The Other Worlds Shrine

Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about... 

  • Encounter with Jack Thompson @ VG Cats

  • Because playing them is not enough, we have to bitch about them daily, too. We had a Gameplay forum, but it got replaced by GameFAQs.
Because playing them is not enough, we have to bitch about them daily, too. We had a Gameplay forum, but it got replaced by GameFAQs.

 #91110  by Agent 57
 Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:09 pm
You thought that was bad? Check this one out:

http://aelon.net/2005/07/jack-thompson-straw-man/

I think the real killer is the last part of the post:
From: Jack Thompson [mailto:jackpeace@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:20 PM
To: Ryan Acheson

Subject: Re: Don’t need your help, junior. You’re the problem

you’re right. i have better things to do than bother with gamers’ ideas, which is the latest oxymoron.
Oh. Okay, how stupid of me. I decided not to respond to this last e-mail. What could I say to a person who believes that people who play videogames don’t have a valid opinion on issues relating to them.
Just because the guy sending him emails said he was a gamer, Thompson wouldn't listen to a damn thing he said, even though he essentially backed him up and said they were on the same side.

Thompson is like the worst forum troll you could ever think of, only he's out there in the real world trying to get legislation passed - and after reading his case histories and the like, I think the only reason he bothers is to increase his own notoriety.

It's really depressing that there are people like this.

 #91111  by Agent 57
 Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:16 pm
My goodness, this one's even worse:

<a href="http://keepyourkillingclean.blogspot.co ... html">long URL</a>

A guy asks him some interview-style questions for a story he's writing and the first response back is "kiss the game industry good-bye", then Thompson proceeds to berate him for contacting him because he's not a potential client.

 #91114  by Agent 57
 Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:27 pm
On top of all this, here's a very interesting article on violence - period - in America, that shows that it's at its lowest level in years.

http://gr.bolt.com/articles/violence/violence.htm

 #91115  by Kupek
 Mon Aug 08, 2005 3:35 pm
What a whacko. Although the guy in the first link you posted mentioned MAVAV without realizing it was a hoax.

 #91120  by Eric
 Mon Aug 08, 2005 4:55 pm
The unfortunate thing about people like Jack Thompson is that there will always be a following of people who are equally ill-informed, and have nothing better to do with their time then attack mediums for no reason other then their own self-indulgence.

 #91122  by Nev
 Mon Aug 08, 2005 5:35 pm
The funny thing is that in principle I agree with this guy - I actually do think a lot of game companies are somewhat irresponsible, and do glorify violence because it sells games - but in execution, I don't know that I could think of someone who seems to be more intolerant, arrogant, and absolutely convinced of his own rightness...

I'll have to read up on him a bit more, but due to some programming stuff, I've already had my fill of powerful, arrogant, and stupid today.

 #91123  by Nev
 Mon Aug 08, 2005 5:37 pm
From the Wikipedia article on him:
The author(s) of the Wikipedia article on him wrote:"On July 22, 2005, after the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas case was settled, Thompson sought after The Sims 2, citing that it was "worse than Hot Coffee", due to the availability of a mod that removes the censorship fields from all characters when they are nude, allowing pedophiles to see computer-rendered nude children [12]. In another instance, he claimed "Sims 2, the latest version of the Sims video game franchise...contains, according to video game news sites, full frontal nudity, including nipples, penises, labia, and pubic hair." He added an accusation that EA and Maxis were cooperating with the mod community to peddle vile to minors. In reality, even with the "blur" removed, The Sims 2 contains no such details; the characters have no visible reproductive organs or pubic hair whatsoever, similar to children's dolls, and female models lack both nipples and aerolas. Thompson futher accused Electronic Arts (EA) and Will Wright of supporting adult custom content specificaly; in reality, Will Wright has historically supported all user-created game content universally, on the principle of endorsing personal creativity, innovation, and personalization. Although there are user-created content packages available on the Internet many would consider adult material, they are neither created nor specifically endorsed by Maxis or EA and thus are not a factor in the ESRB's rating of the software."
What a nutter. Apparently he makes at least part of his living suing game companies, too, if you read his website. ( www.stopkill.com )

 #91124  by Tortolia
 Mon Aug 08, 2005 6:57 pm
More people need to learn not to feed the trolls.

 #91165  by SineSwiper
 Wed Aug 10, 2005 1:25 am
There's a difference between a lier and a bullshitter. A lier knows that he is reciting lies. A bullshitter doesn't care, as long as the "facts" support his own opinion.

 #91218  by Agent 57
 Fri Aug 12, 2005 11:35 am
There's a new development around here, which is verrrrrrrrrrry interesting. Thompson did an eighty, that's right <i>80</i>, minute interview with the ChatterBox internet radio station, which can be downloaded <a href="http://chatterboxgameshow.com/archives/ ... ">here.</a>

The interesting thing about it is that throughout the majority of the interview, Thompson is calm, cogent, and actually makes a lot of good points. In fact, the pro-gaming hosts were forced to make many concessions and ended up being quite flustered - which should have been expected, really, since Thompson is an experienced lawyer and it's not surprising that he destroyed the hosts in the debate.

