Wed 25 Apr 2007
I’ve always held to my claim that the critics of media violence are in fact the ones profiting most from real-world violence and fears of virtual violence. Their fearmongering fuels book sales, uptake of training materials and demand on both the lecture/speaking circuit and media appearances (never mind political drives to garner more votes).
(Just as one example, check out the packed speaking schedule of David Grossman, a long time game critic, along with the over-commercialized feel of his web site.)
The rush of critics to blame games soon after the Virginia Tech tragedy has been well trodden. And, earlier, I posted Jack Thomspon’s challenge to debate me. Knowing that he’s done this before (though sometimes has backed out) and that he actually has an agent and production company on board, I took his bait and started asking questions about how such a debate would work.
The unedited log of emails between Jack and I are below. As you’ll see, the discussion quickly moves toward getting an agent, negotiating revenue, getting paid (likely $3k each per debate, plus expenses), etc.
Personally, I’m not interested in getting paid under such a controversy-for-profit model. As you’ll see, my “counter challenge” of coming up to Montreal to do a free debate at Dawson College (where a school shooting took place last year) was declined by Jack. Oh well.
To his closing remark about being paid to defend the industry, the opposite is more true. In an ironic twist of economic fate, the IGDA is not directly rewarded for getting involved in the censorship/violence struggle. Since any such work cannot be excluded to non-members, and that everyone in the industry benefits from progress, such work is by definition a “collective good”. In short, because you can reap the benefits of such work without paying for it, you don’t! Of course, economics is messier than that, but does add an interesting wrinkle to the “take money” accusations…
Anyway, here’s the unedited log of emails:
==========================================
From: “Jack Thompson”
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:35:15 -0400Jack Thompson Challenges Video Game Industry Flak to College Debate about V Tech Massacre…. [this was the original challenge email that I already posted]
==========================================
From: “Jason Della Rocca”
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 10:36 AMHi Jack,
Good to hear from you, and thanks for sending across your various news bits, etc.
Gotta say, being called an idiot (advisedly) and jackass on national news feels like a special milestone for me.
I’m intrigued about your challenge to debate. Can you provide any details on how things work logistically and such?
Regards,
Jason==========================================
From: “Jack Thompson”
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:42:01 -0400Sure, you agree and then we get an agent to book it or them. Nice of you to characterize me as worse than an ambulance chaser. I was trying to stop these ambulances from being dispatched over the last eight years. You can apologize at our first debate. Do you agree or not?
==========================================
From: “Jason Della Rocca”
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 10:49 AM> Sure, you agree and then we get an agent to book it or them.
An agent? How does that work? Sorry, I’m new to this kind of thing. Generally, I just lecture at game industry conferences and handle everything directly.
> You can apologize at our first debate. Do you agree or not?
Let’s save that for the debate :)
Jason
==========================================
From: “Jack Thompson”
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:29:18 -0400So, do you want to do it? I can then, if you agree, get an agent, and we’ll see what we can do. Let me know. thanks
==========================================
From: “Jason Della Rocca”
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:36 PMI’d like to understand how this all works before committing to anything.
Regards,
Jason==========================================
From: “Jack Thompson”
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:45:59 -0400First, you agree to debate. Then we get an agent who gets us a venue, or more than one on college campuses, and we get paid to debate. We negotiate the venue and the revenue.
The sine qua non is the stated desire of both parties to debate. If we can’t come to terms then there is no debate, but I can’t go to a college events organization and ask to book one or more debates without your stating that you want to debate.
==========================================
From: “Jason Della Rocca”
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 12:55 PMHi Jack,
Thanks very much for the additional info. Very helpful.
I didn’t realize this was a paid-for affair. Where does the revenue come from? Am I to guess that attendees to the debate pay an entrance fee? Or, is there some other magical way these events generate revenue? Again, admittedly, I’m a novice when it come to these things. Sorry.
Also, I live/work in Montreal, Canada. Would my travel expenses get covered, or would you come up to Montreal?
Jason
==========================================
From: “Jack Thompson”
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:51:55 -0400Colleges collect activities fees from their students for each school year. They are looking for events like this. They pay all expenses. We could expect to net approximately $3000 or more per event. Obviously, I’m not in this issue for the money and neither are you, but that’s how it works. The agent gets paid out of the gross fee for the event. I think it would be great. Let me know
==========================================
From: “Jason Della Rocca”
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 3:03 PMWow, not bad for an evening’s discussion. Still, I’d feel bad about taking the money and would prefer a money-less debate.
