Full credit to Michael Atkinson. He not only reads Kotaku and writes to us, but he also reads all your comments as well. As we just revealed, the South Australian Attorney-General and spokesperson for the anti-R18+ brigade has written a second letter to Kotaku. In it, he addresses a host of comments left by Kotaku readers the last time he wrote to us. You’ll find his lengthy response – in full – beyond the jump.
Editor’s Note: Prior to receiving this letter we had deleted a number of reader comments we felt went too far. The comments the minister makes reference to below may no longer be published on the site. And if you wish to respond to Mr Atkinson’s remarks, please do keep it civil.
I shall try to deal with Thursday’s posts in the order they appeared on the site.
EzyLee opened the batting for those advocating an R18+ classification for games by deriding my appearance. JW says I am “a dirty smiling twit.” Juggernautz says “You are an ignorant coward.” Ben says I am “a bully protected by the law.” Allure Media and Kotaku moderator David Wildgoose think this is an appropriate tone for the debate and so it continues. At 8.09 p.m. Shawn says “What is it with all these threats to his life. Does he really think ppl (people) give a damn about him.” Dateman at 8.59 p.m. says: “So when are they going to patch GTA (Grand Theft Auto) so Atkinson is a pedestrian? (i.e. run him down with a vehicle and kill him)”. Are none of the advocates of an R18+ classification for games – including the two Attorneys-General – worried about death threats and the kind of anonymous cyber-rage in which their comrades are engaging? If you are, why don’t you say so? Why is the site’s moderator letting this kind of thing through?
EzyLee then claimed I was up at 2.30 a.m. to hear the threatening message being slipped under my door because I was awake and “beating up hookers.” If you wish to back your claim about me EzyLee, please supply me with a real name and address for service so we can test the veracity of your untruthful, malicious and defamatory imputation in the best method known to our society. If some thoughtful R18+ advocates worry that Members of Parliament don’t take them seriously, or won’t engage them on their preferred territory, yesterday’s and today’s anonymous cyber-rage against me will confirm their worry.
Mr Waffle derided my suggestion that advocates of the R18+ classification test their claimed 90 p.c. plus approval among the public by a vote of 24,000 people living in the inner-north-western suburbs of Adelaide (Croydon State District). He asserted that my challenge was “Meet me behind the shed at 5 schoolboy brawling.” No, Mr Waffle, I am the Attorney-General because I am an elected Member of Parliament and have the confidence of a majority of the Members of the Lower House of the South Australian Parliament. My opposition to R18+ games is seven years old and widely known. Duskbringer claimed “His electorate, who I am sure tip the scales toward the greyer end of the community” was also wrong. My electorate is inner-city, full of apartments and townhouses being built on former industrial sites, occupied by young “wired” professionals and recently arrived refugees from Sudan, West Africa, Bosnia, Iraq, Eastern Turkistan and Afghanistan and dotted with cafes and ethnic-specific groceries. Mr Waffle and Duskbringer might have had a point if my electorate were rural, or in an outer-suburban Hillsong belt, or in a genteel, leafy retirement neighbourhood, but they didn’t do any checking and got it completely wrong. Croydon presents no barriers to their campaigning.
I am trying to explain to bloggers like Mr Waffle how the decision-making system works by laying out the logical method of removing my opposition to the R18+ classification: one way to remove me is to defeat me at the next election, as so many R18+ gamers have advocated (before retreating from that position yesterday); another is to make sure that after the next general election I do not have the support of a majority of Lower House M.Ps to continue as Attorney-General. That is how a parliamentary, rule-of-law democracy works. It does not work by means of vile abuse and death threats.
RG at 4.01 p.m. makes the same mistake as Mr Waffle: “So basically, Michael Atkinson, who holds a single electorate, has the right to hold every other electorate in the country to ransom.” (It would be a scandal, RG, if I held three or four electorates) My holding Croydon is a necessary condition of my vetoing an R18+ classification for games – it is not a sufficient condition. There are two further conditions: one is that I maintain the confidence of a majority of members of the Lower House of the South Australian Parliament and the other is that the Commonwealth, States and Territories of Australia maintain the legislation for a co-operative censorship arrangement that requires all parties to agree before the rules are changed. Not one of Australia’s Attorneys-General – not even Victorian Attorney-General Rob Hulls – has ever suggested that the latter be changed.
