The Game

The NationState game is fun and I find it to be very creative, though I feel that at times were given too much at once. Its not the most demanding work, but in class time is limited and we don’t have enough time to have creative thoughts and actually brainstorm what can work and what doesn’t, were just expected to have all the tasks given to us completed within an hour or half an hour sometimes. I think that the game is going well though, and my group is very good about voicing all of our own opinions and combining them into a whole idea for our country. I think I am fairly happy with my country/group…I think looking at it now there are a few paths I would have chosen differently if it were a real country, but it’s a game and its just for fun. My group kind of approaches every situation when it is presented to us..so when we had to go to war with the entertainment group we kind of just went along with it, no specific strategy just going with the flow. I don’t really think we have a specific “real-world” example, our country (planet) is pretty creative and new though I would say a few of our rules is from the old tribal like societies.

Midterm in Retrospect

1.  I would say I played a pretty average role in this midterm; I would give myself a 5

2.  So far I have really liked all of the people in my group and I don't think I would get rid of any of them. We work pretty well together.

3. A.  Showing up - 10

 B.  Doing your fair share - 10

 C.  Being on time - 10

 D.  Responding timely to email and communicating effectively with  other members - 8

 E.  Handling conflict among group members - N/A there has been no conflict that I am aware of.

 F.  Being present in the group -- not distracted by outside cell phone calls or text messages when the group is meeting. – 8

4. 1) Carry your weight or be left behind.

   2) Don't anger the group leader

   3) Speak up, everyone's opinion is important. 

   4) Divide things evenly, it makes the job easier for everyone.

   5) Come to class, so we can succeed together.

midterm reflection

http://humanresources.about.com/od/teambuilding/f/team_work.htm

1.  In your group were there people who did more than their fair share, and those who did less?  How did that affect your group's performance?  Where would you put your own contribution, among the most or among the least?  On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, please rate your performance compared to the others in the group (5 would be the average contributor).

I feel that we all contributed the same amount..and I also think we did very good on our presentation. My group has an awesome leader who stays on top of things and makes sure we are always prepared. I would say I contributed an 8.

2.  If you could, would you remove a member from your group at this point?  If you could add someone, what would be his or her characteristics that would add to the ability of your group to do its job?  No need to name names.

I really enjoy working with my group and I would not add or remove anyone from it.

3.  How important were basic workplace rules in your group?  Rate on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, how important the were the following:

A.  Showing up - 10

B.  Doing your fair share - 9

C.  Being on time - 8

D.  Responding timely to email and communicating effectively with other members - 9

E.  Handling conflict among group members - 9

F.  Being present in the group -- not distracted by outside cell phone calls or text messages when the group is meeting. - 9

4.  Please come up with Five Rules for Having an Effective Group.

- Have a common goal

-Divide the assignment into equal parts for the members

-Communicate throughout the whole assignment

-Have a specific time frame

-Ask your group about any questions you have 

Reflection on mid term

In your group were there people who did more than their fair share, and those who did less? How did that affect your group's performance? Where would you put your own contribution, among the most or among the least? On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, please rate your performance compared to the others in the group (5 would be the average contributor).

I believe in our group we all contributed the same. Our group performance was good and our presentation worked out great. My contribution was an 8.

2. If you could, would you remove a member from your group at this point? If you could add someone, what would be his or her characteristics that would add to the ability of your group to do its job? No need to name names.

I would NOT remove any member at this point. I enjoy my peers in my group.

