Think before you send a donation to Red Cross

[Dili]

You'll be paying for this bureaucrats.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/gamin ... 6216184190

THE Red Cross is investigating whether 600 million gamers are violating the Hague and Geneva conventions when they kill and blow stuff up for fun.
Delegates at the 31st International Conference of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Red Crescent raised the concerns over the potential “International Humanitarian Law” violations – which can constitute war crimes - during a workshop in Geneva.
“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 IHL in video games,” the Red Cross wrote in its daily bulletin.

“While National Societies shared their experiences and opinions, there is clearly no simple answer. There is, however, an overall consensus and motivation to take action.”

[warspite1]

Crackpots [8|]

Not surprising though from the organisation that won't sell Christmas cards in it's charity shops in the UK, with the word Christmas on them - in case it offends non Christians.........

[Grfin Zeppelin]

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

[&o] [:D]

[Big B]

I am given to understand that the Red Cross takes the blood you donate - and "sells" it?
Is this true also?

[Nemo121]

That's nuts !!!! Honestly you'd think they'd have something more REAL to worry about than virtual destruction which actually harms no-one.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Dili

You'll be paying for this bureaucrats.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/gamin ... 6216184190

THE Red Cross is investigating whether 600 million gamers are violating the Hague and Geneva conventions when they kill and blow stuff up for fun.
Delegates at the 31st International Conference of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Red Crescent raised the concerns over the potential “International Humanitarian Law” violations – which can constitute war crimes - during a workshop in Geneva.
“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 IHL in video games,” the Red Cross wrote in its daily bulletin.

“While National Societies shared their experiences and opinions, there is clearly no simple answer. There is, however, an overall consensus and motivation to take action.”

Nutjobs. It'll be a cold day in Hell when I allow some unelected, unimpeachable and underinformed international bureaucrat to tell me what my First Amendment Rights are.

I also love the line, "there is no simple answer, but we all need to take action regardless." [:D] Glib technocratic morons at their finest.

ETA: Oh oh. By playing the Japanese exclusively, am I setting myself up for a black helicopter visit in the night and a trip to the Hague? [X(]

Babe Ruth good! Yankee dogs great! Up with people!

[Nemo121]

Umm, Chickenboy... I don't think this is a US vs the world thing....

I think this is more of an idiots vs non-idiots thing...

[Cap Mandrake]

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

My land a livin' that is hilarious! [:D]

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
It'll be a cold day in Hell when I allow some unelected, unimpeachable and underinformed international bureaucrat to tell me what my First Amendment Rights are.

Are you sure you're not a southerner? You're talkin' sensible like one, so come on down here and join us!

[:)]

[Icedawg]

I think the headline of the article was a bit misleading. It didn't sound to me as I read the article that the Red Cross is looking to bring a bunch of 13 year-old kids up on war crimes charges.

Instead it seems that they are encouraging the game developers to include features requiring the player to conform to basic rules of war and avoid virtual "war crimes" as they play their game. In other words, as kids play these games, they should learn that it is not okay to execute prisoners or to intentionally/recklessly kill civilians. It sounds like the Red Cross may simply be encouraging the game developers to include penalties for gaming actions such as these that would, if real, be considered war crimes. Alternatively, they could include game bonuses for actions that prevent virtual atrocities. (In other words, get these kids to emulate the Hugh Thompsons in this world, not the William Calleys.)

Let's face it, an awful lot of these kids are going to end up in the real military someday. If their characters in these games habitually perform actions contrary to the Geneva Conventions don't you think that such unethical behavior may at least at some level become part of who they are? Now I'm not trained in child psychology, but that doesn't sound too unreasonable of a hypothesis to me.

Overall the Red Cross does alot of very important relief work throughout the world. I just think it's a bit unfair to negatively judge an entire organization such as this just because some author came up with a nice, fat, juicy (but misleading) headline.

Just my $.02.

[Grfin Zeppelin]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

I think the headline of the article was a bit misleading. It didn't sound to me as I read the article that the Red Cross is looking to bring a bunch of 13 year-old kids up on war crimes charges.

Instead it seems that they are encouraging the game developers to include features requiring the player to conform to basic rules of war and avoid virtual "war crimes" as they play their game. In other words, as kids play these games, they should learn that it is not okay to execute prisoners or to intentionally/recklessly kill civilians. It sounds like the Red Cross may simply be encouraging the game developers to include penalties for gaming actions such as these that would, if real, be considered war crimes. Alternatively, they could include game bonuses for actions that prevent virtual atrocities. (In other words, get these kids to emulate the Hugh Thompsons in this world, not the William Calleys.)

Let's face it, an awful lot of these kids are going to end up in the real military someday. If their characters in these games habitually perform actions contrary to the Geneva Conventions don't you think that such unethical behavior may at least at some level become part of who they are? Now I'm not trained in child psychology, but that doesn't sound too unreasonable of a hypothesis to me.