Clocks demands: “Just release the discussion paper, damnit!” Clocks, I am happy for the discussion paper to be released. I made the changes I wanted after the Brisbane Standing Committee of Attorneys-General last year. The change most important to me in this paper was to include illustrations of what games above MA15+ were like. This debate shouldn’t be a clinical written analysis of arguments only. Readers should be able to see what we are arguing for or against. Concerns were raised about my changes from other Attorney-General’s departments, including whether it was appropriate to include depictions of these ultra-violent, extreme games. I do not understand why anyone would want to exclude this material from the discussion paper. The same people who want to exclude it from the discussion paper want Australians to have games rated above MA15+ in their homes. The Australian public at large should have – via the discussion paper – descriptions of the games above MA15+. I haven’t stopped the discussion paper – I want it to show what these games are like, what is really at the centre of this debate. It is my opponents who are engaging in the cover up and trying to delay the discussion’s paper’s going out.
White Pointer makes the same mistake as Clocks when writing: “The fact you haven’t allowed that draft discussion paper through yet…”
Gladice says I should stop “whinging about the amount of threats made against you.” That’s number of threats, Gladice, not amount of threats. If you think you could face such threats with equanimity, Gladice, perhaps you are not married with four children and only a screen door and Gus the dog between you and the people making the threats at 2.30 a.m..
Nick “Enigma” Gibson complains that I haven’t been in touch with him about his seven-minute You Tube rant against me. The answer to that Nick – if that is your name – is that you didn’t provide me with any contact details. I am not a clairvoyant. You Tube stardom has tipped you into solipsism.
For those who complain that I have not responded to their abuse emailed to me (e.g. unfunk at 2.58 p.m.), my practice is to ask email correspondents for a real name and a street address. Most of the emails I get about this topic are crank or hoax emails in the sense that they are not from people willing to reveal a real name or a street address. When I write a reply, I want to write it to a real person at a real address, not a phantom.
Nick – if that is your name – demands to know why I am deciding the question of an R18+ classification for games and not him. That is because I ran for parliament, got elected, worked to be re-elected many times and gained the confidence of a majority of the Members of the Lower House of the South Australian Parliament. The party of which I am a member won a record majority at the last general election. As Attorney-General for the four years leading up to that election, I had been openly opposing an R18+ classification for computer games and giving my reasons. My Party and I recorded our biggest vote ever in March 2006 and were elected to govern for four more years (and I don’t for a moment claim that that was because of my position on the R18+ classification). Hours of television and radio news time, hours of radio talkback and acres of newsprint have been devoted to the topic by media outlets across the country. And I re-iterate, I am not the only Attorney-General opposed to an R18+ classification for games – I’m the one who is happy to be the lightning rod for R18+ gamers. The likelihood is that any successor of mine as Attorney-General for South Australia would also oppose an R18+ classification, whether that person be Labor or Liberal. So, Angus, vote Liberal all you like. As I understand it, the only Liberal Attorney-General among the Censorship Ministers has not stated a position yet and two Labor Attorneys-General are in favour of an R18+ classification. It would be a paradox if Angus’s vote tipped Victorian Attorney-General and R18+ supporter Rob Hulls out of office.
Juggernautz says: “We want you to do your goddamned job and be the people’s voice.” I am doing my job, Juggernautz, and I am the people’s voice on this and some other things. The Bond University poll that purported to show that 88 p.c. of Australians favoured an R18+ classification for games was funded by the Interactive Games Association. The vast majority of Australians have never turned their mind to the question of an R18+ classification for games and many have no understanding or interest in the classification system. Juggernautz, you think that 90 p.c. of Australians support your position on R18+ games because most of the people you mix with are gamers. You should get out more.
boc says my making myself available to debate the classification issue on Kotaku is “assinine (sic) and cowardly.” I presume, boc, you want me banned from the Kotaku site or for me not to debate the question at all. So, the boc position is: “Atkinson is only allowed to debate the question if he agrees with us. If he disagrees with us, he’s asinine and cowardly.” Perhaps you’ve heard of the Soviet Union, boc.
boc, being on a roll, asks: “I would like to know exactly what his electorate has to do with his position as Attorney-General.” Where to start, boc? Australia inherits from Britain the notion that every neighbourhood should be entitled to send a representative to make the laws in Parliament. Governments and law-making are based on majorities in Parliament. Ministers, such as the Attorney-General, can be Ministers only while they are themselves elected Members of Parliament (in my case, M.P. for Croydon) and while they retain the confidence of a majority of the Members of the Lower House of Parliament (which I do and have done for the past seven years). If you want to make the laws, boc, get elected to Parliament and if you want to be Attorney-General, then win the confidence of a majority of members of the parliament of which you are a member. If, as you claim, 90 p.c. of Australians support your position on games and therefore oppose mine, you should – according to your own reasoning – be a shoo-in to win the State District of Croydon at the next election. Some of the more intelligent bloggers on Kotaku understand the task ahead of supporters of an R18+ classification but they cannot bring themselves to admit that they do not have enough support from the Australian public to prevail in elections.