Now, while he didn't sound like a complete nutter and laid off the "you should seek mental help, go get real good at a suicide game, 'gamers' idea' is an oxymoron" kinds of things he's known for in his email replies, he did end up making some mistakes. In the discussion of Rockstar's upcoming game <i>Bully</i>, Thompson repeatedly referred to it as a "school murder simulator", however the preview of the game in last month's Game Informer says that "there is no blood or graphic violence" in the game. (It must be said, though, that the preview also mentions that the playable character in one scene administers a beatdown of some preppies with a cricket bat.) Anyway, the point is is that Thompson is deliberately exaggerating the content of an unreleased game that he has not seen beyond the few screens that have been released to the public (the Game Informer article said that they were shown a demo). Let us also note that Thompson is known to treat articles by gaming publications as sufficient sources for his arguments - see the case of him using the IGN review of Killer7 to base his denouncement of that game, even though it turned out that his interpretation of the article and the actual content of the game were way off.

Also, at one point Thompson decries Take Two Interactive's disseminating of racial sterotypes in games such as GTA:SA while calling them "a bunch of Scots sitting in Edinborough wearing kilts and drinking their single malt whiskey." The ironing is delicious, isn't it?

Late in the interview, Thompson reaches quite a bit by saying that EA allowing (and in some cases encouraging, citing something once said by Will Wright) the mod community to mod games such as The Sims 2 is tantamount to a conspiracy or collaboration with the porn industry to distribute pornographic games to children. (Thompson makes a good point regarding how the modding of games is a violation of copyright, but the "porn conspiracy" is a bit farfetched.)

Finally, Thompson's credibility takes a huge hit when he throws one of his motives right out in the open: "I'm going to destroy Rockstar." Say what you will about the mistakes RS/TT have made in the past month - leaving the hot coffee content on GTA:SA discs, lying that the content was native to the disc in the first place, etc. - I don't believe they've done anything illegal, per se. All they've done is produce some interesting, thought-provoking games with excessively mature content and intriguing gameplay while being incredibly stupid about it - but being stupid, last time I checked, is not a crime.

To be honest, it's a shame that Thompson is presented (and, in some ways, presents himself) as one who is against all violent and obscene media in general - and these days especially video games - instead of someone who is championing the case for regulation of the industry and the simple prevention of the dissemination of mature content to minors. Because I think we can all agree that if there were laws and regulations in place to prevent things like 14-year-olds buying GTA:SA, then we as mature gamers could relax (so to speak) when something like a kid copycatting something he saw in a game and killing/injuring someone else happens, as that way it can possibly only be the fault of either the parents buying the game for their child (thus acting irresponsibly) or the retailer breaking the law and selling the game to the child (thus acting irresponsibly) - leaving the only places the blame can be put as squarely on those who we gamers feel should have been the ones to be blamed all along.

 #91233  by Nev
 Fri Aug 12, 2005 4:22 pm
I think Thompson may have good points, but I think he needs to make sure he gets his facts straight before he goes after anyone. Being rude and dismissive isn't likely to do any good towards the real problems - you may be able to tell I'm not a huge fan of Rockstar, either. GTA is a great game, but I do think they're somewhat irresponsible as a company, and while the copycat violence so far has been fairly minor, there are still dead people out there whose killers did claim that game as inspiration. I'm not saying the content isn't appropriate, but I think they could stand to take a more proactive stance towards protecting minors from graphically and realistically violent content - more disclaimers and such in the game and in their promotions wouldn't hurt.
Agent 57 wrote:Also, at one point Thompson decries Take Two Interactive's disseminating of racial sterotypes in games such as GTA:SA while calling them "a bunch of Scots sitting in Edinborough wearing kilts and drinking their single malt whiskey." The ironing is delicious, isn't it?
Yes indeedy. I sometimes think that is often (though not always) the case, though...it sometimes seems that some people who are the loudest of accusing people of certain indiscretions are those who commit them themselves, and will hide them the hardest by yelling at others about them. Not sure of Thompson falls into this category, but your quote would certainly seem to indicate that it's possible.
Agent 57 wrote:To be honest, it's a shame that Thompson is presented (and, in some ways, presents himself) as one who is against all violent and obscene media in general - and these days especially video games - instead of someone who is championing the case for regulation of the industry and the simple prevention of the dissemination of mature content to minors. Because I think we can all agree that if there were laws and regulations in place to prevent things like 14-year-olds buying GTA:SA, then we as mature gamers could relax (so to speak) when something like a kid copycatting something he saw in a game and killing/injuring someone else happens, as that way it can possibly only be the fault of either the parents buying the game for their child (thus acting irresponsibly) or the retailer breaking the law and selling the game to the child (thus acting irresponsibly) - leaving the only places the blame can be put as squarely on those who we gamers feel should have been the ones to be blamed all along.
Well said. I'm not a big fan of blame in general, but I think everything else you said was spot-on.

 #91237  by Tortolia
 Fri Aug 12, 2005 5:18 pm
Of course, Thompson is also about to become Lawyer Chow.

 #91249  by Nev
 Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:21 pm
Ho boy....yeah. Reading that, I'm now angrier at him again, but luckily I think the lawyers in the four large, powerful companies mentioned in the article, which are apparently only some of the ones he's suing, are going to tear him into little bits and pieces.

 #91268  by SineSwiper
 Sat Aug 13, 2005 2:19 pm
Lawyers can't be torn into little pieces. You act like the lawyers themselves are doing the suing and contributing any money. Lawyers win, every single time. If they win, they get money. If they lose, they get money.

 #91275  by Nev
 Sat Aug 13, 2005 7:22 pm
That's as may be, but I have a feeling Thomspon's career is about to take a LARGE professional hit. These are big companies...with the money to hire very experienced, talented lawyers...and I don't think it hurts at all that I think he and his client are completely wrong in this case. The "violent media made me do it" argument isn't new, I don't think (but could be wrong) anyone's ever won using it, and I also think it's a ridiculous denial of personal responsibility. My sincere guess is he's going to crash and burn.