[Infinite Monkeys]

The folks over at ChatterBox Video Game Radio were 'lucky' enough to snag an interview with every gamer's favourite self-promoting fuckwit, Jack Thompson.

I've not had a chance to listen to this yet but I'm told he spits out some real gems over the 80 minutes(!) the interview lasts.

Get the goods.

[senor_herer]

That guy just gets worse - the Mary Whitehouse of the 21st Century

:o

[JoeK]

senor_herer, on Aug 6 2005, 08:00 PM, said:

That guy just gets worse - the Mary Whitehouse of the 21st Century

:o

Far worse than the late Ms Whitehouse - at least she really believed what she was fighting for (apallingly awful she may have been...). Thompson's just seizing a money grabbing opportunity. He's a sodding parasite.

[Robo_1]

I've been listening to it for the last 20 so minutes, and to be honest, the interviewer is doing a poor job of defending his corner. Saying he didn't think the violence in Bully would have any more of an impact on the school yard than the violence in Halo is pretty blinkered to say the least.

Jack also said his main goal was to get legally enforced rating systems in America, and I don't think anyone on the forum disagrees with that.

Much of the talk seems to be about Bully, with Jack more concerned about Take 2's financial results than the gaming content. If Bully does allow you to use guns, then that IMO, would be pretty messed up.

Jack certainly has a chip on his shoulder, but presents his arguments with considerably more clarity than the media have lead me to believe he was capable of. He's still quite clearly a cock like, and his attempts at humour are cringe worthy, but the interviewer has done an exceptionally poor job at directing the interview anywhere interesting.

[essell]

[cue scrawled together post as i try listen to it and play online poker at the same time :)]

i agree that thompson does indeed come off as a much more reasonable than you'd expect, when you actually hear his full opinion on things rather than his worst soundbites.

some of the interviewer's retorts are, unfortunately, really flimsy. sometimes he clearly loses his way and has no idea what he's trying to say. it gets painful to listen to near the end, where the debate shifts to things that are borderline irrelevent to the original subject, and actually contradicts things they agreed on earlier.

sometimes i actually found thompsons opinions falling in line with mine, but at the same time, some of the stuff he comes out with is just way over the top and i strongly disagree with it. his assumption that bully is some kind of ultra-realistic, straight-faced simulation of school violence is ridiculous and i can't believe the interviewer didn't call him on it.

having said that... rockstar north have really been asking for trouble recently, and frankly they [alone - not the industry] deserve whatever they get.

frustratingly, the bottom line of the matter is what they establish at the very beginning, then seemingly forget for the rest of the conversation - that games like gta, manhunt and bully should be neither marketed or sold to anyone but adults. both sides have a point here - hidden underneath a load of badly argued trash, which fuels the other side even further. we're not getting anywhere.

[spleen_rupture]

essell, on Aug 6 2005, 09:35 PM, said:

[cue scrawled together post as i try listen to it and play online poker at the same time :)]


having said that... rockstar north have really been asking for trouble recently, and frankly they [alone - not the industry] deserve whatever they get.

Rockstar Vancouver are creating Bully.

[essell]

hehe whoops - i meant rockstar in general. i type "north" after it instinctively...

[Infinite Monkeys]

Robo_1, on Aug 6 2005, 08:39 PM, said:

I've been listening to it for the last 20 so minutes, and to be honest, the interviewer is doing a poor job of defending his corner. Saying he didn't think the violence in Bully would have any more of an impact on the school yard than the violence in Halo is pretty blinkered to say the least.

Amount that we, as a forum of 'hardcore' gamers, currently know about Bully's content: Bugger all.
Amount that those making all of the fuss know about it: Bugger all minus infinity.

To automatically begin linking it to events like Columbine just because there's a school involved should be seen as both reprehensible and utterly bloody laughable... How anyone can see it as anything but the very worst kind of profiteering and political point-scoring is completely beyond me... I don't understand why a large part of America seem to be swallowing it. Admittedly the interviewer was just as much of a cock with his comments, but that argument shouldn't have been taking place to begin with.