In the real world – as distinct from blogsites for gamers – people disagree about questions of censorship and they resolve this through the process of parliamentary democracy. That is why some Attorneys-General support you and some support me.
boc, and most bloggers on this site, seem to be contemptuous of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law because they are not getting their way. They want instant gratification – or civility, the rule of law, responsible government and parliamentary democracy should be tossed down the lavatory. By contrast, I will cheerfully accept an R18+ classification on the day that, under the agreed lawful process, Censorship Ministers endorse an R18+ classification for games. That is the difference between me and the bloggers on this site. I acknowledge that it may happen after I am gone. Memento, Homo, quia pulvis es, et mi pulvirentam reverteris.
Another difference between me and a few of the bloggers on this site is that the latter think it is o.k. to threaten to kill a person if he disagrees with you about a political issue such as R18+ games. Ben, who first posted at 1.30 p.m., is one of these. At 2.11 p.m. he writes: “It really isn’t surprising that your (sic) getting death threats from people. Did you ever stop to think, hmmnn maybe I’m wrong on this one.” Dale backs Ben at 2.29 p.m.
RG evokes a pleasant memory when he mentions the peasant woman in Monty Python & the Holy Grail. Arthur tells her he’s the King and she replies “Well, I didn’t vote for you.” To which Arthur replies that one doesn’t vote for Kings and goes on to make a claim for sovereignty based on grasping Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake accompanied by orchestra. If RG is an Australian citizen aged 18 or over and enrolled to vote, he gets to vote for his State Parliament and the Federal Parliament and therefore has a say in the identity and policies of two of the Attorneys-General who are Censorship Ministers. That he doesn’t vote in the State District of Croydon is neither here nor there. Does RG want to be granted the vote in all eight States and Territories?
Rory Betteridge fulminates about Jack Thompson (of whom I had never heard until yesterday) and says, addressing me, “Like you, he’s a staunch Catholic.” This would come as a surprise to my mother and father, wife and four children, as it is a surprise to me. As the accused used to say before the House of Representatives Un-American Activities Committee mutatis mutandis “I am not now, and never have been, a Catholic.” Why does Rory think one’s religion needs to be appended to one’s arguments in the public square, like a yellow of Star of David on Jews during the Third Reich , and on what sub-stratum of fact did he assert that I am a Catholic? Do I look like one? Rory could now apologise on the Kotaku blog for his mistake and explain how he came to make the mistake and why he felt compelled to throw a blanket over Jack Thompson and me, but being an R18+ gamer means never having to say you’re sorry.
I’ve devoted many hours this week to trying to explain my position to R18+ gamers. I’ve read every post. I’ve tried to respond to every criticism. Maybe a few bloggers understand but, on the whole, Kotaku seems to be a morass of hatred and abuse comparable to Julius Streicher’s Der Sturmer. Parliamentary democracy cannot work without a civilised discourse. The moderator of this site will not keep the discourse civil. Most Members of Parliament who might read the past two days of dialogue would conclude that a civilised dialogue with R18+ gamers is impossible and therefore not worth trying. That is a pity. Perhaps we can try again sometime.
Ad
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 3:30 PMI disagree with almost every point he makes, but in fairness, I do respect the fact that he does respond to the things people are saying – how often does that happen?
Gladice
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 3:32 PMI don’t recall asking you to “face threats with equanimity” Michael. I simply meant that such statements are irrelevant and don’t add anything to your argument other than make it seem as if you’re trying to gain sympathy.
You seem to have the idea that arguments made anonymously aren’t valid or worth responding to. I don’t think that this is a productive viewpoint.
Perhaps you’d be better off spending your time arguing a reasonable case against an R18+ rating rather than trying to discredit kotaku posters.
Christopher B
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 3:34 PMHe’s doing really well at getting you all mad, just ignore him. We’ve all found ways around getting the games that we want, he will be dead or retired soon enough.
Vangalorr
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 4:00 PMI find this bit hilarious
“my practice is to ask email correspondents for a real name and a street address. Most of the emails I get about this topic are crank or hoax emails in the sense that they are not from people willing to reveal a real name or a street address. When I write a reply, I want to write it to a real person at a real address, not a phantom.”