3.How important were basic workplace rules in your group? Rate on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, how important they were the following:

A. Showing up - 10
B. Doing your fair share - 9
C. Being on time - 10
D. Responding timely to email and communicating effectively with other members - 8
E. Handling conflict among group members 8
F. Being present in the group -- not distracted by outside cell phone calls or text messages when the group is meeting.   8

4. Please come up with Five Rules for Having an Effective Group.

1. Be on time

2. Contribute your own work

3. Be respectful of others

4. Listen and then speak

5. Don’t control other peers

Mid Term Video game pro and cons

Video game pro and cons:

Pros:

Intro to technology at early age

Prep for feature

Complex equipment intro

Hand eye coordination

New interests

Make learning fun

Multi player allow cooperation

Fun, Wii is active

Team work

Sharing

Cons:

Isolation

Playing alone

Blamed for school shootings

Bullying, violence towards women

Obesity, down grades, addictive (can be)

Poor health

Indoors away from activity, people

Little social interaction

Desensitize to violence

97% 12-17 year olds play violent games, in 2008 11.7 billion dollar industry. 10 out of 20 video games are violent or contain violence. People or critics say desensitize children to violence and gives them aggression.

 

It can provide help for children that have disabilities and improve problem solving skills.

 

Neglect to social life. Isolation, real life to fake

Link to Pros and Cons:

http://videogames.procon.org/

 

 

Mid Term Review - Health and Science - Video Game Violence

http://www.doc.govt.nz/getting-involved/volunteer-join-or-start-a-project/start-or-fund-a-project/work-well-as-a-group/

I really liked our topic of violence in video games.  It was interesting doing research and finding out a little bit more about the past, present, and future of video games and violence in them and the resulting ratings.  It was also interesting to find out about the laws associated with violence in video games.  I liked that our group was able to come up with a topic, do research, and then independently, put together a presentation about the subject, without us really spending much time together to make it all come together.  We brainstormed topics, and then divvied them up and each did our fair share to be able to present a topic clearly and professionally.

1.  I think we all did our fair share of research and writing.  I feel we each did an equal part.  One member received an important section of the presentation, and never showed up to present, or posted on the blog.  That was a key part of our presentation to show the levels of violence over the years and what video game was most popular at time to show a correlation between the two.  But, as a whole, I feel the other 4 of us really pulled it together, and gave a well-rounded, informative presentation on the subject of video game violence.  I would put my own contribution among the most, just like I would put my fellow group members.  We all did our part, and made the presentation to the best of our abilities.  I would rate my contribution as a 9, and I would give everyone else a 9.  Except for the guy that didn’t show up.  He gets a 0.

2.  I would remove the guy that doesn’t show up.  Other than that, I would not remove any member.  I like our dynamic, and feel as though we work together well, we are a group that can debate without hurting feelings, we can also come to consensuses very easily.  We work together well.   If I had to add someone, I would want to add someone that is more knowledgeable about laws in general, so we have a better point of reference, and aren’t just winging it with our laws.  Even though it was a random draw of people into this group, I am really happy with how it worked out, and I wouldn’t change any member.

3.  We have no basic rules.  We are just a group of individuals who are kind and respectful of the other group members ideas.  We like to come to agreements before we put anything in writing or finalize anything.  This makes all group members happy, and we are a better group because of it.  No bickering or fighting or opinions someone can’t get over.   

A. Showing up – 9 We can usually communicate the things we need to by text or email so the active group members are able to know what’s going on without missing anything or not being able to contribute. 
B. Doing your fair share – 10 We all do our fair share.  The work is spread out evenly.
C. Being on time – 9 If the person shows up for the second half of class, generally, that’s when the group gets together, and they can be a part of what’s going on.
D. Responding timely to email and communicating effectively with other members – 10 Some group members rarely respond to emails, but, when it is important, the work gets done…no need to respond in most cases.  We really work good in our group in class and get most things done and communicated effectively.
E. Handling conflict among group members – 10 We have not had any conflict in our group.  If we did, that may be an issue.  But, we haven’t come to that road yet.
F. Being present in the group -- not distracted by outside cell phone calls or text messages when the group is meeting. – 10 No one has done this so far.  If anything, cell phones have helped us with our projects and research.  So they have not hindered us in any way as of yet.