To use the fact that retailers aren't going to enforce the age limit on the game to attack Rockstar/Take 2 in the courts? Equally laughable and motivated by the genuine aim that he lets slip later in the interview. I may be paraphrasing very slightly, but I'm certainly not taking it out of context: "I'm out to destroy Rockstar and have been for a long time."

Robo_1, on Aug 6 2005, 08:39 PM, said:

Jack also said his main goal was to get legally enforced rating systems in America, and I don't think anyone on the forum disagrees with that.

See above. Nobody does disagree with that, not even the majority of the games industry. You're not telling me that Jack Thompson (with a law degree, no less) is too stupid to realise that we're all 100% behind him on that matter, surely? If that was his real intention then he'd spend more time lobbying for these legally enforced ratings, less time chasing down companies that essentially agree with him, and would have all the support in the world.

The simple fact, and one that Thompson has figured out, is that any big payouts will come from working against an industry, not with it.

Robo_1, on Aug 6 2005, 08:39 PM, said:

Much of the talk seems to be about Bully, with Jack more concerned about Take 2's financial results than the gaming content. If Bully does allow you to use guns, then that IMO, would be pretty messed up.

Not just Take 2! His little lunatic fringe are apparently going to destroy the stock-value of Sony, Microsoft, and any other company who touch 'Bully.' Somehow I doubt, however vocal his supporters, they're even going to register on the radar of two of the world's largest companies.

You're in for a treat soon, as this is around the time the mask begins to slip and he starts to lose it. You'll see... During the second half of the interview he does a wonderful job of painting himself in the worst possible light. He switches into his much-reported 'zealot' mode with little or no prompting from the (admittedly useless) interviewer. The interviewer speaks less and less while Jack rants more and more and it's GOLD. ;)

For those that haven't been through the whole interview here are what stuck out as the 'highlights' for me:

• Obvious desperation to compare violent games to child-pornography. Again. :)
  
  
• Throwing around the term 'sociopath' without seeming to know what it means.
  
  
• Launching into a venemous and racist diatribe about the Scottish arm of Rockstar. Because they're apparently racist? That's a large and irony-laced tick in the 'I've never actually played GTA:SA' box.
  
  
• Labelling Rockstar North as 'sociopaths' for, amongst other things, working on Bully. They're not, as has already been pointed out.
  
  
• All but flying into the 'one nation under God' part of the US constitution during the talk of free markets, then following up with a dig at us godless Europeans.
  
  
• His insistence, despite having a law degree, that you have to actively protect your copyrighted material or you lose the copyright to your works. I'm not a lawyer and even I know that's bullshit. Here's a hint: That'd be trademark. A very different thing and a fact that puts the entire argument he makes about EA and the modding community on pretty shaky ground.
  
  
• His insistence that EA, specifically those involved in 'The Sims,' are in direct collaberation with the porn industry and are making a deliberate effort to push pornography onto children. Insisting that someone from EA has openly admitted this.
  
  
• Admitting that all of his initial statements on 'The Sims' were based on hearsay. Not just that, but incorrect hearsay.

Quote

Jack certainly has a chip on his shoulder, but presents his arguments with considerably more clarity than the media have lead me to believe he was capable of. He's still quite clearly a cock like, and his attempts at humour are cringe worthy, but the interviewer has done an exceptionally poor job at directing the interview anywhere interesting.

Oh aye, he's a cock, but he's a cock with experience of standing up in court and putting over an argument. After listening to the lot I feel that the only reason he came off as well as he did was because the interviewer was a bit spineless and under-prepared.

True, the last thing we needed was a deliberately hostile interviewer, but there's a big difference between a hostile interviewer and someone willing to point out obvious bullshit. Thompson's reactions whenever the fella dared to disagree with him were getting more and more irate... I can't help but think that if we had an experienced and well-researched interviewer then Thompson would have come off looking a whole lot worse.

