What Barbara is trying to point out is that an R18+ classification means is that inevitably more violent, sadistic games will end up being played by children. The average age of gamers being 30 isn't really relevant to this. After all, the average of alcohol drinkers is a similarly mature figure and neither that nor laws restricting the sale of alcohol to under 18s prevent minors getting hold of alcohol if they are persistent and ingenious enough and if parents and other adults are compliant and complicit. Even the Australian gaming industry admits that not all adults are responsible and vigilant when it comes to observing the classification system, and experience overseas gives no cause for optimism either.
The gaming industry in Australia currently makes healthy and growing profits from the sales of videogames. Instead of trying to increase profits further by extending the classification system why does it not promote the sales of prosocial videogames? There is some impressive research evidence that these do much to encourage caring and compassionate behaviour in players. Not only that, but players are more likely to buy more of these games than people who play the antisocial stuff. Now there is an opportunity for market growth. And it might even increase the numbers of those who prefer to discuss the merits of videogames without resorting to personal abuse.

Shadow Minister,

Do you have trouble with comprehension? I don't agree with Ms. Biggins on this issue.

Although I disagree, I hardly think her proposal constitutes "evil". Do I have the correct impression that you're a pornography enthusiast? If so, it's a strange world when you call someone who is concerned about the impact on children of glamorizing violence, "evil", while positioning yourself naturally, by virtue of contrast, as some sort of do-gooder.

I don't like violence (like horror movies) and I despise pornography. There is quite enough ugly behaviour in the world without creating more as entertainment. However, I am opposed to internet censorship.

I think this apparent paradox arises from dealing with the human tragedy in real life that occurs in relation to the values and beliefs that go along with perpetration. Those values and beliefs may be reinforced by any sort of media. At the same time I'm well aware that limiting availability doesn't actually lead to limited availability. I do support various strategies that discourage production, however, and which build community opposition so that individuals may be more selective about what they use to nourish their thoughts and feelings.

Now let's see, if women with whom you disagree are categorized as blue-rinse dowagers, what category label do you use to silence the opinion of men who share the dowagers' opposing view ?

Pynchme,

I never said you did agree with BB on this issue, however, some of your earlier posts indicate a propensity to restrict that with which you don't agree. (if not the internet)

I am not an enthusiast of porn or R18+ games, but neither do I think they are a threat. (I have yet to see any real evidence to support it.)

While BB's intentions are not evil, the restrictions she is proposing (with the same justifications that most oppresive regimes use) are extremely toxic.

While I see that you have taken umbridge at being associated with blue rinsed dowagers, I can say that whilst I generally don't see eye to eye with them, I occasionally do.

There are many non BRDs that I disagree with as well on issues such as GM food, nuclear issues etc for whom I have yet to devise a category.

As for the men, my kids suggested DOF (or doddering old fart) which I like, but which would probably not be well received.

microwave, that argument is asyemtrical and completely specious. How can anti-R18+ proponents possibly be so vehemently against an expanded classification system if the whole argument about incidental exposure rests on a defeatist assumption about inadequate parenting and the proliferation of games outside parental supervision. It is beyond belief that anyone could so forcefully assume that kids are running amok and that the system is utterly broken, denying any meaningful relationship between exposure and control mechanisms, such as point of sale age checks, and yet somehow ignore that these same savvy, secretive kids aren't already accessing whatever they want.

Of course, this premise is wrong, but you don't follow the conclusion of the argument. Because, if it is inevitable that kids will access these games, that will be because of piracy, direct downloads and importation from overseas - not just older siblings who've bought the R18+ game in a local store. But anti-R18+ proponents base their entire moral panic about incidental exposure on the absurd idea that every copy of a game in an Australian store is a multiplier for exposure - as if negligent parents and older siblings boying local copies, or failed POS mechanisms were the only way a kid will encounter this content. It's ridiculous.

If the system is as broken as you assume, then the logical conclusion is that the rating system is meaningless and your argument is a pointless exercise which gives undue significance to the availability of R18+ games in brick and motor stores. So why even argue about it?

Alternatively, I propose that POS mechanism are generally reliable, and proper rating systems at least help parents police content. A parent looking a a burnt DVD has no idea what its rating is, but at least a retail copy has a printed rating on the box, manual, and disc.

microwave: "an R18+ classification means that inevitably more violent, sadistic games will end up being played by children."

Yes, that is what Barbara is arguing. Whether she is right is another issue entirely.

Firstly, these games are allowed into Australia now. The gaming industry freely acknowledges that games are currently getting an MA15+ rating when the should be R18+. I can only guess that is because that is the government doesn't want to piss of 30% of the male voters who regularly play those games. I don't know whether you have done the figures, but if even a small fraction of that 30% changed their votes on the issue the government would change. So they have to keep them happy. That is the reality. Read it again if it hasn't sunk in.

I imagine you don't like that, but you aren't going to change it. No politician who wants to keep his seat is going to ban these games. Assuming you can bring yourself to acknowledge that, what are you going to do about it? Well, I'd suggest one of the things you can do is have an R18+ rating, so parents not following the gaming scene can at least see the large red label on the box. And did you know that all modern gaming consoles also have a parental lock, that any parent can use to ban R18+ games from the house? Probably not. But if you girls want to do something constructive telling your girl friends about this feature is probably the best thing you can do.

Why is it the best thing you can do? Well because this argument is based on a fallacy - that the government can actually ban games. Games are increasingly being bought over the internet, not off a store shelf. Our government can't control why we buy from an overseas internet store. But the aforementioned parental lock can prevent your kids from playing them.

Time have changed. Controls that worked when you were a kid don't work now. Concentrate on things that do work.

ShadowMinister: <"some of your earlier posts indicate a propensity to restrict that with which you don't agree.">

I'm not sure that's true. Have you any examples ?

SM: <"While I see that you have taken umbridge at being associated with blue rinsed dowagers...">

No. I didn't perceive you as talking about me at all. In any case my skin is much tougher than that. I was annoyed at:

1. The unimaginative repeated use of the term to silence opposing opinion.
2. Disrespect shown to a good citizen.
3. Ageism. I am acutely aware of the general lack of respect in our culture for older people. It wouldn't be too difficult to disagree AND maintain appropriate respect at the same time.

SM: <"As for the men, my kids suggested DOF (or doddering old fart) which I like, but which would probably not be well received.">

That's a very interesting statement. You have no compunction in repeating the insult "BRD", yet you're too intimidated by the potential reaction you'd receive from other men if you referred to one as a "DOF"?

How come it's easier? or less intimidating to use a derogatory term towards females but not males ?

I'm not asking in order to humiliate and I apologize (a little) if this questioning makes you uncomfortable, but I'm genuinely interested in how you manage to juggle that duality of thought and action. Were you even aware of it?