And by views, they mean his “contradiction-filled, strawman-posing, condescending piece of correspondence.”

The full rebuttal can be read on the Gamers 4 Croydon website, but here’s the concluding paragraph:

What Mr Atkinson’s letter demonstrates is little more than that he has a prejudice against violent video games. Much of the ‘evidence’ he provides to support his claim is dubious or patently false, and it shows a much greater interest in distracting people with emotive arguments than thoughtful consideration of available information. While he is of course entitled to dislike violence in video games (and any other media for that matter), his personal distaste is not sufficient reason to curtail the rights of responsible adults, expose minors to adult content, and ignore the opinions of an overwhelming majority of Australians.

He is, after all, supposed to be a representative.

Oh, and remember you can donate to Gamers 4 Croydon on their website as well.

Below are several key excerpts from the letter Robert received from the minister. You can also download a scan of the entire letter via this link.

You may be aware that there was talk of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General releasing a discussion paper on [the introduction of an R18+ classification for games]. I have been awaiting the release of this paper… Alas, the paper has not yet been released and, despite my inquiring, I do not know when it will be available. I want the discussion paper released as soon as possible and have done nothing to impede its release.

Although some members are advocates of this classification, I believe other Attorneys-General, like me, reject it. Other Attorneys-General who are opposed to introducing an R18+ classification for computer games are content to let me be the lightening (sic) rod for the gamers.

I am well aware that many game players are adults… However, it is important you do not confuse the classification rating of a game with the game’s sophistication, or the challenge or interest to the player… It does not follow that a game is more interesting to an adult simply because it contains extreme violence, explicit sexual material or highly offensive language. Indeed, with all the effort and money that goes into game development, coupled with the effects and graphics now available, there is no need to introduce these extreme elements. I am bafffled and worried about why proponents of R18+ games are putting up their hands and saying ‘Give us more cruel sex and extreme violence!’

‘Interactive Australia 2007′, a report prepared by Bond University for the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia, surveyed 1,606 Australian households randomly. The report found “79% of Australian households have a device for computer and video games”. Further, 62% of Australians in these gaming households “say the classification of a game has no influence on their buying decision”.

Given this data, I cannot fathom what State-enforced safeguards could exist to prevent R18+ games being bought by households with children and how children can be stopped from using these games once the games are in the home. If adult gamers are so keen to have R18+ games, I expect children would be just as keen.

Classification of electronic games is very different from the classification of film. In cinemas, the age of movie-goers can be regulated… Rising game and console sales make it clear that this is a growing area that needs careful regulation, even more so than cinemas and private D.V.D. hire and purchase. Access to electronic games, once in the home, cannot be policed and therefore the games are easily accesible to children.

What the present law does is keep the most extreme material off the shelves. It is true that this restricts adult liberty to a small degree, however, I am prepared to accept this infringement in the circumstances.

I am concerned about the level of violence in society and the widespread acceptance of simulated violence as a form of entertainment. I am particularly concerned about the impact of this extreme content on children and vulnerable adults.

I believe the repeated act of killing a computer-generated person or creature desensitises them to violence. To my mind, a child being able to watch depraved sex and extreme violence in a movie is damaging to the child, but the child’s participating (sic) in depraved sex and extreme violence in a computer game is worse.

Game-houses are always free to adapt games that would otherwise be R.C. [Refused Classification] and modify the game content to be in line with the M.A.15+ classification… I do not accept that this destroys the artistic integrity of the game – excusing gore and depraved sex as art is an immature argument.

Contrarily, it has been suggested that games that would otherwise be classified R18+ are instead slipping through as M.A.15+ and becoming accessible to children. This argument does not support an R18+ classification for games. There may be games that some people consider too violent for the M.A.15+ classification but the solution is not to create a classification that would permit even more violent games in Australia. M.A.15+ games are restricted to children over 15 and if younger children access these games it further justifies complete protection from R18+ games. It is up to parents and responsible adults to ensure a game is appropriate for a minor whatever age he or she is. It is up to members of the Classification Board to apply the Guidelines correctly and not to try to defeat the Guidelines because they disagree with the outcome of the actions of elected officials in a democratic rule-of-law society.

Please read the full letter now. I’d like to hear how you would respond to Mr Atkinson. Where are the weaknesses in his reply? Has he contradicted himself? What is the best way for the pro-R18+ movement to counter Mr Atkinson’s argument? Or perhaps you feel he actually makes some very valid points and, if so, which ones?

Sensible comments only, please.

On Friday, David Doe kicked off his campaign against Atkinson at Adelaide’s Rundle Mall, securing the signatures required to officially register his political party. Doe says his aim is “to exert pressure on Atkinson, currently the only Attorney General voting ‘no’ against the introduction of an R18+ classification rating for videogames in Australia.”