Overall the Red Cross does alot of very important relief work throughout the world. I just think it's a bit unfair to negatively judge an entire organization such as this just because some author came up with a nice, fat, juicy (but misleading) headline.

Just my $.02.

To hell with sanity, there is no conection between violence and computer games.

This will teach `em.



The question is how to get that thingy into Lake Geneva.

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

I think the headline of the article was a bit misleading. It didn't sound to me as I read the article that the Red Cross is looking to bring a bunch of 13 year-old kids up on war crimes charges.

Instead it seems that they are encouraging the game developers to include features requiring the player to conform to basic rules of war and avoid virtual "war crimes" as they play their game. In other words, as kids play these games, they should learn that it is not okay to execute prisoners or to intentionally/recklessly kill civilians. It sounds like the Red Cross may simply be encouraging the game developers to include penalties for gaming actions such as these that would, if real, be considered war crimes. Alternatively, they could include game bonuses for actions that prevent virtual atrocities. (In other words, get these kids to emulate the Hugh Thompsons in this world, not the William Calleys.)

Let's face it, an awful lot of these kids are going to end up in the real military someday. If their characters in these games habitually perform actions contrary to the Geneva Conventions don't you think that such unethical behavior may at least at some level become part of who they are? Now I'm not trained in child psychology, but that doesn't sound too unreasonable of a hypothesis to me.

Overall the Red Cross does alot of very important relief work throughout the world. I just think it's a bit unfair to negatively judge an entire organization such as this just because some author came up with a nice, fat, juicy (but misleading) headline.

Just my $.02.

To hell with sanity, there is no conection between violence and computer games.

This will teach `em.



The question is how to get that thingy into Lake Geneva.

I think if that "thingy" appeared in Lake Geneva, you'd have a bunch of Sweitzers filling their lederhosen! [:D]

[bigred]

ORIGINAL: Dili

You'll be paying for this bureaucrats.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/gamin ... 6216184190

THE Red Cross is investigating whether 600 million gamers are violating the Hague and Geneva conventions when they kill and blow stuff up for fun.
Delegates at the 31st International Conference of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Red Crescent raised the concerns over the potential “International Humanitarian Law” violations – which can constitute war crimes - during a workshop in Geneva.
“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 IHL in video games,” the Red Cross wrote in its daily bulletin.

“While National Societies shared their experiences and opinions, there is clearly no simple answer. There is, however, an overall consensus and motivation to take action.”

Well, my 80 year old father thinks we are "practicing"!!

[bigred]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

I think the headline of the article was a bit misleading. It didn't sound to me as I read the article that the Red Cross is looking to bring a bunch of 13 year-old kids up on war crimes charges.

Instead it seems that they are encouraging the game developers to include features requiring the player to conform to basic rules of war and avoid virtual "war crimes" as they play their game. In other words, as kids play these games, they should learn that it is not okay to execute prisoners or to intentionally/recklessly kill civilians. It sounds like the Red Cross may simply be encouraging the game developers to include penalties for gaming actions such as these that would, if real, be considered war crimes. Alternatively, they could include game bonuses for actions that prevent virtual atrocities. (In other words, get these kids to emulate the Hugh Thompsons in this world, not the William Calleys.)

Let's face it, an awful lot of these kids are going to end up in the real military someday. If their characters in these games habitually perform actions contrary to the Geneva Conventions don't you think that such unethical behavior may at least at some level become part of who they are? Now I'm not trained in child psychology, but that doesn't sound too unreasonable of a hypothesis to me.

Overall the Red Cross does alot of very important relief work throughout the world. I just think it's a bit unfair to negatively judge an entire organization such as this just because some author came up with a nice, fat, juicy (but misleading) headline.

Just my $.02.

You make a good point. At the beginning of these "shoot em up" games the player should be asked to chose if he wishes to play with or with out the Geneva convention rules of war.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: bigred

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

I think the headline of the article was a bit misleading. It didn't sound to me as I read the article that the Red Cross is looking to bring a bunch of 13 year-old kids up on war crimes charges.

Instead it seems that they are encouraging the game developers to include features requiring the player to conform to basic rules of war and avoid virtual "war crimes" as they play their game. In other words, as kids play these games, they should learn that it is not okay to execute prisoners or to intentionally/recklessly kill civilians. It sounds like the Red Cross may simply be encouraging the game developers to include penalties for gaming actions such as these that would, if real, be considered war crimes. Alternatively, they could include game bonuses for actions that prevent virtual atrocities. (In other words, get these kids to emulate the Hugh Thompsons in this world, not the William Calleys.)

Let's face it, an awful lot of these kids are going to end up in the real military someday. If their characters in these games habitually perform actions contrary to the Geneva Conventions don't you think that such unethical behavior may at least at some level become part of who they are? Now I'm not trained in child psychology, but that doesn't sound too unreasonable of a hypothesis to me.

Overall the Red Cross does alot of very important relief work throughout the world. I just think it's a bit unfair to negatively judge an entire organization such as this just because some author came up with a nice, fat, juicy (but misleading) headline.

