Return to Unfiction unforum
 a.r.g.b.b 
FAQ FAQ   Search Search 
 
Welcome!
New users, PLEASE read these forum guidelines. New posters, SEARCH before posting and read these rules before posting your killer new campaign. New players may also wish to peruse the ARG Player Tutorial.

All users must abide by the Terms of Service.
Website Restoration Project
This archiving project is a collaboration between Unfiction and Sean Stacey (SpaceBass), Brian Enigma (BrianEnigma), and Laura E. Hall (lehall) with
the Center for Immersive Arts.
Announcements
This is a static snapshot of the
Unfiction forums, as of
July 23, 2017.
This site is intended as an archive to chronicle the history of Alternate Reality Games.
  

The time now is Mon Nov 11, 2024 8:49 pm
All times are UTC - 4 (DST in action)		 View posts in this forum since last visit
View unanswered posts in this forum
Calendar
 Forum index » Diversions » Console/Video Game Discussion
[HALO2] - Legislation on sales of video games to minors GDC
Moderators: krystyn
View previous topicView next topic
Page 2 of 10 [148 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
DiscipleN2k wrote:
"McDonald's injured me with their hot coffee."
I agree with you about the problem with accepting responsibility in the USA, but the McDonald's coffee lawsuit is actually a counterexample. That one was legitimate. From Snopes.com:
Quote:
the "woman scalded by hot coffee" suit, which at first blush looked like the height of frivolity proved to be a perfectly legitimate action taken against a corporation that knew, thanks to a string of similar scaldings it had quietly been paying off, that its coffee was not just hot, but dangerously hot. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America provides an excellent description of this case.
She wasn't driving; she was a passenger in the back seat. When the car was stopped, she tried to remove the lid and add cream and sugar. The coffee spilled and caused 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body. The case against McDonald's was surprisingly easy to prove. Read the link if you're still interested.

Just doing my part to make the world a better place.
_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 10:08 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
Fenwicked wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing some sting operations in video game stores
There's no "sting" to operate against retailers. From the ESRB web site:
Quote:
ESRB is responsible for enforcement of its rating system. We monitor compliance and investigate violations of ESRB's Rules and Regulations. Where appropriate, we impose penalties against companies that violate ESRB labeling, marketing, or product submission rules.

Although the ESRB does not have the authority to enforce the ratings at the retail level, we do work closely with retailers and game centers to encourage them to display ratings information and not sell or rent certain product to minors. In fact, many retailers have signed up for ESRB's Commitment to Parents program in which they pledge to use their best efforts not to rent or sell M-rated games to children under 17 without parental consent.

_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 10:19 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
DiscipleN2k
Veteran


Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 113
Location: Oklahoma City
Clayfoot wrote:
DiscipleN2k wrote:
"McDonald's injured me with their hot coffee."
I agree with you about the problem with accepting responsibility in the USA, but the McDonald's coffee lawsuit is actually a counterexample. That one was legitimate.


Nevermind then Embarassed
I'll try to pay a little more attention next time I post Smile

-Disciple
_________________
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes, that way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

-Jack Handey

PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 9:27 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
drseuss90
Decorated

Joined: 08 Oct 2004
Posts: 277
Location: California

 		isnt coffee supposed to be hot? Why would you open your full cup of coffee in the back seat of a car (Why not sue the makers of the cup because it was not strong enough and contribuited to the spill of the coffee?)? Thats just asking for problems. America today is too eager to put the blame on someone else when something goes wrong. Sometimes people make bad choices. Save lawsuits for situations that need them.
_________________
"It has one of those little red rubber dot thingies on the keyboard. That's way better than a mouse. I call it the nubbin. Who wants to touch my nubbin?"

-Red vs. Blue Episode 45

PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 2:16 pm
 View user's profile AIM Address
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
drseuss90 wrote:
isnt coffee supposed to be hot?
Not that hot. *sigh* I should have just quoted the whole article here in the first place.
Quote:
McDonald's Scalding Coffee Case

Read about the Wall Street Journal article on this case

Critics of civil justice and juries have pounced on the McDonald's coffee case, calling it 'frivolous' and 'laughable'. However, it was McDonald's own testimony and actions that led a jury to rule against it.

Facts About the Case

  • Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonald's coffee in February 1992. Liebeck ordered coffee that was served in a Styrofoam cup at the drive-through window of a local McDonald's.

  • Critics of civil justice often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true. After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As Liebeck removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.

  • The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin.

Stella Liebeck's Injury and Hospitalization

  • A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body.

  • Liebeck suffered burns on her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas.

  • She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting and debridement treatments (the surgical removal of tissue).

Stella Liebeck's Initial Claim

  • Liebeck sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonald's refused.

McDonald's Attitude

  • During discovery, McDonald's produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebeck's. This history documented McDonald's knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.

  • McDonald's also said during discovery that, based on a consultant's advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees Fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste.
    o Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures than at McDonald's.
    o Coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Damaging Testimony

  • McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above and that McDonald's coffee was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.

  • The quality assurance manager further testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that while burns would occur, McDonald's had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.

  • Plaintiff's expert, a scholar in thermodynamics as applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids at 180 degrees will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds.

  • Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

  • McDonald's asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the company's own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.

  • McDonald's also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer third-degree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.

According to The Wall Street Journal

A Jury of One's Peers

  • The Wall Street Journal wrote (September 1, 1994), "The testimony of Mr. [Christopher] Appleton, the McDonald's executive, didn't help the company, jurors said later. He testified that McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious burns, but hadn't consulted burn experts about it. He also testified that McDonald's had decided not to warn customers about the possibility of severe burns, even though most people wouldn't think it possible. Finally, he testified that McDonald's didn't intend to change any of its coffee policies or procedures, saying, 'There are more serious dangers in restaurants.' "

  • The Journal quoted one juror, Jack Elliott, remarking after the trial that the case had been about such "callous disregard for the safety of the people."

  • The Journal story continued, "Next for the defense came P. Robert Knaff, a human-factors engineer who earned $15,000 in fees from the case and who, several jurors said later, didn't help McDonald's either. Dr. Knaff told the jury that hot-coffee burns were statistically insignificant when compared to the billion cups of coffee McDonald's sells annually. To jurors, Dr. Knaff seemed to be saying that the graphic photos they had seen of Mrs. Liebeck's burns didn't matter because they were rare. 'There was a person behind every number and I don't think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that,' says juror Betty Farnham."

  • At the beginning of the trial, jury foreman Jerry Goens told the Journal, he "wasn't convinced as to why I needed to be there to settle a coffee spill."

  • By the end of the trial, Betty Farnham told the Journal, "The facts were so overwhelmingly against the company. They were not taking care of their customers."

The Verdict

  • The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonald's coffee sales.

  • Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonald's had dropped to 158 degrees Fahrenheit.

  • The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000—or three times compensatory damages—even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. Subsequent to remittitur, the parties entered a post-verdict settlement.

_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 3:42 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
water10
Unfettered


Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 712
Location: EvadeEvadeEvade
Quote:
The problem isn't with the video game industry, it's with the parents. For some odd reason, parents seem to assume that it's the government's responsibility to babysit their kids for them.

Being from another country, I find this sooo true! And to some extent, you can extrapolate this to other areas as well! I won't be specific, but this is a very cultural thing here in US. In a lot of situations, I just don't understand people's reaction. It's just culturally different. And this example is just brilliant! After 5 years, I'm getting used ...
_________________
You’d better not mess with Major Tom!

Gamertag: Waters100

PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:02 pm
 View user's profile AIM Address
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA

 		Since parents can't easily screen every game before they buy it, the ESRB system was developed by the gaming industry to give parents a chance to make an informed decision --and to head off proposed government intervention. Check out the methodology used to rate games on esrb.org; it's pretty good, really. Maybe, it's too good. So many people trust the ratings, they are willing to pass laws that restrict sales to minors based on this system. I oppose this kind of government interference, and I don't think it will work, anyway. There's just no substitute for watching your child's purchases as if they're up to something.
_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2005 4:25 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
vortech
Unfettered


Joined: 22 Aug 2004
Posts: 465
Location: Atlanta, GA
Clayfoot wrote:
Fenwicked wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing some sting operations in video game stores
There's no "sting" to operate against retailers. From the ESRB web site:
Quote:
ESRB is responsible for enforcement of its rating system. We monitor compliance and investigate violations of ESRB's Rules and Regulations. Where appropriate, we impose penalties against companies that violate ESRB labeling, marketing, or product submission rules.

Although the ESRB does not have the authority to enforce the ratings at the retail level, we do work closely with retailers and game centers to encourage them to display ratings information and not sell or rent certain product to minors. In fact, many retailers have signed up for ESRB's Commitment to Parents program in which they pledge to use their best efforts not to rent or sell M-rated games to children under 17 without parental consent.
Oh, that's fine. just do what the broadcasters did for false advertising claims. if they fail the sting, you don't sell the games to them. Very few retailers will want to buy stock at retail prices.
_________________
- RM
@ Piratenews.network
--
Occam's Razor tells us that Occam was boring, so I'm going with the epidemic theory
-Lore Sjöberg

PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 1:50 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
vortech wrote:
Oh, that's fine. just do what the broadcasters did for false advertising claims. if they fail the sting, you don't sell the games to them. Very few retailers will want to buy stock at retail prices.
Hmmm... I don't think the ESRB has that kind of power. The ESRB doesn't actually sell the games to the retailers, so the ESRB can't cutoff sales. I think the music rating system is the same. Music can be labeled with explicit lyrics, but there's no law or agency to compel retailers to limit sales based on the rating. Similarly, there's no law or agency with the power to penalize game retailers if they sell 'M'-rated games to minors.
_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 9:33 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
vortech
Unfettered


