Do you think laws will change for gaming as gamers get into power?

Vermillion_Raventhal · May 2018

There seems to be a lot of ignorance regarding gaming by the people in power. This may or may not change because not everyone is gamer. You would think that as people who understand gaming get into office you may have more limitations of some of the exploitation of minors that games seem to have.

Scot · May 2018

Will those who get into power want to say they are gamers? That does not mean they will not do something mind you.

But one thing I have noticed from "celebrities" is if mentioned they always used to play games, for them it was a teenage pursuit. So even if they did not sure it will be at the forefront of their minds.

ConstantineMerus · May 2018

Depends on the type of the gamer who would occupy those seats of power. But I imagine there would be crusades against p2w, lootboxes and the bollocks of video games causing violence.

Vermillion_Raventhal · May 2018

Scot said:

Will those who get into power want to say they are gamers? That does not mean they will not do something mind you.

But one thing I have noticed from "celebrities" is if mentioned they always used to play games, for them it was a teenage pursuit. So even if they did not sure it will be at the forefront of their minds.

For me gaming was a teenage pursuit. As an adult it's a fond hobby. I still follow gaming because I just been doing since I can remember.

Vermillion_Raventhal · May 2018

ConstantineMerus said:

Depends on the type of the gamer who would occupy those seats of power. But I imagine there would be crusades against p2w, lootboxes and the bollocks of video games causing violence.

Yeah that's kind of what I am getting at. Seems like many exploitations are allow because many in power simply don't know/care about gaming.

Vermillion_Raventhal · May 2018

DMKano said:

People in power make decisions about things they know nothing about all the time.

Politics is often driven by a party agenda and self interest - not by critical understanding of the underlaying issues

Having knowledge of issues existence does play a role.

centkin · May 2018

For the most part, gamers and politicians share only a small amount of overlap on the venn diagram. The skills and aptitudes needed, time devoted, etc make it very hard to be big into both. The voice chatter alone by many gamers, if recorded, would be often quite troublesome for a prospective politician.

Theocritus · May 2018

Gaming isn't just a recent venture...It's been around for decades, even my dad played video games when he was young.

Viper482 · May 2018

Vermillion_Raventhal said:

There seems to be a lot of ignorance regarding gaming by the people in power. This may or may not change because not everyone is gamer. You would think that as people who understand gaming get into office you may have more limitations of some of the exploitation of minors that games seem to have.

Dude....gaming started decades before you were even born, what makes you think there are not gamers "in power" now? Yes I can say before you were born because an older person would know this and would not have to ask this question.

Viper482 · May 2018

centkin said:

For the most part, gamers and politicians share only a small amount of overlap on the venn diagram. The skills and aptitudes needed, time devoted, etc make it very hard to be big into both. The voice chatter alone by many gamers, if recorded, would be often quite troublesome for a prospective politician.

I'll take anecdotal comments for $500, Alex.

Viper482 · May 2018

Vermillion_Raventhal said:

ConstantineMerus said:

Depends on the type of the gamer who would occupy those seats of power. But I imagine there would be crusades against p2w, lootboxes and the bollocks of video games causing violence.

Yeah that's kind of what I am getting at. Seems like many exploitations are allow because many in power simply don't know/care about gaming.

Or there are more important issues?

Vermillion_Raventhal · May 2018

Viper482 said:

Vermillion_Raventhal said:

ConstantineMerus said:

Depends on the type of the gamer who would occupy those seats of power. But I imagine there would be crusades against p2w, lootboxes and the bollocks of video games causing violence.

Yeah that's kind of what I am getting at. Seems like many exploitations are allow because many in power simply don't know/care about gaming.

Or there are more important issues?

Honestly, then nothing is done if more important issues take precedence.

And Viper482 said:

Vermillion_Raventhal said:

There seems to be a lot of ignorance regarding gaming by the people in power. This may or may not change because not everyone is gamer. You would think that as people who understand gaming get into office you may have more limitations of some of the exploitation of minors that games seem to have.

Dude....gaming started decades before you were even born, what makes you think there are not gamers "in power" now? Yes I can say before you were born because an older person would know this and would not have to ask this question.

That is an assumption. Games has been mostly child's play. I seriously doubt any members of congress plays CoD let alone mobile games or other games that incorporate gambling like mechanics.

Vrika · May 2018

I don't think it's as much about gamers getting into power or not, as it's about technology and our society in general evolving faster than laws. Laws aren't there to dictate changes in our society, but rather they come a decade or two behind reacting to changes and our new needs.

Out existing politicians would likely make ok enough laws for gaming if gaming didn't constantly change so quickly.

Vermillion_Raventhal · May 2018

DMKano said:

Vermillion_Raventhal said:

DMKano said:

People in power make decisions about things they know nothing about all the time.

Politics is often driven by a party agenda and self interest - not by critical understanding of the underlaying issues

Having knowledge of issues existence does play a role.

Not nearly as much as party bias, self promotion/personal gain and $$$$ from special interest groups

I mean take an issue that is overwhelmingly hated and it still passes because of what I said above - example Net Neutrality.