[MK-1601]

He's going after Killer 7 now: http://ps2.ign.com/a...9/639839p1.html

I'll pick up a copy tomorrow, on principle.

Edit: cool, I now have a new custom radio station in GTA:SA too. :)

[Infinite Monkeys]

MK-1601, on Aug 7 2005, 12:45 AM, said:

He's going after Killer 7 now: http://ps2.ign.com/a...9/639839p1.html

I'll pick up a copy tomorrow, on principle.

Edit: cool, I now have a new custom radio station in GTA:SA too. ;)

I already picked up a copy of it and, to be honest, I'm beginning to worry about this fella's sex life...

Hot Coffee mod - CJ keeps his clothes on and we get 'dry-humping' style implied sex.
Killer 7 - They both keep their clothes on and we get 'dry-humping' style implied sex.

Here's a tip for you, Mr. Thompson: Sex normally involves taking your fucking keks off! :)

[hub2]

MK-1601, on Aug 7 2005, 01:45 AM, said:

He's going after Killer 7 now: http://ps2.ign.com/a...9/639839p1.html

Quote

In the e-mail, Thompson cites IGN.com's review of Killer 7 and its description of "full-blown sex sequences" as a primary reason why the game should receive an AO rating. Major retailers including Wal-Mart do not sell AO-rated games, which would mean that such a rating might have an adverse impact on sales of Killer 7.

"There is no question in my mind that a videogame containing 'full-blown sex sequences' cannot be rated anything other than 'AO' rather than 'M,'" Thompson writes in the e-mail.

I'm baffled... if you can legally have sex at 17 (indeed younger) then why should be prohibited from seeing simulated cartoon sexual acts until you're 18? I mean surely Walmart and the like still sell films with much more graphic and realistic representations of sex.

Edit: Just looked, they do. So essentially their policy is based on what? A willingness to misrepresent gaming as soley a childish and adolesant pursuit to seem as if they're acting as moral guardians and get a favorable reaction from, well... reactionaries who might just do their weekly shop there?

[CrispinG]

hub2, on Aug 7 2005, 01:56 AM, said:

I'm baffled... if you can legally have sex at 17 (indeed younger) then why should be prohibited from seeing simulated cartoon sexual acts until you're 18? I mean surely Walmart and the like still sell films with much more graphic and realistic representations of sex.

Edit: Just looked, they do. So essentially their policy is based on what? A willingness to misrepresent gaming as soley a childish and adolesant pursuit to seem as if they're acting as moral guardians and get a favorable reaction from, well... reactionaries who might just do their weekly shop there?

It's a symptom of North America's fucked up Christian morality that nudity, sex and bad language are considered more offensive than violence.

[Infinite Monkeys]

hub2, on Aug 7 2005, 12:56 AM, said:

Edit: Just looked, they do. So essentially their policy is based on what? A willingness to misrepresent gaming as soley a childish and adolesant pursuit to seem as if they're acting as moral guardians and get a favorable reaction from, well... reactionaries who might just do their weekly shop there?

I generally agree with you, but allow me to play devil's advocate...
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/5716/bmxxxxps26vw.jpg
Gaming: It's not just for hairy-palmed fourteen year olds, honest!
:)

While Thompson and his cronies are clearly a bit mental they do bring to light a very valid point: The gaming industry largely have themselves to blame for the way they're perceived. Fair enough the deservedly jobless tossers from Acclaim's marketing team are an extreme example, with their BMX XXX, their 'bloodvertising' and countless other press-baiting acts of silliness, but the industry as a whole has a hell of a lot of growing up to do before our hobby will be seen as anything but the domain of spunk-flecked teenage boys. Placing the blame solely on these dickhead 'moral guardian' types is partly dodging the issue. For the 99% of people who ignore Edge, GamesTM, and this place it's easy to see how they come away with the impression that the shitty side of gaming is all there is, and that the self-appointed moral guardians really are necessary.

It's hard to deny that a fair few companies, Rockstar included, use this kind of hysterical controversy as a marketing technique. Of course it shifts a fair few units, but in the long term they're only cementing the generally negative image of gaming.

I dream of a world where Rockstar push stories about us 'atypical' gamers who put aside ho' killing to carefully drive out of the city and watch the sunset in San Andreas, of news stories on the countless gamers bursting into tears (oh yes you did, all of you) at the end of Ico, and of chirpy Daily Mail articles on the gamers who fall so madly in love with a game world they're moved to write dire but well-meaning Zelda fan-fiction.

Crispin Glover, on Aug 7 2005, 04:38 AM, said:

It's a symptom of North America's fucked up Christian morality that nudity, sex and bad language are considered more offensive than violence.

But she showed her nipple, for God's sake... HER NIPPLE! ;)

You're over there at the moment, right? Since I get most of my information on America from South Park I feel I should ask: Is that screwed up idea of morality really as common as we're led to believe or is it just an overly vocal minority?

[CrispinG]

Infinite Monkeys, on Aug 7 2005, 05:59 AM, said:

You're over there at the moment, right? Since I get most of my information on America from South Park I feel I should ask: Is that screwed up idea of morality really as common as we're led to believe or is it just an overly vocal minority?

Well, I've never seen public billboards telling me I'm going to Hell anywhere else in the world.

[twohe]

Crispin Glover, on Aug 7 2005, 07:55 AM, said:

Well, I've never seen public billboards telling me I'm going to Hell anywhere else in the world.

I've seen them in Norway.

[Robo_1]

Infinite Monkeys, on Aug 7 2005, 02:43 AM, said:

Amount that we, as a forum of 'hardcore' gamers, currently know about Bully's content: Bugger all.
Amount that those making all of the fuss know about it: Bugger all minus infinity.

To automatically begin linking it to events like Columbine just because there's a school involved should be seen as both reprehensible and utterly bloody laughable... How anyone can see it as anything but the very worst kind of profiteering and political point-scoring is completely beyond me... I don't understand why a large part of America seem to be swallowing it. Admittedly the interviewer was just as much of a cock with his comments, but that argument shouldn't have been taking place to begin with.

I agree. I don't understand why the interviewer didn't call him on that, and just ask what he knows about Bully which makes the game so shocking. I imagine Jack has assumed it's GTA in a School, but as I say, Jack was allowed to bash Take 2 with that all night, when one simple question could have sunk him.

Infinite Monkeys, on Aug 7 2005, 02:43 AM, said:

To use the fact that retailers aren't going to enforce the age limit on the game to attack Rockstar/Take 2 in the courts? Equally laughable and motivated by the genuine aim that he lets slip later in the interview. I may be paraphrasing very slightly, but I'm certainly not taking it out of context: "I'm out to destroy Rockstar and have been for a long time."

I think what riles Jack, is that on the one hand these games are getting the AO or Mature label, but on the other they're clearly targeting all their marketing muscle at teens. Something there is clearly broken, and it seems to me that both the rating systems and advertising regulations are at the root of the problem, and as it stands, whilst Take 2 are doing nothing legally wrong, it's morally dubious at best.

Infinite Monkeys, on Aug 7 2005, 02:43 AM, said:

See above. Nobody does disagree with that, not even the majority of the games industry. You're not telling me that Jack Thompson (with a law degree, no less) is too stupid to realise that we're all 100% behind him on that matter, surely? If that was his real intention then he'd spend more time lobbying for these legally enforced ratings, less time chasing down companies that essentially agree with him, and would have all the support in the world.

It's a good point, but as someone who has previously spit bile at the man, I was unaware that his main aim was a legally enforced rating system. I agree though, if it's as important to him as he suggests, why isn't he getting his beloved Hillary Clinton to say something on that, rather than banging his drum on how Take 2's share price is going to sink after his latest protest.

Infinite Monkeys, on Aug 7 2005, 02:43 AM, said:

Not just Take 2! His little lunatic fringe are apparently going to destroy the stock-value of Sony, Microsoft, and any other company who touch 'Bully.' Somehow I doubt, however vocal his supporters, they're even going to register on the radar of two of the world's largest companies.