4. Five rules of having an effective group:

1. Communication
2. Respect
3. Sharing the work load
4. Research/Time Management
5. Flexibility

Due to the heavy violence in video games in todays world people are questioning if school shootings and high crimes rates play hand in hand with gamers. Though there are no laws enacted against violent video games many states have tried to implement a few from taxing the games to banning them completely. Some may or may not think so, but kids have been exposed to violence forever. For example, Cinderella’s evil step-sisters pecked their eyes out with doves, and in Hansel an Gretel they killed the evil capturer by throwing her in the oven. The way people view violence is different from one another though movies, books and magazines have all sorts of violence throughout them. There can be murder, theft and dismembering in video games, but once a boob is put in a video game it gets banned. The biggest difference that separates US entertainment from European, is that nudity is fine, but no violence is allowed in their games.

Only 5% of the more than 1,600 games rated last year were “M” (17+)

LAWS that failed:

Entertainment Software Association v. Foti is a lawsuit filed on June 16, 2006 claiming that a Louisiana law should be declared unconstitutional. The recently passed Louisiana law was a way for the state to censor video games by making it illegal to supply minors with video games considered violent, similar to laws making pornographic material unavailable to minors, but using violence as the criteria instead of sexual content. The lawsuit claims that the law infringed on the video game industry’s constitutional right to freedom of expression. The suit was successful in getting the law overturned in late 2006.

Missouri wanted to adapt a tax on violent video games, which failed.  The Republican lawmaker from Missouri, Diane Franklin said the proposed 1 percent sales tax would help pay for mental health programs and law enforcement measures aimed at preventing mass shootings. The tax would be levied on video games rated "teen," "mature" and "adult-only" by the Entertainment Software Rating Board, the organization in charge of rating video games.

 Other proposals to tax violent video games that failed were in Oklahoma in 2012 and New Mexico in 2008.

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association is a Supreme Court of the United States case that struck down a California law enacted in 2005 that was intended to ban the sale of certain violent video games to children without parental supervision. In a 7–2 decision, the Court upheld the lower court decisions and revoked the law, ruling that video games were protected speech under the First Amendment as other forms of media.

Michigan and Illinois also tried to enact the same sort of laws.

Trenton, New Jersey- A state assemblyman tried to push a bill that would make it illegal for minors to purchase violent video games on their own.

Under the proposed law headed by retailers would face harsh fines for selling violent games with mature ratings to anyone under the age of 18.

The only distribution policy that game distributers HAVE to follow:

The United States Family Entertainment Protection Act (FEPA) was a bill introduced by Senator Hillary Clinton on November 29, 2005. The bill called for a federal mandate enforcement of the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) ratings system for video games in order to protect children from inappropriate content.

The FEPA would have imposed fines of $1000 dollars or 100 hours of community service for a first time offense of selling a "Mature" or "Adult-Only" rated video game to a minor, and $5000 or 500 hours for each subsequent offense.

ESRB policy states:

Retailer Support of Ratings

Although it does not have the legal authority to implement or enforce retailer sales policies with respect to video games, the ESRB works closely with retailers to: a) provide in-store signage which explains the rating system; b) support their store policies pertaining to the sale or rental of Mature-rated games to minors; and c) help educate and train store associates and employees with regard to the rating system.

People against video game laws say it goes against free speech and consumer protection. The question that remains is if it is the states place to say who buys the game overall.

Ratings System History - ESRB

When Mortal Kombat, a series known for it's high levels of blood and violence, including FATALITIES, was released in 1992, there was a public outrage, including many hearings trying to figure out what to do about violence in video games and how it should be regulated, which ultimately led to the ESRB being created.

These hearings ran from late 1992 into 1993, and resulted in an ultimatum for the industry: Form a workable, self-regulated rating system for video games within one year, or prepare for the U.S. Federal government to implement one of its own. Threats of government regulations led to many rating schemes from many different parts of the industry.