Atkinson told News.com.au that he “welcomed Mr Doe’s challenge,” saying:

“The voters of Croydon will now be asked directly whether they want interactive games in which gamers score points by raping a mother and daughter, blowing themselves up, torturing human figures… killing people and taking drugs to improve their sporting prowess.”

Later, Atkinson responded to several readers’ comments on the same article, claiming that neither his nor the ALP’s defeat at the 2010 state election would not benefit the introduction of an R18+ classification.

“Former Liberal Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock supported my opposition to an R 18+ Classification for interactive games at a time when most Labor Attorneys-General wanted to introduce one and he sought the endorsement of Cabinet for his position,” Atkinson wrote. “Should I stop being Attorney-General, the opposition would, I predict, be taken up by the W.A. Attorney-General (Liberal) and at least two other Attorneys-General (Labor). Moreover, many Liberals in the State Parliament and at least one Liberal candidate in the forthcoming State election support my stand.”

Doe told Kotaku that he was “a little saddened” by Atkinson’s response to his challenge. However, he remains undaunted in the face of the Attorney-General’s obvious advantages and has vowed to take his campaign beyond the electorate of Croydon.

“He is hugely popular within his electorate,” says Doe, “and he will have not only superior brand recognition, but also a well-oiled political machine running his campaign.

“Over the weekend it became clear that we will need to run a candidate for the Legislative Council, so that gamers who do not live in the Croydon electorate will also be able to show their support by voting for our candidate in the upper house. And of course, we will be working on our preferences with the other major parties in the coming months, as well as providing some quick links to people’s Federal representatives so they can voice their concern at the requirement of unanimity between Attorneys-General to implement an R18+ classification rating with a view to getting that piece of legislation amended to only require a majority vote of Attorneys-General.

“And in amongst all that,” jokes Doe, “I’m going to try to continue to paint the inside of my house, and try to get my season’s batting average above zero, and my bowling average below sixty.”

Doe grew up in Adelaide and currently lives in Melbourne where he works at games development studio Firemint. He’s a passionate gamer and, perhaps soon, an officially political gamer, too.

As mentioned earlier this morning, Doe will be in Adelaide’s Rundle Mall this evening to collect the 150 membership signatures he requires to officially register Gamers 4 Croydon as a political party.

I spoke with him yesterday to find out why he founded Gamers 4 Croydon and what he hopes to achieve.

Tell me about your reasons for starting this campaign. Was there one particular incident that triggered the idea?
As it happens, it was reading [on Kotaku] that Michael Atkinson had thrown down the gauntlet in a letter to The Advertiser: “I welcome a challenge in my electorate of Croydon at the next general election on this issue.” That initially gave me the seed of an idea to run a candidate against him. But when Left 4 Dead 2 was Refused Classification, I decided that enough was enough. Here, finally, was a game I was just absolutely not prepared to play in a watered-down condition.

Last year we had the same kind of issue with Fallout 3 being initially Refused Classification, although that, laughably, was over the use of the word ‘morphine’, and not the intensely graphic (and inappropriately rated MA15+ in my opinion) violence that Fallout 3 offered players. I’d seen enough “Down with Atkinson” threads over the past few years, typically every time an anticipated game gets the dreaded RC from the Classification Board, but as a community we weren’t getting any traction on the issue.

I’m 30 years old now, and I’m more than a little sick and tired of being moralised at by people that don’t understand, nor want to understand, the culture and community that plays a huge part in my life. I thought it was time to actively DO something, so for better or worse, here I am doing something.

What do you feel is the biggest problem with the current classification scheme?
There is just no consistency. On one hand we have television and film being given a free pass with all types of content being made available (and rightly) to those who want to (and are legally able to) view R18+ (or even x18+) content, but for some reason, the idea that “videogames are just for kids” has stuck around.

The current scheme without an R18+ rating for videogames is fundamentally flawed, as you see all types of content, which by television and film standards would garner a rating of R18+, being literally shoved into the MA15+ rating. As a result, we have content in the MA15+ rating that is inappropriate, and this is a potential source of confusion for parents and caregivers. Let’s just a consistent message across the board for our national Classification guidelines.

What do you hope to achieve – just an R18+ rating or do you feel the system needs a more thorough overhaul?
I think it’s fair to make the argument that the Classification Board’s processes aren’t very transparent. After all, who is making these decisions for the country? Who are the people that work for the Classification Board? What is their background? Why can’t we know more about them?