Would you be willing to come up to Montreal. I could probably get us into Dawson College for the debate. Of course, we wouldn’t ask for fees, or get our expenses paid for, or charge at the door or anything…
Jason
==========================================
From: “Jack Thompson”
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 16:32:41 -0400That isn’t how it works and I can’t justify leaving my family to go to Montreal on a freebie. Sorry. Have to pay the bills.
==========================================
From: “Jason Della Rocca”
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 4:48 PMRight, I understand.
Regards,
Jason==========================================
From: “Jack Thompson”
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:22:19 -0400Money is evil but games to practice killing people are not?
So your answer is no. too bad.
==========================================
From: “Jason Della Rocca”
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 11:51 AMHmm, still thinking about it.
Again, I’m uneasy with the idea of profiting from this…
Regards,
Jason==========================================
From: “Jack Thompson”
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 12:40:45 -0400You’re uneasy with being paid for your time, while take money from an industry that has you defend its sale of mature-rated games to kids?
==========================================
April 25th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
“…I can’t justify leaving my family to go to Montreal on a freebie.” -J. Thompson
So, he’s only interested in saving the public from themselves (and the evil video game industry) if someone’s going to stuff some cash in his pocket. Nice.
Is it possible to drive one’s credibility level to a negative level…LESS than “no credibility”? Seems Mr. Thompson is bent on finding a way.
April 25th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Meh, just have the debate he wants and instead of keeping the $3k, give it to a charity, like penny arcade. That way, you can have the debate and kick his arse…
April 25th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
hes just another money hungry lawyer.
Why dont you come down to Miami Instead? Hell if I could i would pay for the expense but sadly I can not.
April 25th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
I agree with Tom. Take the debate (or series of debates), and *publically* donate the proceeds to a worthy charity… or even back to the colleges themselves.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
J. Duvall has an excellent idea. Donating the money to a charitable organization would be a great move. You’re not profiting and the money is going somewhere worthwhile.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Hmm interesting, seems like jack is trying to alienate himself more. He wants to debate something he is very passionate about, but wont do it for free? seems a tad hyppocritical in my opinion. Thanks for keeping up the fight Jason.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Sure, handing over my take to charity would be the right thing to do.
However, it is not just discomfort with myself collecting money from such an endeavor, but more so, enabling Jack to make money off of it!
Now, if he was willing to also donate his “speaker fee”, that’s another story!
April 25th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
JT makes a good point about the economics, if that money doesn’t go to you, it’ll go to a debate on the War In Iraq, or Legalizing “It”, or National Health Care, or what have you. They’re going to book something and spend that money, because thats how academic institutions payroll. The money is already spent, its just a question of how.
Iraq policy has lead to ten thousand times more innocent lives lost than violent games ostensibly have, medical negligence has casued probably thousands of times more lives to be lost, the war on drugs has causes a similar maginitude of lives to be ruined or lost.
I think you should do it. I really do. I think it’ll be important. The percieved ethical strings associated with the mechanicals are vastly outweighed by the value of the discourse. If you denote that your fee will be donoted so helping sick kids play video games, well, thats has a nice poetry to it eh? If Thompson won’t donote his fee, thats ok, it creates a percieved moral highground.
Do it Jason, think of the children! Some ten year old might never experience Shadow of the Collosus if you don’t. Do it for him.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
I think you should engage him in a debate. He’s had too much free reign to get his lunatic fringe opinion air time on national television. I think an informed opponent, such as yourself, taking his arguments apart, and showing them for the nonsense that they are would be a good place to start at countering this negative attention he has recently been able to place on video games. The debate would no doubt be placed on sources as YouTube, etc. It could go a long way to setting the record straight on Thompson’s lies.
I don’t think the money should get in the way of this. As other people have mentioned already, if it’s a concern of yours, then donate the proceeds to a suitable charity. Don’t let Thompson be able to claim that “I’ve tried to get people like Della Rocca to debate this with me, but they chickened out.” It’s not the truth of the matter, but when has that made a difference with Thompson?