I sent you an email with my full name and address Michael and you never responded to me!
Damion
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 4:00 PMIm actually wondering why Mr Atkinson even bothered posting here.
He did not respond to any valid and well written posts. He just picked up all the hate and used it as a ladder for his soap box.
It sort of shows the sort of ignorance we are dealing with, this makes me think of the old adage of arguing on the internet!
You may not expect more from the general populace of the internet but this man is supposedly an elected official.
I feel we should expect a higher level of respect and modicum rather than the diatribe of uneducated tripe he spouts to his constituency and now unfortunatly us.
Mr Atkinson, could i suggest you take the lead on this debate and make the sensible decision of reforming Austrailia’s rating system to include an R18 classification then most importantly educating parents in what is actually acceptable content for children to experience.
Buying Adult themed computers games should imo be akin to purchasing cigerettes.
TO KOTAKU ADMIN.
Can you confirm this really is Mr Atkinson?
I am having trouble coming to grips that the crap im reading is actually written by at elected official of the Australian goverment.
Thanks
Joshua
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 4:03 PMAtkinson, you CAN’T explain what you are trying to do. That is the problem. Every time you write something, it is the same thing OVER AND OVER!
Did you ever consider that you may actually need to do some research ON YOUR OWN!
GTA, witch you so happily use as your anti-R18+ ‘Poster boy’ is classified R18+ in the US and Europe. Did you ever consider that the reason kids are getting this sort of content is because we have a VERY fucked up rating system? How about, instead of complaining, you DO SOMETHING, because all every one is seeing you as is a bully becues you are
1. Not listening to anyone.
2. Not thinking.
3. You have NO CLUE what is ACTUALLY going on.
The rating system is not Low, it is simply a guide line. If we do not have an R18+ in the set of guide lines, then how do you expect any one to stop doing anything?
If you REALLY want to protect kids, then here is a BETTET idea.
Completely re-do the rating system, so it is a lot more clearer of what is in each classification.
Why? Well, this is why:
Fallout 3 was banned for drug references, not violence. All they did to the game was change the name from a really drug name to a made up one. Then it was let in.
I think, Atkinson, you need to change your tactics. COMPLETELY, Instead of just trying to stop the R18+, why not offer up a different way of doing it?
There is no point stopping something, unless you have a better idea, so come up with one, or let it in. GET OVER your ego, and stop taking thing out of context. Ho, hold on, you can’t, your a polly who twits everything anyone says to bend to your will.
Ho, hold on, thats what you do for a living. My bad.
Also, this is a warning to every one of you STUPID post Shiites that he quoted. It dose not help our case when you say things like ‘When is the GTA mod coming out’, or ‘You use stripes!’. This just shows him you are just like him. And idiot.
Sam
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 4:16 PMMr Atkinson says, “The Bond University poll that purported to show that 88 p.c. of Australians favoured an R18+ classification for games was funded by the Interactive Games Association.”
I, therefore, ask this one simple question in response: Mr Atkinson, can you provide any proof to support the allegation that you’ve made there?
Punkarella
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 4:18 PM@ Christopher B
LOL – but seriously, It’s more than just about getting the games we want, it’s about ironing out the apparent lack of understanding about who the core gamers are.
For instance My sister works in marketing for the chain store ‘Game’. Before working there she was always under the impression that her 30 year old Brother was ‘Too old’ to play silly little games.
She knows better since working in the industry.
I’ve told her most people I know import games.
I said to her, well the products are better i.e. no censorship, generally 30 or 50 dollars cheaper, and sometimes released weeks or months before.
She was shocked to here that, and that my money wasn’t going to her company..and although I’d imagine only about 10% of people who buy games import regularly..the bottom line is people are moving MONEY AWAY from local businesses, and that affects her job stability.
With the global crisis as it is, I suspect managers of stores like ‘Game’ and others that employ thousands around Australia will go bust by COB this year, and that importers (like myself) may be the straw that broke the camels back so to speak. If you want a reason to stop my money from going overseas, then give me a reason to keep it in Australia, Mr Atkinson.
Tom
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 4:26 PMWhen I was a little kid, I had no interest in playing with an old toy firetruck until one of my other siblings started playing with it. Preventing me from being able too.
Are any of these games that get refused classification actually worth playing? Does not seeing your character get a blowjob make GTA4 any less of a brilliant game?
James M
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 4:33 PMMr Atkinson,
your question as to why your religion is important in this process is a prudent one. Luckily, I have an answer for you.
