How much of the negative response to the Red Cross’ pronouncement that game play in computerized war games violates international humanitarian law and the Geneva Convention was an overreaction by people who hadn’t clearly read what was actually said and how much was well founded suspicion of the motives of lefties who would impose their agenda on yet another area of our lives if they could?
Reading the comments below many internet articles on this topic, there is plenty of the former. Reading some of the quotes by the Red Cross, there is genuinely some of the latter as well:
The International Committee of the Red Cross says they may ask developers to adhere to the rules themselves or "encourage" (the article’s emphasis) governments to adopt laws to regulate the video game industry.
Ask the developers to adhere to “the rules”. And if they quite reasonably tell you to fuck off? You’ll organise a campaign against them will you? Try to damage their business until they give in to your demands?
Evidence of a far more dangerous mindset is: “encourage governments to adopt laws to regulate the video game industry”. Yes, let’s make laws banning game play which allows gamers to without penalty do things which you find offensive or which would be illegal in reality. While we're at it, let’s ban Grand Theft Auto and Mafia and not let anyone play the bad guy.
The two quotes below leave little doubt that this is more than just academic chatter:
“There is also an audience of approximately 600 million gamers who may be virtually violating IHL (International Humanitarian Law) … Exactly how video games influence individuals is a hotly debated topic, but for the first time, Movement partners discussed our role and responsibility to take action against violations of IHL in video games. What should we do, and what is the most effective method?”
"While National Societies shared their experiences and opinions, there is clearly no simple answer. There is, however, an overall consensus and motivation to take action."
Add this guff from anti war crimes organisation TRIAL, with their incredibly tweely titled paper Playing By The Rules and we can detect the seeds of an organized campaign to control gaming content in order to pursue leftist political agenda:
"It would be highly appreciated if games reproducing armed conflicts were to include the rules which apply to real armed conflicts. These rules and values are given by international humanitarian law and human rights law."
"One possible course of action could be to encourage game designers / producers to incorporate IHL in the development and design of video games, while another could be to encourage governments to adopt laws and regulations to regulate this ever-growing industry."
Yes, we must ensure we teach our children to always “play by the rules”, even in games. Your rules, of course.
“No! No! These are rules agreed by all civilized societies via the Geneva Convention. All our military must obey them or face prosecution as criminals. We must ensure realistic games reflect this so that our children learn what is right and wrong.”
Yes, the Geneva Convention is indeed an agreement between some nations regarding rules of engagement and how they will treat each other’s military and civilians. Soldiers are definitely bound by it and prosecuted if they violate it.
But why would it be incorporated in a game scenario like WW2 on the Russian front, or a Roman siege campaign?
What if you want to play the bad guys? Many people like to play the insurgents.
What I mean by “your rules, of course” is that the types of lefties who support government regulation of war gaming rules are also the people who believe our troops should behave according to the Geneva Convention even in conflicts where the enemy clearly does not, such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why should a game not put forward the political view that maybe the rules of the Geneva Convention are only to be obeyed when we are fighting enemies who accept them? Why should a game not have the ability for the player to turn on and off the Geneva Convention in the settings?
Why should the Red Cross be allowed to make political statements, but not game developers? Actually, organizations like the Red Cross and TRIAL are actively encouraging game developers to make overt political statements, but only ones with which they agree.
“Encourage game designers” is fine if it means working with them and showing them evidence of studies linking violent behaviour with playing certain types of violent games. There is nothing wrong with making suggestions to game developers such as if you play as certain countries, then you lose benefits or are directly disadvantaged if you violate the Geneva Convention.
These types of rules already exist in some games. For example, in Civilization, if you raze cities or use nuclear weapons, you can end up fighting a coalition of all the other nations on the planet.
More insidious is the campaign to have governments legislate and regulate game play. This is the epitome of the leftist agenda: rules governing not just every aspect of social interaction, but now private behaviour in a virtual world.
If you have enough rules constraining behaviour, most people will obey and we can weed out the troublemakers and reactionary counter-revolutionaries. Eventually, we’ll have a society where all citizens think and behave “correctly” because everyone will have been brought up believing anything else is wrong.
The response I’d like to see from game developers?
Put the Geneva Conventions in as a rules option in Game Settings, but make sure that certain enemies ignore it. Turning it on for the player would help show people just how difficult it is for our troops to fight such an enemy when hamstrung by a fifth column of left wing lawyers, journalists and activists, waiting to accuse them of war crimes if they put their own safety above that of enemy civilians … and yes, many of those civilians are as much the enemy as conscript soldiers. Turning the setting off and flattening a mosque full of Taliban just adds to the satisfaction of the overall gaming experience.
Conversely, if you’re playing as a militia, allow them to take Red Cross or aid workers hostage.
Have scenarios where you can play the army of a brutal dictator or rebel insurgents. Round up civilians and shoot them. This would of course turn the population more against you, to which you could respond with more brutality.
Or why not a scenario where you have left wing activists helping the enemy? You could have the option to round them up with your security service.
Let’s see how realistic these lefties really do want gaming to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment