

Red Cross Wants Real Life Laws Enforced Within Virtual Worlds - gldalmaso
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111202/08350416953/red-cross-wants-real-life-laws-enforced-within-virtual-worlds.shtml

======
DanielStraight
First, follow the link to the source. The Red Cross is currently debating this
issue. They don't have any position yet.

That said, the phenomenon is not limited to video games. Almost all forms of
violent media (action movies, video games, etc) trivialize "collateral
damage". If the main character survives and the bad guy dies, it's supposed to
be interpreted as a happy ending, _even if dozens, hundreds, or thousands of
civilians are killed_.

But really this is still a subset of a larger phenomenon. Media in general
depict main characters as real and non-characters or secondary characters as
less-than-real, subhuman props.

Maybe this isn't a problem, but I think the Red Cross is right to at least
bring it up.

~~~
D_Drake
Problem is, that's exactly how the human brain interprets real-life people,
too. You can call it the Monkeysphere or Dunbar's Number, but fact is that
people are incapable of conceptualizing random strangers on anything like the
same level as familiar people. It's the reason you have more emotional
reaction to a package being delayed than you have to a suicide bombing in
Afghanistan. It's a limitation of the human brain. Movies and games with
collateral casualties reflect the way every single human being actually looks
at the world; you just notice it because it's someone else's version of who's
important and who isn't instead of your own.

~~~
DanielStraight
Consider these two statements:

What you would do for your closest friends, you should do for everyone.

What you wouldn't do to your closest friends, you shouldn't do to anyone.

Your post explains why the first doesn't work, but that has no bearing only
the second.

I may not feel as strongly for random strangers as I do for my closest
friends, but I still wouldn't kill or torture or otherwise dehumanize them.

------
pavel_lishin
> These types of arguments are very similar to the arguments made by those who
> have requested laws regulating violence in video games in the past. Those
> people argued that the lack of consequences in the game would influence
> player behavior in real life.

Of course. Mowing down countless pedestrians in Grand Theft Auto, then
climbing up to a high building and sniping the police officers that come to
arrest me most certainly affects me - it lets me blow off steam in a way that
doesn't actually harm anyone.

I'm too lazy to find a link, but consider this a virtual citation to the study
that showed that availability of pornography actually decreases sex crimes.

I'm all for war-themed videogames to acknowledge that there's more to combat
than spewing bullets until you win, but I've been playing violent video games
for years, and I've yet to Gouranga any Hare Krishnas with my car.

------
joejohnson
The Red Cross should focus on real-world laws being enforced in the real
world.

Also, video games are "art" (regardless of how artistic they may appear, or
you personally feel toward them). Art is protected speech in many countries. I
know, for instance, that Nazi symbols are banned in Germany, except in art.
The spirit of such exemptions makes sense; we don't want to pretend negative
ideas don't exist by banning them.

My point is torture happens in the real world. War crimes are real. Maybe the
Red Cross needs to focus on trying to stop these real world events, instead of
attempting to stop their depiction in media.

~~~
DanielStraight
The Red Cross does focus on real-world issues. They have almost 100 million
volunteers worldwide. This is a tiny portion of their overall humanitarian
effort. And if their goal is a peaceful world, they are right to consider
factors that could lead to violence. They are trying to find the disease
instead of just treating the symptoms.

------
ConstantineXVI
Oddly enough, most games that impose some sort of ethical behavior (either
through law, social, or gameplay aspects) exist either before the Convention
(Assassin's Creed doesn't allow you to get stab-happy on civilians), after
most participating entities have ceased to exist (Fallout), or outside it's
jurisdiction entirely (Elder Scrolls, many other fantasy RPGs)

------
TeMPOraL
While using legislation might be an overkill, I think that games would use
mentioning Conventions. Not even to enforce certain decisions on player, but
as a background (e.g. NPCs restraining themselves from torturing enemy
soldiers). People pick up a lot of knowledge and awareness from computer
games; even mentioning the Red Cross message would help players better
understand the reality of real-world combat.

------
viraptor
> It would be highly appreciated if games reproducing armed conflicts were to
> include the rules which apply to real armed conflicts. These rules and
> values are given by international humanitarian law and human rights law.

I never got this way of thinking and I'm a bit disappointed Red Cross
"accepts" it. Rules in an armed conflict? Why did we start accepting any kind
of killing? How is shooting someone opposed to you better than stabbing them
in the eye and then shooting them? The US which should be counted as a
developed and civilised country does not even care sometimes to "play by the
rules" (torture outside of the country, treatment of jailed people), yet the
games should give you an illusion world conflicts do?

I don't oppose cruel games and think they reflect the situation, rather than
influence it, but I expected the Red Cross to have a different view on this
(and a more strict one).

------
Mvandenbergh
Note that the Red Cross is not asking for this to be legally enforced, they're
just saying that it would be "appreciated".

~~~
sukuriant
That is until the US Government uses the Red Cross's idea as an excuse to push
for censoring video games.

~~~
lallysingh
Fear of government abuse is a terrible reason to self-censor. And frankly,
governments don't need anyone's help to find excuses for stupid behavior.

Oh, and really, more and more of the electoral base are game players now. The
politics have changed.

~~~
sukuriant
> Fear of government abuse is a terrible reason to self-censor

I never said anything about self-censoring, just that the Red Cross's stance
on this might encourage the government to try and push for new laws. I hate
censorship in all its forms.

> Oh, and really, more and more of the electoral base are game players now.
> The politics have changed.

"more and more of the electoral base are internet users now", so surely the
government won't try to push laws that censor that.

------
VladRussian
killing virtual people in a virtual world - violence, bad. At the same time
each and every of us oppresses, brutalizes, tortures and kills in real-life
through our hired-for-money agents - governments at all levels.

"Come on, let us shoot"

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=5rXPrfnU3G0#t=563s)

Games are to blame? Or hysterical propaganada dehumanizing arabs, Afgans,
etc... and blessing violence against them.

