Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Red Cross Debates If Virtual Killing Violates International Humanitarian Law

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the waking-up-in-crazy-town dept.

The Courts 516

Ron2K writes in with a story about a Red Cross committee that is debating if people playing war video games should be subject to the same humanitarian laws as people in a real war. Seriously. "With 62 billion kills in Call of Duty: Black Ops alone, a committee of the Red Cross is debating whether the International Humanitarian Law is applicable to online gamers, and if they are violating it. From the committee's site: 'While the Movement works vigorously to promote international humanitarian law worldwide, there is also an audience of approximately 600 million gamers who may be virtually violating International Humanitarian Law. 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 this law in video games.' While it's questionable if gamers themselves can be prosecuted for not obeying the Geneva convention, the Red Cross committee's actions seem to be aimed more at game developers — as first person shooters become more realistic, do game developers have an obligation to include humanitarian elements?"

cancel ×

516 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Retarded. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301048)

What's next, virtual animal rights activists?

Re:Retarded. (5, Informative)

pauldmartin (2005952) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301074)

What's next, virtual animal rights activists?

Actually, yes--check out this little gem from PETAs new anti-mario campaing: http://features.peta.org/mario-kills-tanooki/ [peta.org] I kid you not.

Re:Retarded. (-1, Flamebait)

Chexsum (583832) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301190)

you are gay!

Re:Retarded. (5, Insightful)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301192)

I'm guessing that the PETA and the Red Cross are both just trying to grab headlines with a move that is blatantly stupid. At least, I hope I'm giving their marketing people more credit than their membership.

Re:Retarded. (5, Informative)

xaxa (988988) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301360)

It looks like it was a "side event" at a conference. See here [icrc.org] .

I can't find any extra information on the ICRC website, can anyone else? Otherwise, it's most likely that the Daily Mail fabricated the rest of the story. Most of the article is speculation, except for a copy+paste from the website I linked to.

Re:Retarded. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301388)

How to shoot yerself in the foot in 3 steps:
1. piss off 30% of the world population
2. watch your donations decline
3. watch real people die due to shrinking budget
But at least those virtual soldiers can now rest assured that red cross is thinking about them, which was all worth it.

Re:Retarded. (1)

Soul-Burn666 (574119) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301334)

Oblig response [dorkly.com] .
These accusations are retarded in a level that shows how blind these groups are to their cause. I thought their cause was to reduce animals getting hurt. Not pixels on computer monitors.

Re:Retarded. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301346)

Thank you for explaining the joke!

Short answer (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301054)

Yes, I believe so, though I expect the basement-dwelling libertarians around here to scream bloody murder.

Somewhere, a lawyer is crying. (5, Insightful)

Pubstar (2525396) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301056)

I can almost here Jack Thompson weep for not thinking about this first.

Re:Somewhere, a lawyer is crying. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301068)

Somewhere, a disbarred lawyer is crying.

fixed that for you

Re:Somewhere, a lawyer is crying. (1)

Pubstar (2525396) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301090)

Oh yeah, completely forgot about that. My brain isn't working too well tonight, it seems.

Re:Somewhere, a lawyer is crying. (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301316)

Somewhere else, a team of international war crime lawyers are laughing and rubbing their hands with glee.

what a load of (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301062)

What a complete load of shit. Just like the movies. Its not real. Are we going to start arresting actors who pretend to kill in movies ? Its a bunch of pixels changing color and has nothing to do with laws against HUMAN rights.

Re:what a load of (2)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301144)

Now you friggin done it!

Re:what a load of (5, Funny)

worip (1463581) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301180)

Don't forget the books. Stephen King is a mass murdered and must be stopped.

Re:what a load of (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301220)

Now you know why we have to deal with this bullshit over and over again. When we say that people do distinguish between real and virtual, we can't even imagine that there are bozos who can't tell one from the other, and then comes the Red Cross and proves us wrong.

Somewhat reasonable (5, Interesting)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301306)

It's not about arrests. They're basically talking about using moral suasion.

It's just another element of the game.

I know it seems ludicrous on first thought, but it's actually quite reasonable. Reason: People are crying out for "realism" in games down to the last blade of grass.

Well, if you're going to have realism, I guess you'd need all the other stuff that comes in a war: not just America's Army and the Taliban, but also the Red Cross. In fact, for a multiplayer game, some people could be Red Cross personnel. And it makes perfect sense to deduct points for illegal kills (i.e., after someone has already surrendered to you).

