Earlier this year, game maker Activision counted up that 62 billion people had been 'killed' virtually in online games of Call of Duty: Black Ops - including 242 million stabbed to death at close range.Well, Charlie Brooker’s off the hook for that last one, anyway. The great wuss….
Now, a committee of the Red Cross is debating if gamers might be violating the International Humanitarian Law as they slaughter each other online.I’ll spare them the effort, shall I? The answer’s ‘No’. Because they’re just pixels on a screen, you dolts!
'While the Movement works vigorously to promote international humanitarian law worldwide, there is also an audience of approximately 600 million gamers who may be virtually violating International Humanitarian Law,' said the committee's site.What sort of action? What sort of action could you possibly take?
'Exactly how video games influence individuals is a hotly debated topic, but for the first time, Movement partners discussed our role and responsibility to take action against violations of this law in video games.
'There is, however, an overall consensus and motivation to take action.'
Whether or not gamers who had won the longest 'killstreaks' - an uninterrupted run of kills in online games - could be prosecuted is another question.Well, that’s another easily-answered question right there. Of course they couldn’t! Because – and I repeat myself - they’re just pixels on a screen!
So players have no more need to worry about being flown to the Hague than I do of facing the wrath of the authorities for shooting out-of-season game in ‘The Hunter Online’…
Seriously, who the hell dreamed this one up, and what were they smoking when they did it? Are they trying to get the Red Cross made into a laughing stock?
The committee's action is aimed more towards developers: as war games become more realistic, do they have a responsibility to add humanitarian elements to their games?
Ah. Another easily answered question. I think you know what the answer is, don't you?
This is either an extremely clumsy attempt to get the Red Cross some publicity, or they've been hacked by some mischief-makers. Frankly, I don't know which is prefereable...
32 comments:
OMG I'm a genocidal maniac as I've killed thousands and regularly drop napalm
The problem with this behaviour is that it makes the charity look like complete nutjobs.
The Red Cross were the only charity related to humans that I used to support, and I just canceled my monthly donation after reading this. If they have the time and resources to spend thinking about, discussing and publicising shit like this, they clearly don't need my 20 quid a month.
Shit - i still play halo. I have commited genocide on a planetary level. I better turn myself in.
Oh for Gods sake, now I've heard everything. Tell me, do we still inhabit this reality or have we slipped into an alternate universe?
Well it will give the IWCT in the Hague something to do. I mean, when was the last time they successfully prosecuted a real life war criminal?
They couldn't even get Milosevic convicted before he craoked in their own cells. And there's more chance of Johnny Chav ending up there for crimes against virtual humanity than there is of Tony Blair for crimes of taking us to war because Alastair Campbell allegedly wrote some tosh on a piece of paper.
Damn - and I've just invented a game where you can delete the whole universe.
sounds like the Red cross want a slice of the games market, no doubt for acting in some `consultancy` role.
So, no Red Cross justice for abominations, kobolds or bog beasts then?
is 'tea bagging' covered by the Geneva Convention
" .. might be violating the International Humanitarian Law .. "
Call me an old cynic (cos that's what I am, on both counts) but I rather suspect that a very sinister card is being test-played here ..
I wonder just how long it will be, given this sudden intervention by the Red Cross, before the Yuman Rites loons get legislation forced through covering "virtual" crimes ..
One wouldn't even have to leave one's home to commit such "crimes" and an International Warrant could be issued for one's arrest (though that would be physical, rather than "virtual" ) ..
In other circumstances, I'd probably give myself a bollocking for being paranoid - but recalling the sheer amount of prohibitive & draconian legisation introduced by the last two Labour governments (including the ludicrous HRA) .. I suspect the hands of the Left are busily at work ..
And, given her penchant for making a fast buck & her love of power, I wouldn't be in the least surprised to find that old "Slot Gob" is involved, somewhere along the line ..
Much as I like Angelina Jolie, I have no interest in avatar relations with her.
They are following yer old mates the IWF who influenced the legislation on posession of images. We now have a situation where mere drawings of someone who never existed and events which never happened can result in arrests and prosecutions.
The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund is fighting cases in the US and Canada.
http://cbldf.org/homepage/mike-diana-talks-to-richardson-magazine/
Oh, and when the Red Cross next rattle a tin at me, I will explain why I'm not giving.
This usually leads to a baffled and tearful collector but they go back and complain to their divisional officials, and s-l-o-w-l-y the message gets across: stick to your charitable aims or maybe lose your charitable status.
So, no human rights abuses in real fly-blown, God-forsaken sub-Saharan, Latin American and Middle Eastern hell holes to address then.
Idiots.
when was the last time they successfully prosecuted a real life war criminal?
Well the International Criminal Court open for business since 2002 has convicted no one so far.
One reason why the Libyans did not want Saif Gadaffi sent there .....
Why not have a virtual Red Cross and virtual World Court that could virtually prosecute 'bad' gamers on line?