April 25th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
[…] To the surprise of no one, it turns out Jack’s debate challenge issued to IGDA’s Jason Della Rocca was simply another angle for Jack to make a buck. If there’s no money to be made, he isn’t interested. Is this is a shocking revelation? No, not really. Douchebags don’t have integrity. That’s why we call them douchebags. Read more at Reality Panic. […]
April 25th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
I completely understand your stance on this.
It isn’t hard to see John Bruce wanting to make money off the issue. We’ve seen a number of times where he uses and abuses the tragedies of individuals, families, and even the community to push his personal, religious, and/or political agenda. Whether it’s being the massacre chaser, trivializing abuse (such as in the Cody Posey case) or trying to make money off the issue (as in these debates).
We should also point out to those who don’t know that he jumps up and leaves his family when it suits him any other time. Either face time on TV, time in front of a judge (rationally or otherwise) or spending who knows how long writing and sending emails and Press Releases. But here is a single time when he wouldn’t make money from his desire to “protect children” from the evils of video games. Real crusaders don’t benefit from their actions. True crusaders, if they truly believe what they are spreading, endure a great deal of “self-sacrifice”.
In all honesty, I’d LOVE to see the debate. But I would never ask of you, in any way, shape, or form, to give up your own personal beliefs to do it. I just wanted to add my voice to the support for your decision. And if you should change your mind, do it because YOU believe it to be the right thing, not because someone else thinks it is the right thing.
I’m with ya. Not because someone told me to be. But because I believe it’s the right thing to be.
And if you should debate him, I’m reminded of Mickey saying one word to Rocky Balboa:
“Win.”
Andrew Rhodes
April 25th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Like others, I’d hate to see Jack make any money from this (I’m not keen on funding any more of his lawsuits), but this is a debate I’d very much like to see happen.
As has been suggested, donating the money to charity seems a viable alternative, or perhaps just accepting enough compensation to cover Jack’s travel expenses and accomodations.
Bottom line, though, is that I think it’s important. Hell, I’d pay to see it and might even drive the nearly 300 miles to Dawson for it. Of course, if you picked a venue near Boston I’d love you forever.
Just be prepared if you go through with it. Bring ammunition. Know your facts back and front. All these studies he brandishes to back up his claims? Yeah. Bring copies of the real ones.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:46 am
“Jack Thompson has today challenged Mr. Della Rocca to one or more college debates, anywhere anytime…”
“I’m not in this issue for the money…”
“I can’t justify leaving my family to go to Montreal on a freebie.”
Please keep posting the running e-mail dialog. The contradictions are quite entertaining. :)
April 26th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Just get an agent, get the money, and announce that after travel expenses you’re donating it to a charity, maybe the one run by the Penny Arcade guys.
April 26th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Why? We have IGDA Foundation.
April 26th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Immediate News Release – April 26, 2007
Jack Thompson Challenges Video Game Industry “Flak” (sp?) to College Debate about V Tech Massacre… (Sort of)
Last Wednesday afternoon, two days after the Virginia Tech school massacre, anti-violent video game activist and attorney Jack Thompson took to the MSNBC News Channel and told Hardball host Chris Matthews the killer was likely trained on violent video games, given his robot-like efficiency. Thompson noted that the student who was the author of the worst school massacre in world history (the previous worst massacre being before video games were created), until Monday, had trained in Germany on the ultra-violent shooter game Counter-Strike, killing 16 and then himself. Chris Matthews informed Thompson he had no evidence to back up his claim, which Thompson ignored.
Last Tuesday, the Washington Post reported that in fact Cho was a massive player of violent video games, especially Counter-Strike, according to his high school acquaintances. This is probably where Mr. Thompson got his information from. This reference to video games was later taken down, since Cho didn’t own anything related to video games. New York Times reported:
“When Mr. Cho entered Virginia Tech, which is crouched in the Blue Ridge Mountains of southwest Virginia, his parents drove him to school with guarded expectations. Perhaps he would no longer retreat to video games and playing basketball alone the way he did at home.”
What are the chances that Cho left his bad video game habits at home along with parental supervision? Very good, considering that Cho spent most of his time watching professional wrestling and game shows on TV, and spent the rest of his time at his computer, writing poetry and theatrical plays.
Besides, all studies about the harmful effects of such violent games have been inconclusive.
Thompson was wrong and has been wrong ever since he started his crusade against violent video games, from unsuccessful bans against video games, to unsuccessful lawsuits against the industry, to unsuccessful game legislation, to (you get the idea).
