gamers4Croydon in the coming months. You may even hear some disparaging comments from elected ministers about us. What you need to know is this : We want to bring some semblance of dignity to Parliament. We want to give everyone the opportunity to make their own fully-informed decisions relating to the type of content they and their family engage with. And we want to develop South Australia into a progressive world leader in renewable energy production and manufacturing infrastructure.

We game, and we vote.

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

Officially Registered

posted by David Doe, 21 Jan 2010
On Thursday the 21st of January 2010, the Gamers4Croydon party was officially registered as a political party by the SA Electoral Commission.

This is exciting news and is a special moment for me personally. In the 120 odd days since Gamers4Croydon was started, we've gone from outright obscurity to only relative obscurity, from 1 member to close to 700, from no finances to over $7000 raised (and almost spent), from knowing nothing about how to get on the electoral roll to finding that most beautiful of notices in the SA Government Gazette earlier today.

We've come a long way, yet we still have a long way to go. There are 57 days until the election on March 20, and every day needs to be used as best we can to promote our message, our goals, our policies and our intent.

We NEED your help to make this happen!

Remember - All we're trying to do is have videogames labelled appropriately so that everyone can make an informed choice about the kinds of content they want to engage with, or want their kids to engage with. The R18+ rating will make it more difficult for those under 18 years of age to engage with that content. It will keep money flowing into OUR retail sector, instead of heading offshore when people choose to import an uncensored copy. It will cause less confusion by having consistent ratings for all of our media, instead of one set of rules for film and another set of rules for videogames.

We're in this election now so let's get our voices heard. Tell your friends. Tell your family. Tell everyone you meet.

We game, we vote, and we will be heard.

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

Interview Bingo!

posted by David Doe, 4 Jan 2010
A Happy New Year to all. I trust that everyone saw in the new year responsibly, or at least made some resolutions about trying that next year.

Over the break, I had the chance to listen to and read a few old interviews on the R18+ rating issue and between the fits of apoplectic rage at the blaring injustice of it all, I noticed a few words cropping up time and time again. So I decided to make a game of it.

I give you "Attorney-General Interview Bingo" !

In order to spice up the next interview you hear on the topic, print out these cards beforehand (they are set for A5, so set two to a page) and pass them around to friends and family. The middle square is given to everyone as a freebie, and whenever you hear any of the words listed, cross off the square that word is in. The first person to have a line of five completed squares (horizontally, vertically or diagonally) should yell "BINGO!" at the top of their lungs to indicate that they have won the game.

This game can be played while watching tv/YouTube, listening to the radio/webstream, or attending a press-conference covering the topic or being attended by relevant individuals (not that we would condone such an action, however hilarious the results might be).

Extra bingo cards: Card 2,  Card 3,  Card 4


Have fun!

Peace,
r1nce / David Doe

< PrevNext >1-10 of 11