Re:Somewhat reasonable (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301418)

People are crying out for "realism" in games down to the last blade of grass.

Realistic graphics? Yes. Realism? No. Otherwise military shooters would consist of hours, possibly days, of doing absolutely nothing. Then there might be a 5 minute conflict where you kill a couple guys. Then a few hours later you might end up with a standoff where it takes you 30 minutes just to take out 1 guy. And through it all, if you get shot once in the right place...game over, no continues.

Re:what a load of (1, Insightful)

fsckmnky (2505008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301410)

The funny thing about non-profit groups is that they don't exist in a competitive environment. When people hand you money, and you sit around all day deciding how to make everyone feel good, competitive behaviors seem foreign and wrong.

When you live in the private sector, outside the bubble that non-profit organizations live in, competitive behaviors are a natural part of everyday life.

The reality is, that humans are animals, and compete with each other for resources, and it would be interesting to see what happens if the individuals in the non-profit non-performing bubble are left to their own devices to eat. The resulting mental conflict might cause them to self-implode. ;)

And here I thought.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301064)

.... the Red Cross had real problems to solve.

Re:And here I thought.... (1)

Jmanamj (1077749) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301098)

Exactly the line my thoughts took.

Go away Red Cross. Stop trying to grab attention and headlines, and get back to whatever it is you were doing before so rudely interrupting our privacy debate. We thought you were better than this.

Re:And here I thought.... (1)

Stumbles (602007) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301194)

Ditto. I fail to see how even in the remotest, obtuse way games/virtual worlds should even encroach on the outer most fringe of the Red Cross's thinking. My tin foil hat says there is a wookie putting them up to this.

It's not worded very well, but... (5, Insightful)

jibjibjib (889679) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301070)

To me it sounds like the Red Cross is upset about the *depiction* of *fictional* violations in games. I don't think they're saying that gamers are literally violating real-world laws.

Re:It's not worded very well, but... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301082)

To me, that's only slightly better.

Re:It's not worded very well, but... (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301104)

Do they have any comments on the depiction of violence in literature?

Re:It's not worded very well, but... (2)

Chexsum (583832) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301202)

s/literature/fictional literature/g

Re:It's not worded very well, but... (3, Interesting)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301378)

The committee's action is aimed more towards developers: as war games become more realistic, do they have a responsibility to add humanitarian elements to their games?

Sounds like the exact role of the committee : Promoting human rights and international laws of war. I could see real world prosecutions but from an unexpected angle : A national army (let's say Italy) could attack a given game that would allow players to play Italian soldiers and see them promoted for senseless killing, despite international laws violation.

It could be fair that developers are barred from using real armies in games branded as realistic if they do not take into account the doctrine of these armies. That could be considered as slander. Imagine that in Deus Ex the evil company you fight would be called Microsoft. Or Mosanto.

The problem is that it could also be considered as a political opinion, protected by free speech. I think it is an interesting debate. I am not sure what my opinions are on this one but I think that it shouldn't be dismissed as a silly one.

Re:It's not worded very well, but... (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301414)

I see your point, but you don't see Russia whinging about their portrayal in modern war games.

Re:It's not worded very well, but... (2)

Warwick Allison (209388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301384)

Exactly. They are saying the gamers are virtually violating, just as they are virtually killing. The Red Cross is correct to suggest that developers should consider allowing virtual surrender, virtual trial for war crimes, or whatever. They are not suggesting any real crime is being committed, but as they have far more experience with the realities of war than developers and gamers, it's fair for them to suggest such things be considered.

When you look at the much publicised and repeated violations perpetrated in recent conflicts, it's clear that a little education could have benefits.

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301076)

this is so funny i fell of my chair. some ppl are living in paralel reality...

There are real problems (4, Insightful)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301078)

We have enough reall problems without inventing them. This is wrong headed. Games are just a form of expression like books, movies, other art, etc. I don't think you can accept the premis here without also agreeing that sOmething should be done anytime a film is made or a story is written where someone violates the Geneva convention.

Re:There are real problems (2)

laejoh (648921) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301162)

Second, it would lead us to this [xkcd.com] . Do we really want it to happen? I say the Red Cross must be stopped!

Next thing you know... (4, Funny)

Genda (560240) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301084)

In a related scandal, Electronic Arts is being investigated for the use of virtual steroids in its pro sports game line.