Now the video game industry has struck back at Thompson, again. Jason Della Rocca, spokesperson for the International Game Developers Association, has publicly said of Thompson, “It’s so sad. These massacre chasers — they’re worse than ambulance chasers — they’re waiting for these things to happen so they can jump on their soapbox.”
Actually, Thompson pointed out yesterday on MSNBC, when asked about this libel, that he has been trying to prevent ambulances from being dispatched, trying to save lives, and then proceeded to call Mr. Della Rocca a jackass and an idiot.
Jack Thompson has challenged Mr. Della Rocca to one or more college debates, anywhere anytime (as long as Jack Thompson can get paid for it), to discuss whether violent video games in any fashion caused school killings at V Tech, Columbine, Paducah, Jonesboro, Erfurt, Wellsboro, Ft. Myers, Pearl, Tabor, Fairfax, Anchorage, and all the other stops along this trail of tears.
Can Jack Thompson stop twisting the words of the studies coming out of Harvard and Indiana Universities? These studies only mention the obvious; that adolescents become emotionally aroused when exposed to violent video games. They do not mention a video game “copycat” phenomenon. Is he willing to admit that the American Psychological Association never said there is a direct causal link between violent video games and teen aggression, and instead said that violence (even cartoon violence) can trigger aggression? Will he mention that the APA also stated that violent video games are not the only, nor the most important, factor in societal violence?
Or is Mr. Thompson, like those he speaks so negatively about, a coward who is only willing to debate if he gets paid $3000 for it? Mr. Thompson declined Mr. Della Rocca’s counter-challenge of a free debate, saying he has “to pay the bills” and “can’t justify” it. Apparently, “anywhere anytime” came with the addendum, “as long as I make money from this.”
Debate, Mr. Thompson, debate. Stop putting your mouth where others’ money is. Stop hiding behind false accusations and misinformation. Either debate or be quiet, as quiet as the mainstream media who doesn’t bother to research you or your claims.
Contact Jack Thompson at 305-666-4366 to see if he’ll grow a backbone.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
I would chip in to help someone stop this monster. So would some of the 80% of collage students that play video games. Something you should consider more.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I’m willing to chip in $20 to see this schmuck get what’s coming to him.
Anyone else with me?
April 26th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
I think a debate would be a bad idea. The publicity will link games and the shooting in a way that the facts do not. The readers of this blog and those in the games community are all aware of Thompson, but nobody else is. JT just wants the publicity, that much is clear, and the instant the debate starts he’s got his wish.
I urge you to consider what a non-debate it would be. This guy does not have a history of caring about facts; it’s all smoke and mirrors and disingenuity and straw men. It would be like debating Bill O’Reilly. Do you think he’d graciously capitulate in the face of our facts? Like hell; this is his living! He’d only have to score a few cheap points off Jason and he’d be satisfied, and I guarantee he’d come out with a few quotes that he would brandish at us for years (probably altering them over time, BO’R-style).
Let it go, he’ll slither off, and we can move on. We’re all confident that he has no case, and in the long term, with the hard work that Jason and the IGDA do, that message will slowly come to dominate.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:21 am
Bah… you guys need to be more devious =P
All you have to do is go to the speech, announce that both you and he are going to donate your money. If he disagrees, you apologise and donate your money and he looks like the bad guy… well more of a bad guy =P
April 27th, 2007 at 4:24 am
[…] - Thursday night was an IGDA New York chapter meet. It was mostly a brainstorming session, to figure out what events and directions the chapter could and should explore, to generate awareness and activity in regards to game development in the Big Apple. One suggestion was to hold public debates on various topics, such as the Governor of New York’s proposed bill that would regulate violent video games. In addition to Eliot Spitzer, or in case we can’t get him or his people, I suggested that we should maybe approach everyone’s favorite, Jack Thompson to talk, since he’s always up for any chance to spew his anti-video game dogma. Though this was before I found out that IGDA’s Executive Director, Jason Della Rocca, recently challenged Thompson to a debate, which led to series of ridiculous emails. So yeah, maybe having him come and talk is a pretty stupid idea after-all. Which, I know, I should have known already. […]
April 27th, 2007 at 6:56 am
Nothing is f ree, peopel who work for charities still “make neough to pay the bills”. Organinsig big events cost money and everyone involved gets paid, that’s how it works.