(By the way, your reference to holocaust victims isn’t entirely out of context, but I feel a little melodramatic.)
Religion is about telling people what is right and what is wrong with no room for adjustment.
Democracy is about being able to change the rules of law as society changes.
There is no reason that religion should not be able to exist in a democratic state, but religious reasoning can impede the progress of democratic decisions in cases such as the one we find ourselves in today.
My point? Your religious affiliation makes you think you are righteous in this debate, and in most, I am sure. Also, your unusual placement within the Australian government allows you to hold up new legislation by yourself if you want to. This is undemocratic. My problem isn’t necessarily that you believe what you believe – I can’t change your mind – but that any one person in our nation has the power to hold up the legislative process. It is antidemocratic and it allows people such as yourself to abuse the system for your own agenda.
If 90% of polled Australians are in favour of the introduction of an 18+ rating for games, you should not have the power to deny them.
Mr Waffle
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 4:40 PMThank you for replying, Mr Atkinson.
You replied to my comment remarking that your invitation to run against you was like calling someone out for a schoolyard brawl, by saying that the only way to effect a change is to remove you from office. My comparison is wrong; this challenge is more akin to standing atop a castle and shouting at the army of peasants below “you’ll never take me alive!”, the maiden R18+ chained in the tower behind you. Suitably dramatic comparison, I think…
In the end the issue really doesn’t matter to me much, as it simply means turning to the internet for purchasing options. After all, millions of dollars in lost business for Australian companies isn’t worth the price to save the children from ‘rape & murder’ simulators (oh wait, those just get classified as MA15+ anyway, little Timmy won’t miss out!).
Oh, but one more thing-
“Parliamentary democracy cannot work without a civilised discourse”
Funny, every Question Time I’ve watched has been anything but civilised… at least you lot don’t break out into fistfights like Taiwan I suppose!
Juggernautz
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 4:45 PM”The Bond University poll that purported to show that 88 p.c. of Australians favoured an R18+ classification for games was funded by the Interactive Games Association. The vast majority of Australians have never turned their mind to the question of an R18+ classification for games and many have no understanding or interest in the classification system. Juggernautz, you think that 90 p.c. of Australians support your position on R18+ games because most of the people you mix with are gamers. You should get out more. ”
Oh, so now suddenly the funding of research determines the outcome of the study? Perhaps you should have a look at a lot of the research on trying (and failing) to find causation between game violence and real word violence, and have a look at the major funding constituents. Dr. Craig Anderson and Brad Bushman aren’t exactly bias-free researchers.
Secondly, I think it’s very much in your favour that the greater public doesn’t realise the flabbergasting lack of an R18+ rating relating to games whilst movies do indeed have said rating (not to mention X ratings…) Because, Mr. Atkinson, if they DID stop to think about it or if the question was even raised fairly by the mass media then your position would be severely weakened.
Thirdly, I stand by my statement that you are ignorant on the subject. You are unwilling to accept that the majority of people want an R18+ classification and yet you have not done the research to find out and continually try to impede the discussion. Then, when an 88% approval rate for R18+ games IS released you immediately claim it’s biased because the research was partly funded by the IEAA (not the IGA which you stated). Do you realise how much money the Australian government is losing on tax and export revenue by cutting out a portion of the world’s largest media entertainment industry? Here’s a couple of figures which can be very easily found in any web search:
1. Australia earns $100 million in export revenue from games each year.
2. The Australian interactive entertainment industry employs approximately 5,000 people.
3. 14% of all game classification decisions are in the MA15+ category.
4. In the first six months of 2007, the total market for interactive entertainment hardware and software grew by 30%.
5. The average age of gamers is 28 years.
I had written you quite a large email which took me a while to research and form my arguments for and got no response, so please don’t tell me you read and respond to all your emails.
And lastly, you have no idea who my friends are nor what I do in my leisure time so please don’t be telling me to ‘get out more’. My social life is perfectly fine, thank you very much.
Ben Shambrook
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 4:46 PMPersonaly I find it amazing that he could write all that and cherry pick the responses to find a way to not respond to a single valid argument put forward.
No R18 letting through games that should be classified that under MA restrictions. Ignored
The majority of gamers being in there late 20’s.
Ignored
Mr Atkinson you’re on the internet, people can, will and always will be complete cockstains on the internet. Anyone who’s spent any significant time on the internet can tell you this. You need to learn to filter them out and actually look at the people who aren’t immature 15 year olds that basically want R 18 games so they can jerk it to virtual titties. There are valid arguments being presented and you’re ignoring them, which I’m betting has a lot to do with the amount of vitriol levelled at you.
