Ironically, the little effort I put into the whole violence/censorship issue, gets a disproportionate amount of attention. In fact, almost none of my professional time is spent dealing with the topic (other than a few random media interviews, and speaking on a panel every now and again).Though, I do have a great deal of personal passion for the topic…
Before the run in with Jack, I did an interview with the very stylish GameAlmighty gaming site, which they just posted. The piece doesn’t touch the violence topic at all. Instead, we go over the IGDA’s work and progress with quality of life and developers’ working conditions, game dev education, industry crediting standards and games with an agenda.
So there, rather than being characterized as some kind of mouthpiece, that’s the stuff that’s keeping me busy (of course, above and beyond just overseeing the entire operations of the IGDA itself).
Two meta points:
- I say “sort of” and “kind of” way too much. Need to stop doing that.
- I need to get out of the habit of calling producers “clueless”, or I’m gonna piss off Jamie Fristrom again (hmm, maybe that’s what Casey meant by “making enemies”)… I need a more diplomatic way of saying that most producers simply do not have the training and experience for the critical role they are asked to serve.
To the second point, that was a big part of the motivation behind doing the IGDA Leadership Forum with the Production SIG (and, very happy that Jamie agreed to serve on the conference committee).
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 -0400
Jack 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 AM
Hi 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 -0400
Sure, 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 -0400
So, 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 PM
I’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 -0400
First, 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 PM
Hi 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 -0400
Colleges 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 PM
Wow, 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 -0400
That 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 PM
Right, I understand.
Regards,
Jason
==========================================
From: “Jack Thompson”
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 18:22:19 -0400
Money 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 AM
Hmm, 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 -0400
You’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?
==========================================
Gotta say, being called an idiot (advisedly) and a jackass on national news by Jack Thompson feels like a special milestone for me. Not so much for the name calling, but just to see good old Jack get all flustered and frustrated.
Interestingly, despite his flat out attempt to ridicule, dismiss and discredit me (as a paid puppet mouthpiece for the game industry), he emailed me with a formal challenge to an on campus debate (see full text below). That, along with a half-dozen other emails with his thoughts and pointers to articles, etc.
One such link he sent over was to the New York Times piece that delved deep into Cho’s silent life. In the lengthy article, video games were mentioned once, in passing. The article, instead focused on his depression, reclusiveness, hatred for the world, etc, etc. To me, the most significant quote was:
You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience. You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today…
That is complicated stuff that forces society to look deep inside at core issues of how humans behave, etc. Instead, Jack - grasping at straws - clings to the one passing mention of games, and forces anyone in his path to redirect their attention from the complex issues of society and humanity, and points the finger solely on video games.
Sigh. Anyway. Nice to see other media outlets being critical as well as vocal. For example, a choice quote from Heather Chaplin’s op-ed:
To blame violent videogames for this, let alone videogames as a medium, is short sighted, hypocritical, absurd, and, frankly, a little desperate. It’s an argument made by people who fear a medium they don’t understand and want a bogeyman more than they want real answers.
OK, now onto Jack’s challenge…….
===========
From: “Jack Thompson” amendmentone@comcast.net
Subject: Debate Challenge to IGDA
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2007 14:35:15 -0400
Immediate News Release – April 22, 2007
Jack Thompson Challenges Video Game Industry Flak to College Debate about V Tech Massacre
On Monday afternoon, six hours after the Virginia Tech school massacre, anti-violent video game activist and attorney Jack Thompson took to the Fox News Channel and told anchor Bill Hemmer the killer, whose name was not even known, 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, until Monday, had trained in Germany on the ultra-violent shooter game Counter-Strike, killing 16 and then himself.
One day later, 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. Today’s New York Times reports:
“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? Slim and none, and Slim just left town.
Besides, all studies now show that the harmful effects of such violent games are long-term.
Thompson was right and has been right since he predicted Columbine on NBC’s Today Show one week before it happened, even identifying the violent video game Doom and the movie with the classroom shooting scene, The Basketball Diaries, that Klebold and Harris were consumed by.
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, while Mr. Della Rocca and the industry that pays him have been training teen school shooters, dispatching ambulances, and recklessly creating massacres for fun and profit.