If yo uwant debate him, debate him. But don’t play the martyr. You yourself were the one who said you would expect to be paid for your time and your flights. But you won’t pay for Jack’s?
Incidently, why did you not reply to Jack’s quite good come back in the last email…is that why you didn’t bother replying and simply started your “Jack’s a meanie!” blog post instead?
April 27th, 2007 at 7:14 am
“Money is evil but games to practice killing people are not?”
Nice guy. Not that surprisingly, hes turned down offers to debate before the moment he learns he wont make money out of it. He normally doenst start saying things like that though.
April 27th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Jack doesn’t debate, he yells. He will come on and yell, never actually listening to what anyone else has to say, not that it matters, he’s in it for the paycheck. Even standing on the same stage legitimizes him, better to ignore him. He’s been doing this for a long time, I saw him years ago ‘debating’ rock lyrics. It’s a sham. Don’t get sucked in.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Being a Montrealer I would go to that debate. Especially if the crowd has a chance to ask questions. My roomate wrote him an email asking him to clarify his stances on some of his “facts” for an article he wrote for his college newspaper. Thompson never answered his questions. So the article will simply mention “Jack Thompson was contacted by email a week before deadline but did not answer”.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Exactly. Cheese is 100% accurate. He needs someone like Jason to make him credible again after the whooping he took from Chris Mathews on Hardball. I doubt Jason (or anyone in gaming for that matter) has the speaking skills and command of the audience to put JT in his place on stage and get him to shut up when it’s your turn to talk or get him to listen to facts. Chris Mathews, a professional oral bully, was barely able to control JT. When given a microphone, JT is like a child having a temper-tantrum. You can’t reason with him. You can’t silence him. And no matter what you say, he will spin it in his head and repeat is ad nauseum to make it sound like a victory for himself.
And besides, who on earth is going to watch this? Gamers. That’s it. And we all already know what a loon JT is. The American public barely watch Presidential debates, do you think they give a rat’s ass about JT and the IGDA? Not at all. Jason, the IGDA, and we gamers have nothing to gain from this debate. The only guaranteed result is thost that Ben Board stated above. The debate is a very bad idea.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Honestly, suggest that he put his money where his mouth is. I sincerely doubt that Mr. Thompson is strapped for cash, being a celebrity Lawyer and all. If the important thing here is the debate and not the money, he would agree to it for no more than the cost of airfare and hotel - and no first class or presidential suites. I’d give him expenses at the very least, but no profit.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:17 am
@ViralNinja
Nice job trying to sound like “one of us” with the horrible spelling and broken english - though your legal documents sound very similar already. I guess getting spotted on Kotaku taught you a lesson. Sigh.
I guess thoe countless lives he could “save” by preaching the evils of video games just aren’t worth it if a large sum of money isn’t involved. Nice to know the cost of a human life.
I don’t know many Christian missionaries (you know, people who actually believe in what they say) that get speaker fees in those African villages… actually, most Christians GIVE money to further the causes they believe in. Isn’t Jack doing all this because of those fine Christian beliefs of his? Maybe Jesus faked his death so he could re-negotiate the profits for his comeback tour? I must not understand this Christianity thing Jack loves talking about so much.
April 27th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
A debate is a bad idea on Mr. Thompson’s grounds. The previous commenters are right on the money: Mr. Thompson will bring his baseless facts and outrageous lies to the debate and bully them upon you in the effort to coax out a few juicy quotes that – when taken out of context, as he most assuredly will do – will fuel future tale-spinning and story-weaving for years to come.
To debate Mr. Thompson on a subject of his choosing is to fight a guerilla war in the opponent’s own territory. Mr. Thompson knows how to conceive and maintain a video game/violence connection much better than any actual game industry expert knows how to dismantle it.
Unfortunately for all of us, to decline Mr. Thompson’s request plays into his hands more than accepting it. Like Captain Kirk in Star Trek, the only way to win a no-win scenario is to change the rules by which it is played. Even the odds by negating the opportunity to play PR Monster by discouraging fact-less drivel.
I submit to you a counterproposal to Mr. Thompson’s request:
- An in-person debate, professionally moderated, at a neutral big-name university. This university must not have had a notable massacre or tragedy having occurred on-campus within the last 25 years, or roughly during the existence of video games in mainstream media.