You can find me at 3 Janlaw St Cleveland 4163 QLD
I’m not afraid to give you my full identity, why are you so afraid to discuss the actual issues?
Justin
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 4:51 PMAs disappointing as it is to see his opinion of the issue (and also the fact that most likely everyone he was responding to did not speak for the majority), you have to give one to him for at least trying to respond to some of the reader questions/thoughts.
But get the discussion paper out already!
Desi Quintans
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 5:24 PMTL;DR.
Hehe.
My name is Desi Quintans, 209 Carpenter St, St Marys NSW 2760. I’m not the kind of person who wants R-18 games because I’m after “zomg blood gore” but more because I think video games need more freedom to be able to advance as legitimate art and not remain just toys. Send me some mail or drop in, Mr Atkinson. Whatever, let’s get some dialogue going.
Brendan Dowd
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 5:34 PMMr Atkinson, while I appreciate you taking the time to respond, I don’t think you have addressed any of the issues that were raised. Could you please respond with answers to these questions –
1. Do you think the current ratings system is consistent and why?
2. Do you think that Games ratings are being enforced properly? If not, do you think they should be and how can this be done?
3. Do you believe that not having an R18+ rating forces games with adult content into the MA15+ rating?
4. Do you believe that not having an R18+ rating stops children getting access to adult material?
5. You mentioned that you have no problem with the discussion paper being released to the public. Where can I see this paper?
6. You also mentioned that you are not the only minister who disagrees with having an R18+ rating. Can you tell us what other ministers support you as it would be good to hear their thoughts as well?
7. What is the process of parliamentary democracy for this case? You mention that some people agree with you and some do not. Can you please take me through the steps of this process as relating to this case?
In your response you called for a civilised discourse with Gamers yet ignored all the questions and issues that were raised in a civil manner. I, and the majority of the Gaming community, are happy to hear your thoughts on the issues to see if we can work together to a satisfactory outcome for all parties. I do not want to become the Attorney General for South Australia (commuting there from North Sydney would be a nightmare!) and I have no intention of being elected into a government job. My intent is not to have you removed from office, it is to have a ratings system that is fair, consistent and one that does it’s job in advising the public of the suitability of content for the different age groups. When responding could you please concentrate on the questions above and not the processes of being elected into government in Croydon.
I do not believe that the interactive nature of games means that gamers are more likely to be violent, drug takers or visit prostitutes. I play games regularly yet I have never assaulted anyone, I do not take drugs and I definitely haven’t visited any prostitutes! As far as I am aware, no study has been done that shows gamers are more likely to be any of those things. I may be mistaken and if so I would like to see the study that showed that gamers are more likely to do these things. If there hasn’t been one perhaps that would be a good and practical next step. I do not believe that it is right to discredit an entire study that was done by an independent group like Bond University but as you pointed out the last one was commissioned by the Interactive Games Association. Perhaps this one could be a joint study commissioned by yourself and the Interactive Games Association so no-one could be accused of bias. If you need help conducting the study, I am willing to help. My email address is brendan_dowd@yahoo.com, please feel free to contact me directly.
I, and the rest of the gaming community, would greatly appreciate your response. Thanks,
Brendan Dowd
Guelphia
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 5:54 PMMr. Atkinson,
Your relentless responses to internet commentary conveys that you are indeed very committed to your job and more-so as a representative on the subject — however, it also shows a naïveté of your knowledge of your audience. Most of the people that post comments on websites as such are, somewhat, venting, and are not at all worth responding to. If you would stop being such an egoist and simply did your job as a representative of the, as you so often mentioned, South Australian people, this might all have gone a lot smoother, and kept you reputation intact.
Cheezel
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 5:54 PMAs a supporter of the R18+ rating for video games, what can be surmised by this letter is the following, which few have seemed to realise;
Don’t waste your time, Mr Atkinsons’ time, and hence potential discussion time, with slanderous remarks.
As a community it drags us all down in the eyes of others.
And I do agree with Mr Atkinsons’ point here – to an extent, the content of posts do need to be moderated more extensively, but at the same time there’s only so many moderators and they can’t be everywhere at once.
Eh
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 6:53 PMThere is no point trying to fight Michael Atkinson. His christian views will never ever allow him to change his views on this issue.
He is the boss, whatever the hell he thinks goes, well so he believes anyway.