Jack Thompson has today challenged Mr. Della Rocca to one or more college debates, anywhere anytime, 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 Jason Della Rocca refute the brain scan science coming out of Harvard and Indiana Universities that explain this video game copycat phenomenon? What is his rebuttal to the US Supreme Court case striking down the juvenile death penalty that cited those brain scan studies? Is he willing to refute the American Psychological Association formal finding that there is a direct causal link between violent video games and teen aggression?
Or is Mr. Della Rocca, like others who are “spokespersons” for the violent video game industry, a coward who is unwilling to debate these issues in a public forum and not through a press office news release?
Debate, Mr. Della Rocca, debate. Put your mouth where your money is. Stop hiding in your industry’s corporate caves. Either debate or be quiet, as quiet as the people your industry has helped put into the ground.
Contact Jack Thompson at 305-666-4366 to see if Jason Della Rocca has accepted the challenge.
===========
Very sad to see the anti-game crusaders chasing down every school massacre with their complete BS. In the face of the horrible, horrible tragedy at Virginia Tech, Jack gets on Fox News before ANYTHING is known about the killer, proclaiming games to be at fault. Sadder still is that Fox keeps turning to such “experts”.
Though, in general, much of the reporting has focused on Cho as a disturbed loner who liked writing and basketball, and from a generally normal family (parents own a dry cleaner, sister graduated from Stanford, etc). Turns out Cho didn’t even own games, or play them in recent history (despite comments that he was a Counter-Strike fan).
Meanwhile, others who are much more articulate and with personal context go largely unnoticed. Though, gotta say it was surprising to see Limbaugh rush to defend games…
In terms of the panic over games, interesting research from the official British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) explores many aspects of games, violence, player attitudes, etc. Of note, they debunk the commonly held belief that the interactive nature of games makes them more dangerous:
“We were particularly interested to see that this research suggests that, far from having a potentially negative impact on the reaction of the player, the very fact that they have to interact with the game seems to keep them more firmly rooted in reality.”
This is linked in with the notion of the “magic circle” of play, whereby those at play knowingly enter the circle and are consciously aware they are playing a game, etc.
The key really is a question of engagement. To what extent does a work of art/entertainment engage the reader/player/watcher/etc? For games, interactivity is one tool used to engage - just like film, for example, has other tools it can use to engage the viewer.
Anyway. Big sigh.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute invited me to keynote their 4th annual Game Festival & Symposium. Given they are in upstate New York, for once, I got to drive to a game industry event. And, despite the impending doom of the big Noreaster, I made the Montreal <> Albany trek without a hitch.
It was a fun little event and a nice change of pace versus monster events like GDC. The focus was on the students, as it should be, and the festival portion was a great opportunity for the student teams to show off their class projects. The conference portion offered lively discussion on the role of games in culture and explored games beyond the current mainstream offerings. My talk covered more industry structure stuff, QoL and changes in approaches to production, etc.
Here are a few pics I snapped:
Mary Flanagan (Hunter College) watches as SBRL lab director Jim Watt demonstrates the mo-cap studio.
Katherine Isbister (RPI) points to the “spy cam” in her game testing lab.
The Pros: Ian Stead (1st Playable Productions) shows off the awesome Puzzle Quest during the Festival.
The Students: student team GM’s their “space box” game, Atropos…
Steve Meretzky (Blue Fang Games) with son, and RPI student, Dan.
Ian with RPI alum Michael Lewis (Cryptic Studios), who uses his super heat vision to decipher the pub menu!
Opening keynoter, Katie Salen (Parsons/gameLab) discusses the notion of a magic circle surrounding play.
Studio heads (at left: Karthik Bala/Vicarious Visions, Michael Lewis/Cryptic, Mike DelPrete/Agora Games) grilled by RPI students.
Karthik hands out the student project awards, which were kindly sponsored by Vicarious Visions.
A peak inside the 1st Playable studio: Fernando De La Cruz, Colin Wilkinson, LaShonda Hopper, Ian Stead.
A self-confessed digital/pixel art junky, I’ve been a big fan of the AIAS’ “Into the Pixel” game art exhibit since year one.
They will be accepting entries up until May 4th. Hopefully, there will be more stuff by Daniel Dociu, who’s had some of the most stunning pieces in the exhibit so far… IMHO
Interesting to see the reference at GamePolitics… While game art is certainly art and contributes heavily to the validation of games as art, it doesn’t quite get at the are games art debate (like this and that, for example)… That is, the art of the games is not the art of games.