… I would submit to you that University of California, Irvine or the University of Southern California would be two excellent choices as both have very prominent interactive entertainment departments with game design-related majors. Intelligent questions and theories on what constitutes a “game” and their impact on society are studied in depth at these locations.
… (The latter choice, USC, might be disregarded because it also has a world-renowned, Hollywood-backed cinematography school… the link to the entertainment industry as a whole may prove to be a liability for someone with Jack’s abilities to spin a debate in his proverbial “lion’s den.”)
… On second thought, a debate at a school with a recent videogame-blamed tragedy may be more agreeable, as I am sure there will be many in attendance who will agree with Mr. Thompson’s assertions. This will discourage Mr. Thompson from decrying an unfair venue… and it might open the discussion up to points of view never before considered.
- The debate should consist of two parts: 1) Questions asked by the debate’s moderator(s), prepared and released beforehand; 2) Questions from the audience, solicited in advance. Each section should be in a response, counter-response, rebuttal format.
- Any reports or media to be cited as “evidence” by either side should be declared before the debate and shared with the opposing side. While the debate participants can use this evidence for any purpose they choose, only this evidence will be allowed by the moderator. In this way – much as a court case would proceed – nobody will be able to present “damning” evidence (most likely spun) without the other side having the opportunity to refute it using the evidence itself to do so. If either side’s drawn conclusions are in any way suspect, their refusal to submit to this requirement would go a long way in proving it.
… The evidence provided above will be released to the public, either available (linked) from a central website moderated by the event staff or on media at the event itself.
- The debate will be recorded and made available, in its entirety, online. For free. A copy of the debate should also be distributed to each of the major news outlets. Since this is not a money-making venture by either side, this should not be a problem. (So make damn well you present your case nicely… and in news-worthy soundbites!)
All participants of the debate should have their expenses of travel, lodging and per-diem meal rates paid for by the university. This is standard practice.
A nominal fee should be paid to each speaker for their participation. This is also standard practice.
To satisfy one’s conscience, donate your speaking fees back to the university budget that gave them to you. You could similarly donate them to charitable funds (of the university’s choosing or to those were set up in the wake of tragedies Mr. Thompson would have blamed on your industry). After the debate (and ONLY after the debate), encourage Mr. Thompson to do the same.
An agent should be unnecessary if the University takes care of things themselves. As a person who used to arrange for public speaking engagements for an educational body, I can tell you that the only people who used agents were “professional” speakers – folks who made their money speaking. Other speakers – those who spoke about their cause and/or profession but for whom neither was public speaking – were paid as independent contractors through a standard boilerplate contract most government agencies have. If Mr. Thompson is a lawyer/activist first and foremost, then the need for an agent should be a minute one.
(Oh yeah: While I do not want to insinuate anything less than above-board with Mr. Thompson, “recommending” specific third parties for professional services is usually seen as having an ulterior motive. As a person who frequently inquires about third party services from those in-the-know, I have come to learn that those doing they recommending usually get kickbacks from those who benefit. Sometimes, however – and I’ll give Mr. Thompson the benefit of doubt here – people recommend specific services because those services are just plain good.)
That’s my two cents on this.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Thompson’s debate about agents and payment is rather silly. Thompson should agree to debate in Montreal for free. The fact is he turned that down, then turned it around to make it sound like Jason is refusing to debate, when Jason was trying to refuse payment.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Which is why you accept payment (so Jack can accept his) and then publically do away with that payment (preferably in the terms of your contract with the hosting body) so no one can accuse you of profiting.
Mr. Thompson won’t make a fuss about you “accepting” payment because he wouldn’t want the finger pointing back at him, either.
Accepting payment, therefore, is a non-issue. Be a good citizen with a good conscience and donate it after the fact.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Okay, so I used to be just mildly annoyed at this guy. I mean, he is entitled to an opinion, even if it is wrong, and he should be allowed to argue it. I mean, I think it makes people in the game industry better people if someone is alerting them to the fact that their games are violent.
But then….
It occurred to me that this is Jack Thompson’s job. For every tiny bit that Jack Thompson succeeds at what he does, it has a HUGE financial impact on the artists, designers, musicians, writers and programmers that make up the game industry. Jack Thompson’s actions directly affect these people’s livelihoods. This is NOT a harmless man, at all.