Re:Next thing you know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301106)

They were just leveling the virtual playing field!

Two thoughts (5, Informative)

0123456789 (467085) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301092)

Firstly, this is a Daily Fail story - take with a large pinch of salt. As shown in the Leveson inquiry, they're happy to run "Organisation wants to ban something" story one day, then "Our campaign has forced organisation to back down" the next - despite no such banning effort happening. In addition, they do have a "anything invented after 1900 is suspicious" agenda. Secondly, if the Red Cross actually are debating this, perhaps it's in an effort to revise International Humanitarian Law to keep up with the times, inasmuch as International Humanitarian Law actually exists.

Re:Two thoughts (4, Insightful)

ratbag (65209) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301134)

0-9 is right. Please stop putting Daily Mail stories on the front page. They're tantamount to fiction.

Re:Two thoughts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301344)

0-9 is right. Please stop putting Daily Mail stories on the front page. They're tantamount to fiction.

Yeah, stick with mainstream sources like CBS or NY Times.

Because we want news that really is made up. "Fake but accurate" and Jayson Blair, anyone?

Mod this down? Truth hurts, eh?

Re:Two thoughts (3, Interesting)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301286)

Firstly, this is a Daily Fail story - take with a large pinch of salt. As shown in the Leveson inquiry, they're happy to run "Organisation wants to ban something" story one day, then "Our campaign has forced organisation to back down" the next - despite no such banning effort happening. In addition, they do have a "anything invented after 1900 is suspicious" agenda.

Well, quite. There's a less hysterical account of the story here [kotaku.com] . The concern does appear to be the age-old debate on the effect of violent games on the perception of violence.

I think a shooting game in which one has to choose who to shoot (which seems to be the main thing they are complaining about -- indiscriminate killing of non-combatants and prisoners of war) would tend to be a better game than one in which you shoot everything that moves and most things that don't,and the overhead of having to deal with prisoners of war might make for an interesting game dynamic, but I don't see those as matters for legislation. Still, game makers could make in-game compliance with international human rights law more realistic by mentioning, if the player survives to the end (so it will never happen in unbounded games) that the protagonist might have to answer to the court for their actions a couple of years after game time.

Re:Two thoughts (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301356)

That's the best idea I have ever heard! Imagine getting banned from your gaming account because after a while, you end up in in-game court, complete with witnesses and recorded video of you firing down civilians. Excellent. Punishment could range from weeks of suspension to outright ban of account.

All badges could be stripped etc too. Say good bye to that Purple Cross badge!

Re:Two thoughts (4, Informative)

retroworks (652802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301312)

I'm in the USA, and I know to dismiss Daily Mail headlines thanks to years on Slashdot. It would be nice if the Slashdot submitter or moderator could work some kind of a disclaimer into these summaries or headlines. The Onion has funny stories, too. If /. promotes Onion and Mail headlines without warning that they are suspicious, it could harm /. reputation in the long run. With that said, I do know the pressures of "slow news day". Maybe Daily Mail should just be like The Onion and nothing no disclaimer is necessary.

u mad infinity ward? (1)

Theophany (2519296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301108)

I feel like I'm being trolled by an international organisation. This could only be more retarded if they changed their name to The Retarded Cross. And issued the statement in crayon. With a five year-old spokestoddler fielding questions from the press.

It's fun to be the bad guy. (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301110)

Why are games that let you perform crimes so popular. Because it is fun to be the bad guy with no consequences.
When you play the evil character it helps the person unwind from a day of balancing things that need to get done and done right. Having mean people being mean but you cannot fight back. So you play a game where you kill as many people you like as a quick release. It is better then start drinking or smoking at the end of the day.

HIGH time that they did .... dammit. (2)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301114)

as first person shooters become more realistic, do game developers have an obligation to include humanitarian elements?

i tell you that it is past time that they did ! i am gaming since 1986, and im telling you, i am about to puke war/carnage/slaughter/disaster and shit.

i really really fed up with games - one way its total carnage, mayhem, slaughter, killing, and the other way is stuff like sims 3/second life.

there is no middle area. its as if either carnage/mayhem or total opposite exists, if you view the world from games' perspective. TOTALLY unrealistic, and tiring.

so its high time they included humanitarian elements in games. and, humanitarian elements even in carnage/war/destruction games too. REALISM requires that.