Yes, that was the Jack Thompsonn we know and loath in full swing there. However, as - I think we both agree on - the interviewer could have chopped the legs off that argument and indeed about 40 minutes of pointless waffling, if only he'd asked how he's so familiar with the content of Bully, as to know the damage it may do.

Infinite Monkeys, on Aug 7 2005, 02:43 AM, said:

[*]Obvious desperation to compare violent games to child-pornography. Again. :D

Genuinely didn't catch that, in what context was he speaking?

Infinite Monkeys, on Aug 7 2005, 02:43 AM, said:

[*]Launching into a venemous and racist diatribe about the Scottish arm of Rockstar. Because they're apparently racist? That's a large and irony-laced tick in the 'I've never actually played GTA:SA' box.

That really was comedy gold. As you say, that was was a classic example of the cool calm mask of earlier slipping, and really left him looking like a complete cock.

Infinite Monkeys, on Aug 7 2005, 02:43 AM, said:

[*]His insistence, despite having a law degree, that you have to actively protect your copyrighted material or you lose the copyright to your works. I'm not a lawyer and even I know that's bullshit. Here's a hint: That'd be trademark. A very different thing and a fact that puts the entire argument he makes about EA and the modding community on pretty shaky ground.

For him to base such a chunk of his argument and campaign on that fact,, I'd be amazed if he was wrong about it. I genuinely don't know, but maybe copyright law works slightly different in America. If he is wrong, someone who knows a bit about it should confront him with it, and really piss on his corn-flakes.

Infinite Monkeys, on Aug 7 2005, 02:43 AM, said:

True, the last thing we needed was a deliberately hostile interviewer, but there's a big difference between a hostile interviewer and someone willing to point out obvious bullshit. Thompson's reactions whenever the fella dared to disagree with him were getting more and more irate... I can't help but think that if we had an experienced and well-researched interviewer then Thompson would have come off looking a whole lot worse.

That's the nub of it really, has Thompson been overly vilified in the gaming press, and this interview revealed him to have an agenda, but not the inherently stupid, "destroy all violent games" one I previous credited him with, or is he that same ambulance chasing idiot I had him down as, and the interviewer had neither the wit, or the information to properly reveal him as such.

Certainly worth a listen though - I believe it goes from being a planned 30 min to 80 too.

[senor_herer]

"Oh ple-ease, won't somebody think of the children?"

:D

[MK-1601]

Robo_1, on Aug 7 2005, 09:14 AM, said:

(Re modding games being in violation of copyright) For him to base such a chunk of his argument and campaign on that fact,, I'd be amazed if he was wrong about it. I genuinely don't know, but maybe copyright law works slightly different in America. If he is wrong, someone who knows a bit about it should confront him with it, and really piss on his corn-flakes.

Modding a game doesn't violate the publisher's copyright, or violate the games' EULA, at all. The interviewer fails to bring Jack up on this, along with:

The validity of his cited 'scientific studies'
The validity of his claim that games were used by the military to 'overcome the urge not to kill'(?)
His assertion that Bully would be a simulation of violence and murder
The fact that the ruling against 2 Live Crew was later overturned
The fact that he has never successfully won a case where he has attempted to link games to violent crime

[Robo_1]

MK-1601, on Aug 7 2005, 01:35 PM, said:

Modding a game doesn't violate the publisher's copyright, or violate the games' EULA, at all. The interviewer fails to bring Jack up on this, along with:

The validity of his cited 'scientific studies'
The validity of his claim that games were used by the military to 'overcome the urge not to kill'(?)
His assertion that Bully would be a simulation of violence and murder
The fact that the ruling against 2 Live Crew was later overturned
The fact that he has never successfully won a case where he has attempted to link games to violent crime

So I think we can all agree, the interviewer was woefully unqualified to do this interview, as for anyone not privy to the additional information unearthed in this thread (or others like it), Thompson comes off far better than he should.

