Re: Oil Nazis enact video games enforcement act

_KK_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote...
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:18:45 -0500, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> 
> > 
> > "KK" <_KK_@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> >> On Tue, 27 May 2008 12:43:11 -0400, tar~bal wrote:
> > 
> >>> I just wonder what kind of person has a problem with video game
ratings.
> >>> Maybe 12 year olds?
> >>
> >> Video game ratings are dumb.  They just make the kids want them more.
> >> Same with album warnings.
> > 
> > That's not ALL they do.
> > They also inform parents as to the nature of the content.
> > Why do you oppose letting parents know what their kids are up to?
> 
> I oppose requiring someone to label their product so that parents don't
> have to do their job.

Oh, so the parent is supposed to buy the game and review it, and base 
their decision on that?  Except that the license says you can't 
return it if opened, so the company gets the revenue regardless of 
whether or not the parent will let the child play the game.

Pretty sweet deal for the game maker, eh?

Labels are a much better idea that the alternative you propose.

> And, again, I think it has the opposite of its intended effect.

No, silly.  It has more than one effect.  The primary effect is that 
it allows the parent to make an informed purchase decision, and any 
secondary effect you describe can be handled by the parents.

I doubt highly that the rating provides greater purchase motivation 
than advertising does, anyway.

-- 
Taxes are not "punishment for success".  Nor are they "theft".  Taxes 
are a royalty paid commensurate to the economic benefit obtained from 
a shared socio-economic system.

"Those who gain the benefit should also bear the disadvantage." 
                                                   - Common Law maxim