Joined: 22 Aug 2004
Posts: 465
Location: Atlanta, GA
Clayfoot wrote:
vortech wrote:
Oh, that's fine. just do what the broadcasters did for false advertising claims. if they fail the sting, you don't sell the games to them. Very few retailers will want to buy stock at retail prices.
Hmmm... I don't think the ESRB has that kind of power. The ESRB doesn't actually sell the games to the retailers, so the ESRB can't cutoff sales. I think the music rating system is the same. Music can be labeled with explicit lyrics, but there's no law or agency to compel retailers to limit sales based on the rating. Similarly, there's no law or agency with the power to penalize game retailers if they sell 'M'-rated games to minors.
Yeah, but follow the trail. the ESRB was formed by the ESA to head off legislation regulating the industry. The ESA is really just all the developers. If the producers are colluding anyway, just agree not to sell to stores who don't enforce your sales policies. Probably some dicey antitrust issues, but I don't see any AG fighting this.
_________________
- RM
@ Piratenews.network
--
Occam's Razor tells us that Occam was boring, so I'm going with the epidemic theory
-Lore Sjöberg

PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:49 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website
 Back to top 
GabrielBlade
Decorated

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 202

 		To weigh in on the matter about the "soccer mum buying bad game" problem, a teaching fellow at the University of Otago and myself had a discussion over a (scaldingly hot) cup of McDonalds coffee one afternoon while discussing something totally different earlier (I don't how we got to the topic, I think we ended up with nothing to say, so Nathan asked me if I'd played Doom3)..


We basically decided that the problem of parents in particular, buying bad games for their children, then blaming the stores was something that could be looked at - so we drafted up some plans for a website, based and funded by the University of Otago that would have it's own ratings systems - possibly even several ratings systems, from parents, teachers, and gamers like myself, and would pull no punches about the suitability of the games for all levels.

(I certainly wouldn't want any kids of mine playing Doom3 before they were 16-17. It made me feel a little queasy at times with all the gore in the Delta Labs!)



To date, nothings come of the website much other than draft plans and a basic look feasibility study that Nathan and I conducted seperately on several areas of the community.. but it's still being thought about, definitely.
_________________
Gabriel Blade::Lord of the Asylum::Emperor of Insanity
---»For Whom the Bell Tolls.. Time Marches On«---

PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 11:52 am
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
vortech wrote:
The ESRB was formed by the ESA to head off legislation regulating the industry. The ESA is really just all the developers. If the producers are colluding anyway, just agree not to sell to stores who don't enforce your sales policies.
Good point; the producers do have the power to restrict what outlets carry their goods. However, the ESA's current policy "supports strengthening voluntary retailer enforcement of existing ratings systems." The ESA has another page on youth violence. That page links to 3 papers (+1 dead link) which conclude that the research evidence does not prove that violent video games lead to real-life violence. These papers highlight criticisms of the current research, as Phaedra summarized earlier.

For contrast, consider this article by Craig A. Anderson (Chair and Professor of Psychology, Iowa State), which addresses myths and facts about the debate on violent video games.
Violent Video Games: Myths, Facts, and Unanswered Questions
_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 9:03 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
Clayfoot
Entrenched


Joined: 19 Aug 2004
Posts: 785
Location: Warner Robins, Georgia, USA
GabrielBlade wrote:
We basically decided that the problem of parents in particular, buying bad games for their children, then blaming the stores was something that could be looked at - so we drafted up some plans for a website, based and funded by the University of Otago that would have it's own ratings systems - possibly even several ratings systems, from parents, teachers, and gamers like myself, and would pull no punches about the suitability of the games for all levels.
What's the hold up, man? Get on it! I definitely use sites like RottenTomatoes and MetaCritic when I want to survey critical opinion. I want a similar web site that focuses on content suitability by age groups.
_________________
Gamertag:Clayfoot

PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 9:46 am
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 ICQ Number 
 Back to top 
weephun
Entrenched


Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 908
Location: Fuquay Varina, NC

 		OK, so what about the movie rating parallels?

As far as I know it IS illegal to sell/rent an R rated movie to anyone younger than 17 (or let them watch it in a theater w/out guardian permission).

You rarely ever hear uproars about the movie rating system, nobody seems to complain that it is in place either. What would be so terrible about enforcing a game rating system along those same lines?
_________________
- Sean Stewart: "generally people like seeing their names on TV, although probably no one has had a more mixed experience with that then weephun, God bless him.
- Currently assisting Epic Games in their quest for world domination

PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:18 pm
 View user's profile
 Back to top 
ThaJinx
Unfettered


Joined: 24 Oct 2004
Posts: 430
weephun wrote:
OK, so what about the movie rating parallels?

As far as I know it IS illegal to sell/rent an R rated movie to anyone younger than 17 (or let them watch it in a theater w/out guardian permission).

You rarely ever hear uproars about the movie rating system, nobody seems to complain that it is in place either. What would be so terrible about enforcing a game rating system along those same lines?
I honestly don't think it would be terrible. In fact, I was of the assumption that that was already the way it was supposed to be. No skin off my nose, I'm considered by the government and the US Military to be an adult. Kids should have their parents as a filter. I wasn't allowed to play Goldeneye007 on the N64 until a year after it came out because my mom thought it was too violent. Yeah, I thought it was stupid, but you know what? She was doing her job. As a parent.

PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:36 pm
 View user's profile Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
 Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 2 of 10 [148 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, ..., 8, 9, 10  Next
View previous topicView next topic
 Forum index » Diversions » Console/Video Game Discussion
Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group