April 27th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
My study of statistical and logistical mathematics is not particularly in-depth, as I studied them as part of my general science studies. But even at the most basic level, I do not understand why someone would build an argument based on the statistics involved.
Based on this hypothesis, and siding on the benefit of doubt, the chances of video games driving you to kill, based on the number of killers who play games set against the number of gamers who somehow seem to have thus far avoided becoming disturbed killers are in the region of 0.000002%. And that’s not even taking into account the requirement of a statistical comparison of people and killers not playing video games in order to give such a supposition any validity.
In other words, the argument put forward is refuted by the very data it backs itself up with. There is as much correlation between murder and sock-wearing as there is video gaming. The data in this case actually points completely the opposite way.
Jack Thompson strikes me as an individual who replaces reasoned and intelligent analysis with loud histrionics and bullying.
April 28th, 2007 at 7:18 am
A personal, public debate is completely unnecessary on any terms. Who says it isn’t? Only Jack Thompson. (Hi Jack, if you’re reading.) Why the hell should we jump at his say-so? Let him manage his own damn profile.
The only debate I’d consider sensible is an online debate over the course of, say, a week. Jason and Jack each contribute an opening statement to a them-only thread on a neutral forum or blog site. No public comments allowed. Each side’s facts can then be picked over by the other, and worked into a response, with as many links and references as they like. Each side is allowed, say, four posts, and then a closing statement.
The focus would be on the facts, not the personalities, the delivery, the interruptions and the red-faced finger pointing and name calling. There’d be no pictures for the news to pick up. The transcript would be available long-term, so it’s much harder for either side to doctor quotes. There’s plenty of time for each post to be crafted, much less chance of slip-ups that become quotes. Each side ought, in principle, to be able to lay out all the facts at their disposal. The rules would require careful consideration to ensure they were completely fair. Not hard; these things have been done many times before.
I’m still not keen on the idea of a debate, but at least this would be a fair fight. If we’re really sure of our side of the argument then *in principle* there’s nothing to lose… My greatest reservation, though, is that when lawyers get involved the principles don’t always survive, and mistakes could be costly indeed.
So yes, would still advise strongly against taking the bait.
April 28th, 2007 at 8:26 am
An additional thought crossed my mind, but I quickly wiped it away.
I thought, well, we’re suggesting you give your share of the money to a charity. Then I though, WAIT, colleges accept donations sometimes. Why not donate the amount right back to the college. Specify the activites organization if you can. Heck, donate it to the debate club if you can.
Then I thought, if I had had enough money to do so, I’d donate the entire amount (what I got, what John Bruce got, what the agent got, all the other expenses) back to the college that way. Because, we KNOW John Bruce won’t do that.
Then I nixed it because John Bruce STILL profits off of this, even if the college, technically, won’t loose anything because it’s donated back.
We also know that John Bruce wants to profit from such debates, not merely break even, because he had the chance to participate in a free, no-loss-to-him, debate on Xfire with the likes of Hal Halpin, Leland Yee, GamePolitic’s Dennis and others, back on Thursday (as reported on GemePolitics). John Bruce wouldn’t have had to travel ANYWHERE, no cost to him. But what does he do? He declines. Even the PTC was there. John Bruce could have had voice time on the side of Leland Yee and the PTC. What better image builder (or destroyer) than that?
But there was nothing in it for him. No ka-ching ka-ching. No profit, so no vaule to his crusade.
I know you’ve moved on to other issues, but thought I’d share that additional thought while I could before taking my son to Books-A-Million later today.
Andrew Rhodes
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:15 pm
[…] Insanity also seems to make plenty of dough, just look at people like Jack Thompson. Recently he declined to debate unless he got about $3,000 for one evenings worth of ‘work’. It is not like he ever changes his debating tactics, still harping on about Columbine and Doom. […]
August 19th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
millions of kids play these games and only a handfull of them do anything violent. i think the love of wealth and power have much more to do with violence than some stupid games. jack thompson needs to ban ads that make our kids love money and status more than peace his goal. he’s a stomach churning example of the typical two faced neocon. how i loathe people like him!!!