Ajit Pai has a perfectly good understanding of it but he's been in ISP/Telecoms pocket for years - I mean they groomed him and put him into power so that he could repeal Net Neutrality.

Humans are great at many things, but we make terrible leaders because we are self-biased and always concerned with personal gain and not "will this benefit all"?

Superintelligent AI will take over at some point and do much better than we ever did.

Humans however.... we'll make great pets

You are right in that. The average of a politicians in the US are still around 60 years old. I doubt many of them are playing CoD or dealing with mobile cash shops.

Sovrath · May 2018

Vermillion_Raventhal said:

DMKano said:

Vermillion_Raventhal said:

DMKano said:

People in power make decisions about things they know nothing about all the time.

Politics is often driven by a party agenda and self interest - not by critical understanding of the underlaying issues

Having knowledge of issues existence does play a role.

Not nearly as much as party bias, self promotion/personal gain and $$$$ from special interest groups

I mean take an issue that is overwhelmingly hated and it still passes because of what I said above - example Net Neutrality.

Ajit Pai has a perfectly good understanding of it but he's been in ISP/Telecoms pocket for years - I mean they groomed him and put him into power so that he could repeal Net Neutrality.

Humans are great at many things, but we make terrible leaders because we are self-biased and always concerned with personal gain and not "will this benefit all"?

Superintelligent AI will take over at some point and do much better than we ever did.

Humans however.... we'll make great pets

You are right in that. The average of a politicians in the US are still around 60 years old. I doubt many of them are playing CoD or dealing with mobile cash shops.

Other than Hawaii are there really a lot of "gamers" getting into power?

Maybe there are, I don't know.

I would think the world of politics takes a lot of work and dedication and people wouldn't have time to play video games. I can say that the people I met at the JFK School at Harvard seemed more the "fill up the resume with stuff" people than "going home and playing an mmo or a shooter" people.

But who knows, maybe they are. Does anyone know anyone who has dedicated their time to following a political career who are also avid gamers?

Raven · May 2018

I don't think gamers going into power is the crux of why the change will happen, but more likely because as gamers from a more gaming mainstream generation get older, these issues will be more central to politics because they might become a larger % of the voter base, so politicians of the time will need to pay attention to whatever the issues are to please the voting population they are trying to get votes from.

Ridelynn · May 2018

I don't think so.

A lot of the things that are wrong with gaming ~that could be solved by legislation~ aren't necessarily specific to just gaming.

Net neutrality is the biggest one I can think of that could affect gamers, and at least in the US that has received a good deal of attention lately.

Loot boxes, predatory practices, community protection - those are all important as well, but they aren't necessarily specific to just the gaming community. I'm for those items being solved in an intelligent manner with a broad, non-gaming specific approach. The same things that make these things toxic in gaming also make it toxic in other applications, and you should address the root of the issue, not just a few of the symptoms that skirt up.

An example, not really related to gaming, but showing how playing whack-a-mole with loopholes doesn't address the root issue: a few years ago, California decided to ban cell phones while driving. The law specifically read (if I recall correctly) that you could be using your phone and speaking into it while driving (or something to that effect). It didn't address the root of the issue - distracted driving. It was still perfectly legal to have your visor mirror down and put on mascara, to be eating tacos, to be turned around playing patty cake with a kid in the back seat, or to be playing on a Gameboy while driving.

One person was ticketed while using Maps on his phone as a GPS - the officer saw he was using his phone while driving, was distracted, and wrote the ticket. I don't necessarily think the officer did a bad thing. But the law said it was only illegal to be talking into your phone, it said nothing about using a GPS system or anything else. The person contested in court, and won. Then I think California figured out they screwed it up the first time. Now they don't let you have your phone in your hand for any reason - but tacos, mascara, patty cake, and Gameboys are still perfectly legit to use while driving. (sometimes I guess you just have to take baby steps).

I don't have an issue with loot boxes. They frustrate me, for certain, but I just don't play games where they are a central part of the gameplay mechanic because I don't enjoy it. I'd have a hard time pinpointing exactly what the root issue is, other than people don't enjoy paying for them (I like getting free stuff too, but doesn't mean I think that having to pay for a product should be illegal), and some people get carried away with it (which happens with a lot of things).

Items relating to toxic communities - that I can support being policed a bit better. COPA is a decent start (that's the thing where you have to check that your older than 13, or have a parent consent), but it's so loosely implemented it's next to useless. RealID is an answer, and maybe the best answer in terms of implementation, but I'm not certain it is the correct answer. It's certainly not restricted to gaming.

Panther2103 · May 2018

Vermillion_Raventhal said:

Viper482 said:

Vermillion_Raventhal said:

ConstantineMerus said:

Depends on the type of the gamer who would occupy those seats of power. But I imagine there would be crusades against p2w, lootboxes and the bollocks of video games causing violence.

Yeah that's kind of what I am getting at. Seems like many exploitations are allow because many in power simply don't know/care about gaming.

Or there are more important issues?

Honestly, then nothing is done if more important issues take precedence.