All your doing, is promoting illegal downloading.
mikezombie777
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 7:04 PMDear Mr. Atkinson
Whilst I applaud your direct communication with the gaming community on this issue, I must draw your attention to the fact you haven’t actually addressed any of the most common points raised when arguing in favor of an R18+ classification. In your next response to Kotaku I strongly urge you to carefully address such common points in an objective, professional manner. Thus far your letters have consisted of nothing but irrelevant ramblings. You seem to be merely ignoring intelligent arguments and cherry-picking the immature, abusive comments to discredit the gaming community.
Raff
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 7:18 PMI am offended by Atkinson’s words, from the way he words his argument, he suggests that all gamers stay inside all day playing games and only socialise with other gamers and having no life outside their own room. This shows that you do not take any of us seriously Mr. Atkinson, and you wonder why many people think you hate video gamers. Expect emails soon.
aladar
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 7:40 PMit’s great to read so many reasoned comments, rebutting the false arguments made my Atkinson.
i for one had gotten tired of the insults and threats, and had not been reading all comments on this issue because of them.
its a shame these had to be pointed out by him for these to stop.
I have written three polite emails over the last 6 months to Michael Atkinson, offering first my reasons why i thought his position was flawed,
and then requesting that the discussion paper be made public, when stories i read suggested he was the cause of the delay.
I have not received any reply, other than to my first email where i was asked to include my address, which i then did, as for my 2nd & 3rd emails.
As you many of you have pointed out, Atkinson is being a politician, presenting inflammatory comments when he believes it will help his position,
and then responding politely to insults that don’t deserve to be acknowledged, shows him as ‘reasonable’ when he is not responding to any rational arguments.
we can all hope he will respond to the points raised here, as he obviously has a lot of time on his hands to write such a long response.
No doubt it would be frustrating to have so much vitriol aimed at oneself, but he does claim he is happy to be the lightning rod for this issue.
And Atkinson may be telling the truth when claiming there are other Attorney Generals opposed to the rating change.
It seems absurd that one person has the power to veto a decision on an R18+rating for video games in the Australian democracy, but this is the situation!
I agree with commenters who suggest that if someone wants a game that is banned in australia, it would not take much effort to do so.
the same is also true of a child who wants to play a game that is rated higher than their age.
It doesn’t help this situation that currently many games that would receive an R18+ rating were it to exist, currently receive an MA15+ rating in australia.
Movies and Rock& Roll were decried as evil & corrupting when they were new, Games are still young comparatively.
i fear that we may simply have to wait for video games to become part of accepted culture, for australia to receive an R18+ rating.
in time i’m sure it will happen, when someone younger, who grew up with games is elected as the SA Attorney General. This may just take a while!
Until then we can all do our best to help bring about change by telling friends & family about the issue, i know some people in the Croydon electorate!
boc
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 8:03 PMWow, I’m actually kind of surprised that I was addressed here. So I thought I should at least clarify a few things.
“”
I presume, boc, you want me banned from the Kotaku site or for me not to debate the question at all. So, the boc position is: “Atkinson is only allowed to debate the question if he agrees with us. If he disagrees with us, he’s asinine and cowardly.” Perhaps you’ve heard of the Soviet Union, boc.
“”
I don’t recall suggesting or implying that you be banned from Kotaku. So you presume wrongly. Nor is your impression of the ‘boc position’ correct. I do not believe what I have written previously implies that. The asinine remark I believe is valid as your response didn’t directly address Terry’s response. The cowardly remark was regarding your electoral challenge where to me it came across as bullying. Yes, I have heard of the Soviet Union.
“”
If you want to make the laws, boc, get elected to Parliament and if you want to be Attorney-General, then win the confidence of a majority of members of the parliament of which you are a member.
“”
I’m quite happy living where I am in Victoria. I’m quite happy with the AG we have here. However, in your scenario, I would have to move to any and every state and oust the entrenched MP who is the AG in that state any time I disagree with any of the AGs. Can you see the impracticality of that?
“”
If, as you claim, 90 p.c. of Australians support your position on games and therefore oppose mine, you should – according to your own reasoning – be a shoo-in to win the State District of Croydon at the next election.
“”
I don’t recall stating anything about 90 p.c. of Australians supporting anything. I believe you have mis-attributed this to me. Rereading, possibly you have confused me with Juggernautz.
“”
Some of the more intelligent bloggers on Kotaku understand the task ahead of supporters of an R18+ classification but they cannot bring themselves to admit that they do not have enough support from the Australian public to prevail in elections.
“”
I think if you laid out a fair case for/against R18+ games to the public they would be in favour of the category. Is it important enough to most people to be an election issue? Probably not, but, that doesn’t mean that they aren’t in favour of it.