Re:HIGH time that they did .... dammit. (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301216)

Have you played Deus-Ex: Human Evolution?

Re:HIGH time that they did .... dammit. (4, Insightful)

Sparx139 (1460489) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301230)

Wait, The Sims is in the butterflies and sunshine camp? I spent my childhood creating mass graves with manners of death to match any B-Grade slasher flick

Re:HIGH time that they did .... dammit. (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301254)

as first person shooters become more realistic, do game developers have an obligation to include humanitarian elements?

i tell you that it is past time that they did ! i am gaming since 1986, and im telling you, i am about to puke war/carnage/slaughter/disaster and shit.
i really really fed up with games - one way its total carnage, mayhem, slaughter, killing, and the other way is stuff like sims 3/second life

Have you considered expressing your opinion by not buying them any longer?

Lives saved (5, Funny)

cheebie (459397) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301116)

Does this mean I can get a couple of virtual Nobel Peace Prizes for the trillions of e-lives I saved playing Mass Effect?

Re:Lives saved (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301140)

Does this mean I can get a couple of virtual Nobel Peace Prizes for the trillions of e-lives I saved playing Mass Effect?

No, but looking at previous Nobel Peace prizes it looks like you could get the real one.

Re:Lives saved (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301172)

Considering that we award the real Nobel Peace Prize to killers and warmongers on a regular basis, I think you're going about it the wrong way.

Why don't movies violate this? (1)

Zandamesh (1689334) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301120)

Movies are much more realistic, why not start there first?

Re:Why don't movies violate this? (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301228)

Because you don't participate in the movie.

Re:Why don't movies violate this? (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301240)

No, but the actors do. Which means Arnie has a lot of crimes to answer for.

Re:Why don't movies violate this? (1)

Warwick Allison (209388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301402)

No, the characters do. The actors are just delivering lines in front of a green screen half of the time.

Google 'international red cross call of duty' Mail (5, Interesting)

gjscott332 (1520955) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301128)

This is the daily mail, pretty pointless reading anything they say about computer without a quick fact check. The wired article make more sense: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/12/video-games-war-crime/ [wired.com] Playing the game is not a war crime, using a realistic game to train soldiers who then go onto commit the crime in real life could mean the trainer is commiting one as well as the trainee.

Re:Google 'international red cross call of duty' M (0)

wellingtonsteve (892855) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301302)

This is the daily mail, pretty pointless reading anything they say without a quick fact check FTFY

Re:Google 'international red cross call of duty' (1)

gjscott332 (1520955) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301392)

Thanks, shame you can't fix my missing words and bad title....

So..... (0)

Spottywot (1910658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301130)

Someone relatively high up in the Red Cross plays BF3 and is disgusted by spawn campers. That's not as crazy as it sounds, after all the Princess Diana campaign has already got rid of persistent mines!

No. (1)

Onymous Hero (910664) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301146)

Sorry but electrons don't have human rights.

Haven't the RC got famines to deal with rather than being a trolling NGO?

fiction vs reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301152)

So, do fiction writers, painters, etc also should be rounded up as war criminals if they create art that demonstrates acts of killing?

How far should we draw the line between the "real" and "not real"? What is the abstraction level that is needed for it to be "abstract enough to not be a violation"?

Is chess also violating? Killing the pawn, etc.
Go?

Angry Birds?

Simple Solution (2)

Prof Dodecahedron (1233766) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301154)

If virtual killing breaks a law, then there should be a virtual court, and a virtual sentencing (if guilty) and put the person in a virtual prison.

What they haven't addressed is... What if I kill someone in my imagination? Should I put myself in an imaginary prison?

Hear, here! (1)

Chexsum (583832) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301160)

Violence is begotten!

summary wrong as always (2)

MoZ-RedShirt (192423) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301174)

They are not talking about prosecuting the real gamers if they violate laws or international treaties inside of a game.

They want game developers to include features in their games, that your game character has to face court martial if the gamer breaks laws or rules of engagement. So they want virtual consequenses for virtual crimes. Sounds fair enough for me.

RedShirt

Re:summary wrong as always (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301294)

Yes, war is much more palatable when it's "fair."

Ummmm (1)

i-c-electrons (1467179) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301178)

It's simulated armed conflict. You don't shoot unarmed civilians, everybody is armed. What happens when you die, you re spawn, so in essence you don't die. I think kids playing tag is inhumane. Same concept. Can't believe I RTFA, time that I will never get back.