And Viper482 said:

Vermillion_Raventhal said:

There seems to be a lot of ignorance regarding gaming by the people in power. This may or may not change because not everyone is gamer. You would think that as people who understand gaming get into office you may have more limitations of some of the exploitation of minors that games seem to have.

Dude....gaming started decades before you were even born, what makes you think there are not gamers "in power" now? Yes I can say before you were born because an older person would know this and would not have to ask this question.

That is an assumption. Games has been mostly child's play. I seriously doubt any members of congress plays CoD let alone mobile games or other games that incorporate gambling like mechanics.

Your statement is also an assumption.

Who knows what they do in their free time. There have been people in politics that play games, they just aren't out spouting about them all the time, because why should they? I remember someone stating they played Eve online but I can't remember what position they held.

Peoples hobbies are just that... Peoples hobbies. The childs play argument isn't as much of a thing anymore. Gaming in general is becoming way more common, and widely accepted than it was 20 years ago. Now that it's a HUGE industry a lot more people look at it differently.

There are people getting into positions of power advocating against gambling in games, and it seems to be generating some form of traction.

Iselin · May 2018

What happened when the "flower children" from the '60s got into power? Same old shit.

Power is about power and nothing else.

Sovrath · May 2018

Iselin said:

What happened when the "flower children" from the '60s got into power? Same old shit.

Power is about power and nothing else.

That's true. Where's the love now!

erm "groovy".

Arglebargle · May 2018

Iselin said:

What happened when the "flower children" from the '60s got into power? Same old shit.

Power is about power and nothing else.

When I moved to Alabama at the age of 6, there were still 'whites only' and 'coloureds only' water fountains, bathrooms, etc.

So stuff has changed. Not enough for my taste, but that's a different story.....

Flyte27 · May 2018

The flower children were great. I wasn't around, but the music was fun. True they were dopped up on drugs, but perhaps that's a good thing. It kept them from being too ambitious. One might say the same thing about those of us who grew up with 80s/90s pop music, video games, and pizza. It kept many of us so out of it from body pollution that we couldn't do much ambitious. This is when the whole feminist movement took hold.

I'm sure things will change again at some point. Right now the popular thing is podcasts, selling information, and trying to sell oneself via the MR. nice game attitude. I'm sure things will flip again at some point when it's no longer lucrative and someone else decides the market is flooded and something else needs to be sold. Also, it's rare that new generations want to be like their parents.

Sovrath · May 2018

Flyte27 said:

The flower children were great. I wasn't around, but the music was fun. True they were dopped up on drugs, but perhaps that's a good thing. It kept them from being too ambitious.

One of the Hippies who lived at the beginning of my street overdosed and was clawing at their skin thinking they were spiders. Police were on site as we all watched them try to subdue her.

yup, a magical time!

Flyte27 · May 2018

Sovrath said:

Flyte27 said:

The flower children were great. I wasn't around, but the music was fun. True they were dopped up on drugs, but perhaps that's a good thing. It kept them from being too ambitious.

One of the Hippies who lived at the beginning of my street overdosed and was clawing at their skin thinking they were spiders. Police were on site as we all watched them try to subdue her.

yup, a magical time!

True, but they mostly damaged themselves sadly I think. They were just being taken advantage of like many young people who are being sold something. It seems to be something that repeats over and over again. We've seen it with things like smoking, drinking, drugs, video games, violence, unhealthy food, sex, etc. There are also people who are often suffering for our benefit as well even though we don't know it. For instance a lot of the healthy fruit/vegetables we eat come at the cost of someones clean water in another country.

Horusra · May 2018

They have more important issues to deal with like banning cellphones for people under 21.

Kyleran · May 2018

Vermillion_Raventhal said:

DMKano said:

Vermillion_Raventhal said:

DMKano said:

People in power make decisions about things they know nothing about all the time.

Politics is often driven by a party agenda and self interest - not by critical understanding of the underlaying issues

Having knowledge of issues existence does play a role.

Not nearly as much as party bias, self promotion/personal gain and $$$$ from special interest groups

I mean take an issue that is overwhelmingly hated and it still passes because of what I said above - example Net Neutrality.

Ajit Pai has a perfectly good understanding of it but he's been in ISP/Telecoms pocket for years - I mean they groomed him and put him into power so that he could repeal Net Neutrality.

Humans are great at many things, but we make terrible leaders because we are self-biased and always concerned with personal gain and not "will this benefit all"?

Superintelligent AI will take over at some point and do much better than we ever did.

Humans however.... we'll make great pets

You are right in that. The average of a politicians in the US are still around 60 years old. I doubt many of them are playing CoD or dealing with mobile cash shops.

I thought you were wrong on that stat, but you are pretty much spot on.

But being right there with them I can attest shooters aren't a favorite so COD is probably not enjoyed much.

Interestingly enough Dem leadership is quite a bit older than Reps

https://www.quorum.us/data-driven-insights/the-115th-congress-is-among-the-oldest-in-history/175/

Howdy, Stranger!

Do you think laws will change for gaming as gamers get into power?

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Do you think laws will change for gaming as gamers get into power?

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV