Think before you send a donation to Red Cross

[YankeeAirRat]

Well it looks like this one migth be spinning out of control pretty fast.

[Cavalry Corp]

I believe there is a connection - the lower the intelligence the higher the chance that the individual sees no difference between computer sims be it mad driving shoot em ups etc than real life.

And also I belive that many computer games do imply to their buyers their are no consequenses to violence.

In this game we expect things of our e soldiers that would be impossible to justify.

cav

[witpqs]

Those claims have been made about television violence for a long time. Research has consistently shown the theory to be false, as it has with gaming violence. At any rate it's certainly not a place for someone out there to be micromanaging your life.

[USSAmerica]

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?

Oh, boy! Here comes another bunch of house rules. [:D]

[Shark7]

Sorry, but it isn't real. The only people that seem to have an issue separating fiction from reality are pinheads like the ones in the article.

One thing I will agree on, extremely violent video games are not for kids. What we have in that regard is a lack of effective parenting. You don't need some international committee to fix that, you need to teach parents how to be parents, not best friends. The X-Box is NOT a babysitter.

So here is an idea for these people that can't seem to understand the problem (IE the pinheads afore mentioned). Why don't we quit wasting resources regulating something that most governments already regulate, and instead figure out a way to teach parents to actually say no to their kids. The problem isn't a lack of regulation (we have enough of that as is), the problem is that somewhere in the last 2 generations, parents quit being parents.

Just my 2 pennies.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: 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.

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.

Yes, and of course those idiots really screwed it up with the millions of prisoners of war and refugees that they assisted (saving thousands of lives) in two global conflicts. Not to mention the untold thousands today all over the world who rely on the help and protection that this group provides.

Maybe they blew a little hot air there, but give em a break.....I am gonna cut them a little slack. The rest of you might as think about it as well.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: 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.

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.

Yes, and of course those idiots really screwed it up with the millions of prisoners of war and refugees that they assisted (saving thousands of lives) in two global conflicts. Not to mention the untold thousands today all over the world who rely on the help and protection that this group provides.

Maybe they blew a little hot air there, but give em a break.....I am gonna cut them a little slack. The rest of you might as think about it as well.

One thing has nothing to do with the other.

[Cribtop]

Before they take my video games, they'll have to take my guns. Being from Texas, I have a lot of guns. [:D]

[Note to Interpol - this is a JOKE! Do not pull me up before the Hague Court!]

[Grfin Zeppelin]

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Before they take my video games, they'll have to take my guns. Being from Texas, I have a lot of guns. [:D]

[Note to Interpol - this is a JOKE! Do not pull me up before the Hague Court!]

And a few days later the Red Cross invaded and the fate of Texas was sealed.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Before they take my video games, they'll have to take my guns. Being from Texas, I have a lot of guns. [:D]

[Note to Interpol - this is a JOKE! Do not pull me up before the Hague Court!]

And a few days later the Red Cross invaded and the fate of Texas was sealed.

I think that's Knights Templar...[:D]

Cribtop, you don't happen to have Holy Grail there? [8D]

[Grfin Zeppelin]

Actualy the Grail was in Texas but it was stolen. A security painter made a picture of the ebil thieves tho.



Makes all sense now huh ? *calls Nicholas Cage*

[CaptDave]

As far as the connection between video games and real life goes, I think Mort Walker got it right when he was talking about the effects of violence in his Beetle Bailey comic strip: "I don't believe Beetle Bailey causes violence any more than Bugs Bunny causes kids to eat carrots."

To address one question that was asked but never responded to: no, the Red Cross does not sell blood.  That's an urban legend that's been around for decades.

[bigred]

ORIGINAL: cavalry

I believe there is a connection - the lower the intelligence the higher the chance that the individual sees no difference between computer sims be it mad driving shoot em ups etc than real life.

And also I believe that many computer games do imply to their buyers their are no consequences to violence.

In this game we expect things of our e soldiers that would be impossible to justify.

cav

This quote reminds me of an old girl friend. Until I carried her to a company party she had thought all military men are stupid.(I never figured out why she went out w/me!). After the party she said we are not stupid, we just like to fight and take chances getting hit by bullets...[:D]
btw, Cav, i fixed three of your misspelled words...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Sorry, but it isn't real. The only people that seem to have an issue separating fiction from reality are pinheads like the ones in the article.

One thing I will agree on, extremely violent video games are not for kids. What we have in that regard is a lack of effective parenting. You don't need some international committee to fix that, you need to teach parents how to be parents, not best friends. The X-Box is NOT a babysitter.

So here is an idea for these people that can't seem to understand the problem (IE the pinheads afore mentioned). Why don't we quit wasting resources regulating something that most governments already regulate, and instead figure out a way to teach parents to actually say no to their kids. The problem isn't a lack of regulation (we have enough of that as is), the problem is that somewhere in the last 2 generations, parents quit being parents.

Just my 2 pennies.

Warspite1

100% agree with this plain commonsense view Shark7.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: 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.

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.

Yes, and of course those idiots really screwed it up with the millions of prisoners of war and refugees that they assisted (saving thousands of lives) in two global conflicts. Not to mention the untold thousands today all over the world who rely on the help and protection that this group provides.

Maybe they blew a little hot air there, but give em a break.....I am gonna cut them a little slack. The rest of you might as think about it as well.

Warspite1

I don't deny the organisation stands largely for the good. However, they are not an organisation I could ever support for the reason given in my original post. The OP's post simply gives more ammunition to my belief that the Red Cross organisation is increasingly being run by morons.

[jazman]

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.

Isn't laying waste to civilian population centers one of the fun things about Grigsby's Bombing the Reich?

[RHoenig]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Those claims have been made about television violence for a long time. Research has consistently shown the theory to be false, as it has with gaming violence. At any rate it's certainly not a place for someone out there to be micromanaging your life.

This little clip says it pretty well IMO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLYUPDc_0Eg

[d0mbo]

Since I live only an hour from The Hague, I welcome all JFB's in Holland. Would make for a nice meeting! [:D]

ORIGINAL: 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!

[Dili]

In handcuffs d0mbo? [:D]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: RHoenig

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Those claims have been made about television violence for a long time. Research has consistently shown the theory to be false, as it has with gaming violence. At any rate it's certainly not a place for someone out there to be micromanaging your life.

This little clip says it pretty well IMO

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLYUPDc_0Eg

Awesome! [:D]