Just my $.02.

You make a good point. At the beginning of these "shoot em up" games the player should be asked to chose if he wishes to play with or with out the Geneva convention rules of war.

So for AE, that would mean no firebombing of Japanese manpower concentrations or, certainly, A-bomb attacks! Banzai! Erm...I wholeheartedly agree with these ideals. Where do I sign?

[Cuttlefish]

Due to some scathing commentary from the video games industry and elsewhere, the Red Cross has clarified its position somewhat. From Eurogamer.net:

In a new FAQ post on its website titled "Is there a place for the laws of armed conflict in video games?", it explained its mission is "to promote respect" for international humanitarian law. Seeing as some video games deal with realistic armed conflict, the Red Cross argued that it had every right to take an interest in the medium.

"The ICRC is interested in issues relating to video games of this type, i.e. games simulating warfare where players face choices just like on a real battlefield," read the post.

"In real life, armed forces are subject to the laws of armed conflict. Video games simulating the experience of armed forces therefore have the potential to raise awareness of the rules that those forces must comply with whenever they engage in armed conflict - this is one of the things that interests the ICRC.

"Part of the ICRC's mandate, conferred on it by States, is to promote respect for international humanitarian law - also known as the law of armed conflict - and universal humanitarian principles," it continued.

"Given this mandate and the ICRC's long history and expertise in matters relating to armed conflict, the development of these games is clearly of interest to the organisation."

It went on to agree with the notion the Red Cross should focus its attention on actual war crime violations rather than mere video games, insisting "real-life armed conflict and its humanitarian consequences are in fact its primary concern."

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: bigred

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

I think the headline of the article was a bit misleading. It didn't sound to me as I read the article that the Red Cross is looking to bring a bunch of 13 year-old kids up on war crimes charges.

Instead it seems that they are encouraging the game developers to include features requiring the player to conform to basic rules of war and avoid virtual "war crimes" as they play their game. In other words, as kids play these games, they should learn that it is not okay to execute prisoners or to intentionally/recklessly kill civilians. It sounds like the Red Cross may simply be encouraging the game developers to include penalties for gaming actions such as these that would, if real, be considered war crimes. Alternatively, they could include game bonuses for actions that prevent virtual atrocities. (In other words, get these kids to emulate the Hugh Thompsons in this world, not the William Calleys.)

Let's face it, an awful lot of these kids are going to end up in the real military someday. If their characters in these games habitually perform actions contrary to the Geneva Conventions don't you think that such unethical behavior may at least at some level become part of who they are? Now I'm not trained in child psychology, but that doesn't sound too unreasonable of a hypothesis to me.

Overall the Red Cross does alot of very important relief work throughout the world. I just think it's a bit unfair to negatively judge an entire organization such as this just because some author came up with a nice, fat, juicy (but misleading) headline.

Just my $.02.

You make a good point. At the beginning of these "shoot em up" games the player should be asked to chose if he wishes to play with or with out the Geneva convention rules of war.

So for AE, that would mean no firebombing of Japanese manpower concentrations or, certainly, A-bomb attacks! Banzai! Erm...I wholeheartedly agree with these ideals. Where do I sign?

Japan was not a signatory! [:'(]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Cuttlefish

Due to some scathing commentary from the video games industry and elsewhere, the Red Cross has clarified its position somewhat. From Eurogamer.net:

In a new FAQ post on its website titled "Is there a place for the laws of armed conflict in video games?", it explained its mission is "to promote respect" for international humanitarian law. Seeing as some video games deal with realistic armed conflict, the Red Cross argued that it had every right to take an interest in the medium.

"The ICRC is interested in issues relating to video games of this type, i.e. games simulating warfare where players face choices just like on a real battlefield," read the post.

"In real life, armed forces are subject to the laws of armed conflict. Video games simulating the experience of armed forces therefore have the potential to raise awareness of the rules that those forces must comply with whenever they engage in armed conflict - this is one of the things that interests the ICRC.

"Part of the ICRC's mandate, conferred on it by States, is to promote respect for international humanitarian law - also known as the law of armed conflict - and universal humanitarian principles," it continued.

"Given this mandate and the ICRC's long history and expertise in matters relating to armed conflict, the development of these games is clearly of interest to the organisation."

It went on to agree with the notion the Red Cross should focus its attention on actual war crime violations rather than mere video games, insisting "real-life armed conflict and its humanitarian consequences are in fact its primary concern."

Sounds like BS damage control. There are uncountable groups of idiots who think they can make (pick it) xyz better if only they could influence or control people closely enough.

[bigred]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: bigred


You make a good point. At the beginning of these "shoot em up" games the player should be asked to chose if he wishes to play with or with out the Geneva convention rules of war.

So for AE, that would mean no firebombing of Japanese manpower concentrations or, certainly, A-bomb attacks! Banzai! Erm...I wholeheartedly agree with these ideals. Where do I sign?

Japan was not a signatory! [:'(]

Only the losers are put on trial for war crimes...