Seriously? (1)

golden age villain (1607173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301196)

It sounds like it is straight out of a South Park episode... More seriously, there is an interesting article about the brain and video games which touches on these issues in the last issue of Nature Reviews Neuroscience http://www.nature.com/nrn/journal/v12/n12/abs/nrn3135.html [nature.com] (subscription needed).

I'd better be careful what I think (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301204)

I was thinking about reading a fake news article on The Onion about pretending to kill a virtual opponent in a video game I haven't bought yet. Even worse, now I feel bad about unnecessarily killing imaginary castle guards and not completing Thief Deadly shadows in pure stealth mode.

It's the Daily Mail (2, Interesting)

MrNthDegree (2429298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301206)

....nothing to see here. The Daily Mail is the UK newspaper equivalent of the televised Fox News in the U.S.....

Consequences? (1)

Dorsch (1773388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301210)

Will I have to pay taxes for my house in Skyrim? Will I be charged with manslaughter for the Tamagochi I dropped years ago?

Re:Consequences? (1)

sjwt (161428) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301408)

I don't know about the manslaughter charge, but I am pretty sure it is 7-10years for owning a Tamagochi!

iRobot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301212)

Technically murder is defined as one human being killing another.

Think about it seriously and honestly! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301222)

I think the question posed by the RC is valid. If someone plays "Call-of-AK47-whatever 7.0" and he is shooting the virtual civilians, POWs and wounded that appear in that game, is that OK?

If it is OK and that "shoot everything" teenager grows up to eventually join some armed forces, will he be more likely to participate in a real-world My Lai or Oradour repeat carnage, compared to soldiers who do not have an FPS video game background, or those, who did obey the rules of war, even in their videogamer years?

They do have a point (3, Insightful)

saibot834 (1061528) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301226)

Of course "virtual murder" is nothing like a real murder. But, the depictions in video games do shape our perception of the real world, as do other media (like movies). Most recent high-budget shooters aim to present modern warfare, but tend to show only the positive aspects (adventurous, exciting, etc.), while omitting all the pain and suffering that comes with it. Additionally they show only the very limited viewpoint of one (US) soldier, not the view of the other waring party or civilians.

In film, we'd call that a "pro-war film" or even "propaganda film", and it's right to criticize those games. (On the other hand, I have no problem with shooters like UnrealTournament or Quake3 – they don't aim to show how the war is, so they don't fail while doing so)

Re:They do have a point (1)

TimMD909 (260285) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301260)

Don't sell me shit and tell me it's a Playstation. (That goes for you too, Santa... I digress...)

They're asking, "Should fantasy have to follow the same rules that lawmakers make for the real world?" The answer to that is always, "No."

If it's not immediately obvious, switch the argument around to, "Should the real world have to follow the rules made up in video games?"

I welcome this.. (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301234)

It would stop noobtubers and all those dicks using anti tank rockets on people.

Re:I welcome this.. (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301256)

Being forced to sniff my killer's balls is a crime worthy of hanging.

I demand action!

Seriously, I expect the Daily Fail to champion my cause.

And Slashdot: C'mon, enough of this shite. You don't post stories from The Sun or The Mirror. Don't post made-up shite from the Daily Fail.

Virtual Violations... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301236)

Don't regulation of virtual killing require virtual laws?

If the Red Cross would like to purport their law applies to frags, (the technical term for a virtual kill), are they not declaring their law is essentially virtual and should not considered in real wars between nations? Are humanitarian laws even really considered in real wars, or is it an after the fact type of consideration designed to "bring justice" to oppressors?

Maybe even, are they declaring that real wars are actually games that few have the privilege to play?

News at 11: Red Cross Committee Wastes Money (1)

TimMD909 (260285) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301248)

In a bold and ingenious move, the Red Cross formed a committee to determine if fantasy needs to follow the same rules as reality. Separating reality and fantasy has become increasingly difficult. We've all been aware since the Harry Potter movies came out that something needed to be done. It's about time!

It's time we all stood up and stopped all the needless Avada Kedavra related deaths!

(For the next part, image me painted up like Mel Gibson in "Braveheart" and screaming for the proper effect)
WHO'S WITH ME?!?!?!

What a load of.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301252)

I'm sorry, this is just so far beyond ridiculous I'm left wondering if it's actually the first of April. It's a freaking VIDEO GAME. IT IS NOT REAL. Anything you do within the confines of a digital game simply can't be a crime.