“”
boc, and most bloggers on this site, seem to be contemptuous of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law because they are not getting their way.
“”
I don’t see why having contempt for our government is a bad thing. It’s not like government is perfect.
“”
They want instant gratification – or civility, the rule of law, responsible government and parliamentary democracy should be tossed down the lavatory.
“”
Yes that’s right. We want anarchy. That is a poor generalisation.
“”
By contrast, I will cheerfully accept an R18+ classification on the day that, under the agreed lawful process, Censorship Ministers endorse an R18+ classification for games. That is the difference between me and the bloggers on this site.
“”
We will cheerfully accept an R18+ classification on the day that, under the agreed lawful process, Censorship Ministers endorse an R18+ classification for games.
It’s not like there’s any other way of getting the R18+ classification. Or is there…
“”
I acknowledge that it may happen after I am gone.
“”
We acknowledge that it will most likely happen after you are gone.
Jack
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 9:04 PMI only want to make one point. In not having a 18+ rating you are letting games through which should NOT be played by people under 18. Games like GTA and Darkness come to mind. These games are not suited for people under 18 but now people as young as 15 can get their hands on it.
The reason for Mr. Atkins’ decision to veto the classification is in fact having the wrong results. The problem is not games that contains unnecessary amounts of violence, drugs or sex being played by minors … This is already happening because parents think “Oh, my child is 15, he can play these games”.
You are in effect giving parents a false sense of safety.
Realize you are causing what you are trying to stop from happening.
Adrian Ratter
Monday, March 16, 2009 at 10:33 PMDear Mr Atkinson,
When you started corresponding to Kotaku, I was looking forward to an intellectual, beneficial debate where people who support the R18+ rating could give their reasoned arguments, and you could respond with equally equally intellectual arguments explaining why you think it is not a good idea. Alas, I was wrong. You could have responded to Terry’s marvelous letter with a thoughtful analysis of his points. Instead you choose to carefully ignore EVERY SINGLE ONE of the points raised. You could have responded to the 99% of forum witters who continued the debate in a thoughtful and intellectual manner. Instead you cherry-picked the comments that went too far (of which I can assure you, being a member of several professional photographic forums, happens pretty much everywhere) to make it sound like you were taking the high road, as the honorable minister you are. No, Mr Atkinson, your behavior on this forum has been anything but honorable or decent. While you could have taken the high road and ignored (as everyone else does) the rude comments and responded intellectually to the meaningful responses. Instead, you took the low road to score cheap points.
In your arguments so far, you have dismissed a study simply because it was funded by the Interactive Games Association (which of course, therefore means that you have admitted that any government study should be dismissed because it is funded by the government), when you have previously referred to much less dependable studies. Your wonderful line of:
“running down and killing pedestrians on the pavement, raping a mother and her two daughters, blowing onself up in a market, cutting people in half with large calibre shells, injecting drugs to win an athletics event or killing a prostitute to recover the fee one just paid her (Welcome to the world of R18+ computer games).”
almost brought laughter to my eyes as every single one of those that you mentioned apart from the raping part is legal in Australia as MA15+, when in other countries that kind of content is R18+!! As for “protecting the children” as you claim is the reason for your stance, it doesn’t seem to be working that well. Furthermore, your reference to the rape game further shows your wish to completely misrepresent all facts as the game you are referring to is a Japanese only game that would be refused a R18+ rating in every country in the world. You mentioned a sorrowful tale of the refugees in your electorate, how you walk your dog in the morning, and many other completely random points in an effort to show everyone what a fine, upstanding citizen you are, despite the fact that all those are not related at all to the topic being debated (well, one side is debating, you are jut avoiding).
You say you have tried to respond to every criticism, yet why have you not responded at all to any meaningful criticism of your stance? Instead you have issued a hollow challenge (which you know full well that the vast majority of people don’t even live in SA), you have extremely offensively and dismissively called people who support an R18+ rating “R18+ nerds” (which hardly places you on the moral and ethical high ground like you seem to believe you are on), you have refused to respond to any valid criticism, you have again, rudely dismissed the argument by saying that to stand against you, you need to supply a name and you have openly admitted that you are going to misrepresent the issue in parliament by “reading the highlights out to Parliament soon.” I am sure you won’t be reading out the thousands of legitimate correspondence you get.
You have made it very clear to me, and everyone else, that no matter what points people raise, no matter what evidence shows your position to be counter-intuitive, no matter what the public wishes, you are not going to change your mind. That is the very worst quality a politician can exhibit.