February 19th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
[…] his personal blog, Della Rocca also posts an interesting e-mail conversation he had with Thompson after the Virginia Tech shooting. In it, Thompson challenges Della Rocca to a […]
February 19th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
I think going and taking the money is the good idea as stated the collages dont need the money and it will only be spent on something else use it to cover your costs of getting there you are entitled to that at least.
but debating this issue with this twisted mad man is something that needs to be done nothing can be done to change what he thinks and it scares the naive into avoiding video games.
yes there has been much death and saddness due to people taking guns out and shooting people, but war came long before video games did killing each other for pointless and trival reasons came long before wars did.
they can blame guns, video games, books, television. even the nazi’s if they want to, but at the end of the day none of these made the peoples minds up to do something they made a choice of freewill, just because 13 year olds dress up in slutty outfits doesn’t mean we *have* to be sexually attracted to them or part take in actions with underage girls BUT men have been doing it through out our history.
pretending to do something and making the direct choice to do it are two completely different things, i dont think anyone can say they have never had an indecent thought that some would consider wrong and sick, but most of us know better and by the fear of police, god or just knowing better than to let animal urges for lust to take us over, I cannot say that video games have not had me thought about shooting so many of the stupid people in the world, to try to fix it but that is not my place and i’m never going to give into that urge because i know better video games are my release if i can kill somebody in a game and get it out of my system i dont need to do it.
the other thing i find strange is if you are a teenager or young adult its video games that drove you to aa killing spree, did jack the ripper get addicted to one of the first versions of pong? serial killers wacko’s rapists and everything else under the sun have been with us since the start of mankind since they could act on they’re urges.
its just easier for people to point the finger at some excuse than for people to realise we are human beings we are not perfect and never will be and that we cannot fix the problems inside us overnight but we can be more active in looking for the signs, nobody wants our schools to turn into policed zones but we have to start realising that this isnt able to be stoped without taking some drastic measures and pointing the fingers at the tooth fairy.
In closing we live in a very scary world with any risks everyday we can remain ignorant and point the finger or we as a people can try to do something about it.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:46 am
It’d be amusing to see how many of these kids who do shootings read articles by Jack Thompson. Maybe his rantings about murder simulators gave them all the idea!! ZOMG!! Counter-strike is blameless, Jack Thompson is brain-washing our youth of today!!… it makes about as much sense as claiming FPS are doing it. Take him up on the Debate, lay the Smackdown.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Oh the irony. Jack happily claims that he’s not in this for the money, then states he won’t go over there for free. Jack, if you’re reading this, that’s what we call a WHOOPSIE.
Although it does make you think. Has JT even played a single video game in his life? Or perhaps this is all just a facade to make his opinion clear through the shouting and the bullying?
Here’s an idea Jack. Play some games and come back with an opinion that doesn’t make you look like a bigger moron than you already are.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
According to JT, I am a merciless master of death! Unless they suddenly bring out a gun shaped cursor controller with semi automatic clicking ability, I refuse to believe that a mouse interface trains you in how to shoot people.
Did they investigate the mice these shooters used? Did these mice teach people to massacre?!
Note: Why the hell does JT have an obsession with using “massacre” as a verb. Is “shoot” not sensationalistic enough?
I think he’s a horrible little man who makes a living off controversy and tragedy, all the while using a guise of concern and righteousness.
Would you want that bag of hot air representing you in court?
February 26th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
As a lawyer (who learns mostly the legal languages), JT should know better how to communicate via email.
I personally find is supcicous if someone doesn’t use basic politeness like saying hello & goodbye in emails.
There seems to be an underlying disrespect in his conversation that shows in his formating, too. He doesn’t use paragraphs, with this no-use he tells me simply “I don’t want to spend more time on you than absolutely necessary”.
Sit down Mr Thompson, grade F. Go back to start and learn how to communicate so that people might take you serious (you might want to dig into rethoric and logic, too).
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I’m late to the punch here I know, but Jack would probably use his acceptance as an idea that Jason here is just after the money, turning his later donations into a “forced move”. Course, then you could make this article far more public and you - might - be in the clear.
November 27th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
[…] Jason calling him out as a massacre chaser. Anyway, you should check out Jason’s post about his e-mail exchanges with Thompson, for the full […]
February 9th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
somewhere up there in the comments thing someone said something about an online debate.
that sounds like a great idea, as Jack said he didnt want to leave his family, he can sit on his arse at home. If he denies than again, our expectations of him drop even lower.
December 17th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Yes, an online debate would be good.
April 22nd, 2010 at 12:47 am
You should have just agreed to the debate!!