The 'bad' gamers could attempt to hide in Farmville Brazil!
XX
Whether or not gamers who had won the longest 'killstreaks' - an uninterrupted run of kills in online games - could be prosecuted is another question.
Well, that’s another easily-answered question right there. Of course they couldn’t! Because – and I repeat myself - they’re just pixels on a screen! XX
I would not be too sure asa to the possibility.
At one time reporting someone for smoking a "joint" on T.V would have lead to the police telling whoever reported it to go and fuck themselves. However, within the last few years, I have heard of these reports actually leading to investigations, or consideration thereof. (Was Amy Whitehouse not one of those reported? If I remember rightly.)
And THAT is just "pixels on a screen" as well.
"OMG I'm a genocidal maniac as I've killed thousands and regularly drop napalm"
And as Twitter noted, 'Mousetrap' is RIGHT out of favour this Christmas! Not to mention 'Snakes & Ladders'... ;)
"The problem with this behaviour is that it makes the charity look like complete nutjobs. "
It'll just be an amusing footnote in some newspapers, and then everyone'll forget...
"Tell me, do we still inhabit this reality or have we slipped into an alternate universe?"
Indeed! I feel sorry for the 'Daily Mash' writers. How can they compete?
"sounds like the Red cross want a slice of the games market, no doubt for acting in some `consultancy` role."
Good point!
"So, no Red Cross justice for abominations, kobolds or bog beasts then?"
And the things I've done to 'Sims' ought to put me on the FBI Serial Killer watch list!
"is 'tea bagging' covered by the Geneva Convention"
:D
"And, given her penchant for making a fast buck & her love of power, I wouldn't be in the least surprised to find that old "Slot Gob" is involved, somewhere along the line .."
Her, or someone just like her. There's more than we think, unfortunately.
"They are following yer old mates the IWF who influenced the legislation on posession of images. We now have a situation where mere drawings of someone who never existed and events which never happened can result in arrests and prosecutions."
Spot on!
I'd better stop playing Angry Birds Julia or I'll have the animal cruelty lobbies after me.
"sounds like the Red cross want a slice of the games market, no doubt for acting in some `consultancy` role."
You have knocked it on the head you cynic you.
I'm sure Jean Henri Dunant is spinning in his grave. But why act surprised?
The police target non violent 'motoring offenders' more assiduously than violent, repeat professional criminals. The courts sentence council tax non payment more harshly than violent assaults.
Where Amnesty International has more interest in Whingeing about the terrible injustice of not having a full ensuite bathroom, playstation and pool table in a British prison cell, whilst conveniently forgetting that regimes in Asia, South America and Arabia are committing unspeakable acts against their own people. And now the Red Cross has joined the crowd.
They all have one thing in common, to do their jobs entails hard work and risk, whereas to target, say, a games company is nice, easy and safe, and could get a nice little earner going. Hey EAGames is hardly likely to shoot, torture or disappear them, and they may just pay up. Plus of course you can claim you're making the world safer, look at all those nasty (non)violent games players you had locked up. What's the downside?
As with Woman on a raft the Red Cross just lost my contributions, I hope they take it out of the wages (munificent I'm sure they are) of the a***hole that thought this up
A virtual red cross faction in online wargames sound like a lot of fun.
Sort of a capture the flag and ransom it while the other team tries to stop you.
Also for Andy:
http://redcrossthegame.nl
Well some moron tried to ban Wargaming! You know, playing with historical or fantasy miniatures. Now I know where the muppet went...
Still, running the School Wargaming Club I've just introduced them to Operation Bagration, fields of blazing German and Soviet tanks... Waiting for the Red Cross KGB midnight knock...
TTFN :)
Why are people talking about only one side of the equation? Where is the compensation for those unfortunates like me who have a "kill:death ratio" less than parity?
Only You Can Save Mankind.
(The Terry Pratchett novel).
"A virtual red cross faction in online wargames sound like a lot of fun.
Sort of a capture the flag and ransom it while the other team tries to stop you."
:D
"Where is the compensation for those unfortunates like me who have a "kill:death ratio" less than parity?"
Me too! Perhaps there's a niche for us - 'Call Of Duty: Conscientious Objector'?
This story is a hoax that Fox News says is "as expected, not true" ( http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/special-report/2011/12/08/grapevine-prosecution-video-game-war-crimes ). But let's not let that get in the way of bashing a charity tirelessly working in humanitarian crisis situations, shall we?
Crap, the amount of entire civilisations I've devastated playing Civilisation, Civ2, Civ3 etc! Z.
Blimey! If they take into account all the folk I've taken out since I started with Elite on the old BBC computer I must be up there with Stalin in the mindless slaughter rankings.
It's just that these games are unrealistic. What we want is a game where I can be a terrorist and kill the good guys. I could even bump off a few humanitarian workers just to be realistic.
Post a Comment