Sega created the Videogame Rating Council in 1993 and featured three ratings: General Audiences, MA-13 (Parental Discretion Advised) and MA-17 (Not Appropriate For Minors). Also founded in 1993 was the 3DO Rating System, for games released in North America on the 3DO console. Neither system worked for Congress and both died in 1994. This did create a third rating system, the RSAC(applicable to PC software only), which provided 5 levels of ratings in categories Violence, Nudity-Sex, and Language.  When the Playstation debuted in 1995, the ratings system was met again with new challenges, and the RSAC rating system died in 1999.

In July 1994, the IDSA (renamed to the Entertainment Software Association in 2003) presented to Congress its proposal for an industry-controlled rating system; in September of 1994, the Entertainment Software Rating Board was unveiled(ESRB).

ESRB is the non-profit, self-regulatory body that assigns ratings for video games and apps so parents can make informed choices. The ESRB rating system offers guidance about age-appropriateness, content, and interactive elements. As part of its self-regulatory role for the video game industry the ESRB also enforces industry-adopted advertising guidelines and helps ensure responsible web and mobile privacy practices under its Privacy Online program.

In the beginning, the ESRB system included 5 ratings: Early Childhood, Kids to Adults, Teen, Mature and Adults Only. Over the years the system changed to meet the needs of both a growing industry and an expanding gamer demographic. The rating stamps would changed over time to become more visible, and in 1998 the Kids to Adults rating was replaced with an Everyone (E) rating.

Currently, the ESRB uses a two-tiered system with six age-based ratings, complemented by 32 content descriptors that offer details about a game, including everything from crude humor to tobacco references and animated blood.

The ESRB rating system applies to video games and mobile apps whether packaged in a box at retail or directly downloadable to a game system, PC or mobile device. ESRB employs rating processes that are tailored to the specific platform on which the rated product will be accessible.

Before or shortly after a game is released, the ESRB reviews the packaging inside and out to make sure the rating is displayed accurately and in accordance with ESRB requirements.

ESRB "raters," are mostly people with experience in child education, profession or parenthood. After a publisher submits responses to a detailed questionnaire describing a game's content, a minimum of three raters, working independently of one another, will view video footage of all pertinent content, described on the ESRB web site.  Raters then recommend ratings and descriptors for game content.  ESRB members check the recommendations for a consensus, conduct a "parity exam" and then issue an official rating to the publisher.  The publisher can then accept the rating, appeal, or withdraw.

The ESRB rates an average of over 1,000 games per year. Of the over 13,000 games rated by the ESRB since it's beginning, only 23 have received an AO rating, which has been a common complaint among critics, who think that the ESRB is biased and only has the interest of the publishers in mind.

The Family Entertainment Protection Act imposes heavy fines on individuals or businesses found selling M or AO rated games to minors.

• Rating Categories suggest age appropriateness
• Content Descriptors indicate content that may have triggered a particular rating and/or may be of interest or concern
• Interactive Elements inform about interactive aspects of a product, including users' ability to interact, the sharing of users' location with other users, or the fact that personal information may be shared with third parties
  
  
  
  

Rating Categories

	EARLY CHILDHOOD Content is intended for young children.
	EVERYONE Content is generally suitable for all ages. May contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.
	EVERYONE 10+ Content is generally suitable for ages 10 and up. May contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes.
	TEEN Content is generally suitable for ages 13 and up. May contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling and/or infrequent use of strong language.
	MATURE Content is generally suitable for ages 17 and up. May contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.
	ADULTS ONLY Content suitable only for adults ages 18 and up. May include prolonged scenes of intense violence, graphic sexual content and/or gambling with real currency.
	RATING PENDING Not yet assigned a final ESRB rating. Appears only in advertising, marketing and promotional materials related to a game that is expected to carry an ESRB rating, and should be replaced by a game's rating once it has been assigned.

NOTE: Rating Category assignments can also be based upon a game or app's minimum age requirement.  



www.esrb.org, www.wikipedia.org, www.escapistmagazine.com