Geneva convention? It's a video game people, honestly.

If you want to address a real crime in relation of Call of Duty, how about charging people 60$ for a bugged out multiplayer experience that allows players to cheat and use glitches to their advantage while never, EVER actually plugging the holes that make this possible.

What is the Red Cross *Actually* debating (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301258)

Couldn't find anything on the actual website, and the Daily Fail is known for sensationalism.

If they're genuinely concerned that games are glorifying wart and especially the violence, and are suggesting developers might want to include a slightly more intelligent premise, I think they have a decent point.

before this ever reaches the gamer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301262)

they should seriously try to do this in game then go to the developer, I don't think it'd ever be possible to follow the geneva convention in games as they stand right now and complete them

Film. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301274)

Do they hold the same views towards the film makers and their industry?

Video games are just another form of entertainment.

What about processes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301280)

If I execute `kill 1`, am I guilty of killing an entire population (of processes)?

This is so fucking retarded (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301282)

Fucking idiots.

Probably sympathizers with the American democratic party.

credibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301288)

And how much money are they spending on the committee debating this (non-)issue? With all the humanitarian need all over the world Red Cross is really lowering their credibility even considering this.

Re:credibility (0)

Warwick Allison (209388) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301416)

Why don't you go find out? Or do you like being a ranting redneck dimwit so much you'd rather stay ignorant?

It's not that hard a concept. (1)

lattyware (934246) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301322)

It's not real. War films can contain horrible war crimes, as can books - it makes sense because it's not real and sometimes you need those things to produce a good story or retell an event (not that you need to have a reason to do something horrible to stuff that doesn't exist). Games are just another medium, why are people being so stupid?

Phew, I'm glad we "capture" in chess (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301326)

I mean, now that they've given up trying to influence the people actually involved in war, and are going after nerds instead, who'll be next? Tabletop gamers? Magic the Gathering conventions?

OMG, I've just realised than in Civilisation, units get totally obliterated. Maybe they could press for the next version to feature mass graves, investigative journalists and an international virtual court?

Not questionable at all (2)

rastos1 (601318) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301340)

While it's questionable if gamers themselves can be prosecuted for not obeying the Geneva convention,

Of course they should be prosecuted. Virtually.

Oh the inhumanity of it all!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301348)

So does distracting your Sim until they wet themselves now count as cruel and unusual punishment?

I propose a compromise (1)

mykos (1627575) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301352)

How about this:

We'll administer real punishments for fake crimes against real people

We'll administer fake punishments for fake crimes against fake people

What about films then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38301362)

Rambo going to Haag international court in 3.. 2.. 1..

Idiocy (1)

Torp (199297) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301364)

Don't they have victims of real wars to take care of? Whoever is spending donation money on this idea should be the one going on trial for war crimes...

One word (1)

ProfanityHead (198878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301366)

Crimethink

Geneva convention and the Red Cross symbol (1)

HnT (306652) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301376)

The article is extremely flimsy on the details - the only thing I can imagine worth discussing for the Red Cross, of all organizations, is: the red cross is an internationally protected and recognized symbol of protection and according to the convention's rules, medical personnel and vehicles with that sign may not be attacked and/or destroyed. In turn, the symbol may only be associated with medical care; under no circumstances are personnel or vehicles baring that symbol allowed to transport weapons or engage in active combat!

With video games and gamers surely not caring too much about that, maybe the Red Cross just wants to make sure the symbol isn't being abused anywhere, video games included?

WARNING - DAILY MAIL (3, Informative)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301390)

Please realise that this story is published in a far-right newspaper originally started to publish the antisemitic views of Oswald Moseley. The Daily Mail is anti-government, anti-Europe, against socialised healthcare or indeed any form of social responsibility, and run by people known to be members of right-wing extremist groups.

If you're not white, English and a good tax-paying servant^Wcitizen, the Daily Mail hate you and want you jailed, deported, or dead.

Umm... (1)

dnewt (2457806) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301396)

Does this mean I'll get arrested from now on for cheating people out of money when playing Monopoly?

The Hague... (1)

garry_g (106621) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301400)

... would no doubt be swamped holding 600 million war crime law suits ...

GTA (1)

ameen.ross (2498000) | more than 2 years ago | (#38301406)

Shouldn't they go after all those serial killers, car thieves and enemies of the state, who are playing GTA?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>