That said (and I’m not going to be Mr Popular after this), I think that the Classification Board does an outstanding job. I agree with their decision to Refuse Classification for Left 4 Dead 2 on the grounds that it is graphically violent. This isn’t about the board, it’s about the lack of an R18+ rating that effectively hamstrings what the Board can and can’t classify.

If we give them the ability to classify videogame content as R18+, we wouldn’t be having this discussion as they would have rubber-stamped an R18+ on the L4D2 application and it would have saved Valve a bunch of money and dev-time re-tooling the game just for the (small) Australian market, and the rest of us undue heartache and misery. It’s important to remember that the Classification Board is not the enemy, the guidelines it adheres to are.

Why did you feel the need to state your party’s policies on issues beyond videogames classification?
While I, and no doubt many others, feel that the issue of an R18+ rating for videogames is pretty important, it’s not something I think can win, in an election against a 20-year incumbent who is hugely popular within his electorate, as a standalone issue. We’re not going to get 10,000 votes on what is essentially a civil rights issue that many people just don’t care enough about. We might, however, get 10,000 votes for other issues that play a lot closer to home for a lot of South Australians.

Have you had any contact with Michael Atkinson? Do you know if he’s aware of your campaign?
Yes and no. I have sent him an email asking for his thoughts on the matter at hand, and I did receive a reply via email. I’m really looking forward to opening the letter that his office has said they are sending, let me tell you!

I don’t know if he’s aware of the campaign. I have no doubt that in the fullness of time he will become aware of it, but whether or not he decides to take it seriously will of course be entirely up to him. Make no mistake, we’re playing to win.

Mr Atkinson claims an 18+ rating would allow “children and vulnerable adults” access to such material. What’s your response to this argument?
I think it’s completely specious. He is claiming that children, already legally restricted from purchasing content given the MA15+ rating, will somehow have easier access to R18+ rated material. It’s a typical “won’t somebody think of the children” argument, and it does not do well under any scrutiny. To take that kind of argument to its logical end-point, once we have an R18+ rating for videogames, parents will cease being responsible for the welfare of their children, and Michael Atkinson is saving us all from ourselves. The R18+ rating is specifically designed to restrict children’s access to inappropriate content. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

As for “vulnerable adults”, how would we know? We’re all being treated like vulnerable adults at the moment. It’s fair (and completely bloody obvious) to say that the overwhelming majority of adults in this country (and around the world) are not suddenly going to go on wild rampages because they are allowed to play an R-rated game. Given that the rest of the developed world already has the equivalent of an R18+ rating, I don’t seem to recall too many occasions where the fabric of society has completely broken down in those areas after any particular videogame was released. Studies have even shown that as videogame sales go up, violent crime goes down.

His position is not backed by any supporting facts or evidence. He’s either Australia’s best troll, getting a massive rise out of our community in particular, or he just likes being a moral crusader. Either is sad.

What can Kotaku readers do to support your campaign?
A lot of things. They can hit up the site and become a member (s this is a one-man-band at the moment, all new members keep me motivated to keep working on the issue), or they can donate to the cause (anything I don’t use in the campaign will be donated to Child’s Play), they can help me canvass support by linking the site to their friends and family, or by joining the Steam or Facebook groups.

But if they really want to do me a solid, and they’re over 18 and live in South Australia and are enrolled to vote; they can come down to Rundle Mall’s balls on Friday the 6th of November between 5.30pm and 6.30pm, as I’ll be signing people up for the party so we can get the 150 members we require to get officially registered as a political party by the South Australian Electoral Commission. I’m doing a road-trip from Melbourne to get over there and get names on paper for this party to get off the ground. Anybody else they can bring that fits that criteria (over 18, enrolled to vote, lives in SA) and who also wants to see the introduction of an R18+ rating for videogames – friends, sisters, brothers, parents, workmates – make sure to bring them!

Right now you’re just looking at one seat, but do you have plans to take this campaign further and contest other seats in other elections?
At this stage, our primary focus is Croydon. I have had a few requests to run a candidate for the Legislative Council. If we get enough popular support in South Australia, and a forthcoming caucus approves a candidate, it’s definitely something we’ll look into.

I’d like to thank David for taking the time to answer our questions and also wish him well in his campaign. And I’d urge any Kotaku readers able to make it to Rundle Mall today to do so and pledge their support. Hands up who wants to help?

Taking its name from the recently banned Left 4 Dead 2, the Gamers 4 Croydon party and its founder David Doe plan to contest the safe Labor seat of Croydon, held by Atkinson since 1989, at the 2010 state election. Doe says the reason he’s chosen to stand in the election is “to exert pressure on the Attorney General for South Australia, Michael Atkinson, as he is currently the only Attorney General voting ‘no’ against the introduction of an R18+ classification rating for videogames in Australia.”