[Infinite Monkeys]

Robo_1, on Aug 7 2005, 09:14 AM, said:

I think what riles Jack, is that on the one hand these games are getting the AO or Mature label, but on the other they're clearly targeting all their marketing muscle at teens. Something there is clearly broken, and it seems to me that both the rating systems and advertising regulations are at the root of the problem, and as it stands, whilst Take 2 are doing nothing legally wrong, it's morally dubious at best.

I can definitely agree with that, and it's a problem that clearly does need fixing. GTA:SA is such an obvious example I guess I'll follow him and use that: Remember the free bandana deal at the launch of the PS2 version? I'll admit I'm not certain that was actually Rockstar's own promotion (I'm sure someone around here will know), but if it was I think it's pretty weak to then turn around and insist they don't market their games towards the <18 crowd.

Obviously it's not their fault when 'Game Employee X' sells the title to a child... I think making Take 2 legally responsible for mistakes made by retailers is a ridiculous precedent to set and one that would affect far more than just the games industry. I'd put my tin-foil hat on and go so far as to say that was Thompson's intention... Gaming has made itself an easily targetted scapegoat with which to push through some pretty damn far-reaching changes to the US legal system. In the long-term it'd effectively mean that 'immoral' entertainment or any other industry that the vocal minority disapprove of could be successfully attacked on some incredibly flimsy evidence. Just look at his talk of EA and their reaction to the modding community to get an idea of where things would be heading. :) Thankfully I think judges that have just ruled that gun manufacturers aren't responsible for gun-related deaths would see the hypocrisy involved in siding with Thompson over violent games.

Morally I suppose Rockstar/Take 2 have to take some blame in regions where there isn't a legally enforceable age rating on their games, but to make them legally responsible is lunacy. Sadly it all goes back to the fact that the gaming industry does nothing to help itself... If they weren't seen to be deliberately targetting the young'uns then it would be very difficult for even those as determined as Thompson to put together any kind of case. Firms like Take 2 really do need to jump on the 'enforceable age restrictions' bandwagon as it can only serve to protect them from this kind of nonsense in future.

I guess we'd all agree with his point that the gaming industry isn't doing a very good job of policing itself, but if it comes to a choice between carrying on as we are or letting him and Hillary Clinton take the reigns I think it's a safe bet what most of us would pick. :lol:

Quote

Genuinely didn't catch that, in what context was he speaking?

Re: The child-porn connection - I don't have access to the mp3 at the moment but I think it was during the talk about letting the market decide what titles live or die? He used child porn as an example of something we'd all agree nobody should have access to. In the past he's actually made direct comparisons between that and violent games and been 'strung up' for it... I felt there was that slightly more irate edge to his voice that suggested he was a second or so from coming out and saying it again, though maybe it was wishful thinking on my part? :)

Robo_1, on Aug 7 2005, 09:14 AM, said:

For him to base such a chunk of his argument and campaign on that fact,, I'd be amazed if he was wrong about it. I genuinely don't know, but maybe copyright law works slightly different in America. If he is wrong, someone who knows a bit about it should confront him with it, and really piss on his corn-flakes.

Edit: Oh sod it, I'm willing to stick my neck out and say it - Jack Thompson is either incompetent as a lawyer or is making a deliberate effort to mislead. See my post way down there! \/ The fact that he seems to know less about US law than a layman from another bloody country says it all, really.

I also think it's safe to say that 'EA don't ruthlessly stamp on pornographic mods!' to 'EA are in cahoots with the porn industry!' is the type of leap only someone like Thompson could make.

Robo_1, on Aug 7 2005, 09:14 AM, said:

That's the nub of it really, has Thompson been overly vilified in the gaming press, and this interview revealed him to have an agenda, but not the inherently stupid, "destroy all violent games" one I previous credited him with, or is he that same ambulance chasing idiot I had him down as, and the interviewer had neither the wit, or the information to properly reveal him as such.

I think, if nothing else, it's made it pretty clear that for all of his moralist ranting the fella does have some ideas that the industry should be taking notice of.