To register as a political party, Doe needs to sign up 150 Gamers 4 Croydon members who are over 18, enrolled to vote and live in South Australia. Doe is travelling to Adelaide today to secure the signatures. You can go and show your support for his party and an R18+ classification for videogames by heading down to Rundle Mall between 5.30pm and 6.30pm today.

Stay tuned for an exclusive interview with Doe on Kotaku later this morning.

Gamespot is reporting that the long-awaited discussion paper on the introduction of an R category for video games in Australia will be released soon. But it’s not all good news.

The paper, first proposed a year ago and drafted by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, is intended to encourage public debate and consultation on the issue of an R18+ classification for video games. However, it’s been a rocky road as seemingly intractable disagreements over its content have threatened to derail the process.

First, South Australian Attorney-General, staunch R18+ opponent and occasional Kotaku contributor Michael Atkinson was accused of deliberately stalling by refusing to supply his feedback on the initial draft.

Then, in a letter to Kotaku, Atkinson hit back, claiming it was his opponents that were responsible for the delays.

Now, as reported on Gamespot, the Federal government has stepped in to end the feud. The paper will instead be released “shortly” by the office of the Commonwealth Minister of Home Affairs, Bob Debus.

While the start of the period of public consultation is good news, the fact our censorship ministers are unable to reach agreement on the paper bodes very poorly for them being able to agree upon the merits of an R18+ rating.

Aussie R18+ video game debate to be opened to public [Gamespot]

The unprecedented comments over the past few days on the R18+ rating debate from South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson has prompted a response from the wider games industry. Unsurprisingly, it appears there’s little common ground to be found on the issue.

Writing on behalf of the industry in his role as CEO of the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia, Ron Curry followed up his pro-R18+ stance on the ABC yesterday with the below reply to Atkinson’s recent remarks on Kotaku:

IEAA respects the fact that Attorney-General Atkinson has taken the time to address the comments made by Kotaku readers – kudos to him for that. While we may not always agree with his position we do respect his right to voice it and his candour in doing so.

We agree on a number of issues; adults play computer games, children should be protected and that simulated violence has widespread acceptance. We agree that readers should be able to see what we are arguing for or against (though the caveat we add is that it should be done so in a clear, logical and open manner).

However, there are (obviously) a number of fundamental issues on which the Attorney and the IEAA disagree. I think it’s obvious to Kotaku readers what those issues are as they have been discussed, debated and blogged ad nauseam. Saying that though, it would be remiss if a few of the Attorney’s comments were left unaddressed.

An R18+ classification for video games does not mean we will have this sudden exposure to extreme violence, sexual defilement and rape. This style of content is currently prohibited under the National Classification Scheme and extending an R18+ to video games (the classification itself is nothing new) does not broaden the parameters. To suggest so is disingenuous.

The debate on the impact of violent media on behaviour is an ongoing one, with equal academic arguments supporting views which are diametrically opposed. Proponents on both sides of the debate offer ‘evidence’ selectively and often in an hysterical manner to support their argument. To lower this important and needed debate, irrespective of view, to one of hysterical rhetoric or moral panic, serves no one well.

Lastly, we agree that the present law keeps the most extreme material off the shelves which, paradoxically, makes it even more attractive to children. Bit torrent sites are an easy option for the not overly PC literate to access these games which are then made available in home without any classification markings at all.

Simulated violence, wrongly or rightly, has always existed in society with widespread acceptance. Comic books, slap stick comedy, film, movies, Tom and Jerry and alike have always been part of media consumption. The content doesn’t change, but the delivery model does. As technology accelerates to convergence of delivery methods, we need to focus on content, as to do otherwise is short sighted. We need to future proof the protection of children and ensuring a classification scheme which deals with content equally allows everyone to understand what is suitable only for adults.

We look forward to Attorney-General Atkinson’s final approval of the discussion paper so that the issue may be debated in a wider forum.

PS. We are pleased the Attorney loves his Wii – we now consider him a gamer, just like the rest of us!

Michael Atkinson has admitted he opposes an R18+ category because he doesn’t trust the Classification Board to apply the guidelines “in their plain meaning”. In a third letter to Kotaku, Atkinson outlines his case against the introduction of an R18+ category in response to Kotaku reader Terry O’Shanassy. Atkinson claims the Board will stretch the limits of an R18+ category in the same way they currently stretch the limits of the MA15+ category.

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.

South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson has revealed why the discussion paper on an R18+ rating has yet to be made available for public consultation, a year after it was first proposed. Atkinson says the sticking point is his demand for the inclusion of illustrations of the type of content an R18+ game would contain.