Slashdot Log In
Jack Thompson Rescinds Offer
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Oct 17, 2005 01:15 PM
from the alter-ego dept.
from the alter-ego dept.
Goalmaster3000 writes to tell us Joystiq.com is reporting that Jack Thompson has rescinded his offer of a $10,000 donation to charity if a video game were made to fit his model. Recently a group of GTA modders cooked up a scenario to fit the bill but apparently Thompson is claiming that his piece 'A Modest Video Game Proposal' was intended as satire that the video game community was not bright enough to grasp. Perhaps Thompson was just afraid he was going to have to sue himself? Update: 10/17 20:02 GMT by SM: It appears that the Penny Arcade crew has taken the next step by donating the promised $10,000... in Jack Thompson's name.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Ugh (Score:5, Interesting)
-Jesse
Re:Ugh (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Ugh (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
I honestly thought the guys who made Postal2 would make his game and put on the box 'Jack Thompson's (insert title)' just to call him out. It wasn't a joke to him, he wanted to know if the game industry would make itself the target instead of cops, hookers and other gangs/inmates to see if gamers would start killing eachother instead of a second grader bringing a gun to kill a fellow student. The man is honestly sick and twisted in a very bad way.
Parent
Re:News Flash: Jack gone postal (Score:5, Interesting)
Personally, I still think the Postal2 team could have made his game and sold millions on it because everyone would accept it as a joke like the rest of thier work. People aren't supposed to take games this seriously, and even one of the institutes he frequently cites for research told him to stop referencing them in every way because he distorts thier studies, and gives them a bad name.
Parent
Re:Minor Corrections. (Score:5, Interesting)
Check out the transcripts of emails between Jackie T. and Scott from VG Cats. It's even worse.
If this guy wants to play with fire, I suggest somebody put up a site to publish all of Jack's threats and verbal abuse (plus nonsense) and see if he gets institutionalized. I seriously think that man is pathologically violent.
Parent
Re:Minor Corrections. (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, I'll do it right now;
http://www.hardcoregamers.com/jack-thompson/ [hardcoregamers.com]
Parent
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, right. If this has taught me anything it is that you will rescind your offer later and say it was satire....
After all, if a lawyer doesn't stand by his word, who will ?!?
Parent
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
But even if all that took place, it doesn't matter - this entire debate is being orchestrated by him. When he stops talking, there's nothing to fill the void - there aren't any pro-game people working the press. When he is talking, the debate is always about how bad these games are - not about how good they are.
The upshot:
If the gaming industry wants to gather public (not just gamer) support, they need to stop reacting and start acting.
This particular challenge is one he can't lose no matter how the industry reacts. "Are you still beating your wife?"
-Adam
Parent
Re:Contact him (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
DON'T CONTACT HIM! (Score:5, Insightful)
Given what we know about his replies already, lets not drag ourselves to his level. The egomaniac craves attention, and guess what examples of the things those "evil gamers who oppose me do" he is going to bring up next? And we already know that he doesn't want to have a civil debate or discussion, so why even bother talking to a brick wall?
He also has been on a losing streak lately, and now you have to add more fuel and "creditability" to his fire. He may be nuts, but encouraging people to harass him just makes us look bad. Even more so when we are reduced to his level of "acting civil."
Seriously slashdot, enough with the spamming/calling/Ddosing of people we don't like; please grow up and be more mature about dealing with things like this. I don't have a problem with informative emails(i.e. non-emotional and informative complaining about company X's defective product or really restrictive DRM), but this one is really asking people not to be civil with the intent to hammer him. Stuff like this and intentionally Ddosing sites(i.e. needing to check the RIAA's site several times, "just to make sure it is still up")make no real progress with the issue at hand.
Parent
Email Transcript (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm honestly not sure if he means that he did commit to donate the money, or that he did give reasons why he won't. I'm also not clear on why he says that he hasn't been contacted WRT which charity to pay, then says that the terms of the proposal weren't met (and therefore implies he won't pay until they have been).
Parent
Wait wait wait (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wait wait wait (Score:5, Funny)
Seen on tombstone:
Comment by a passerby:
Parent
I can believe it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I can believe it. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that there is a case for promissory estoppel here, under contract law. If his satire were good, then maybe he could get away with calling it that, but his satire sucked really bad and it should be treated seriously as a result.
Parent
Re:I can believe it. (Score:5, Funny)
Curiously, this sentence is just as accurate with improper punctuation...
Parent
I have to wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, the feeble "it's satire... really" identifier in the title doesn't change the fact that what follows is several pages of Mr. Thompson very personally fantasizing about violently killing his enemies. And I think the feeble attempts to pretend he was writing satire would mean even less from a legal perspective. Is "gotcha... it was just a joke!" a recognized defense in contract law?
I mean, I am not a lawyer, but then, Jack Thompson appears to only be a lawyer in the most superficial sense. So I would be very curious to see whether Thompson has stumbled into some kind of self-constructed legal trap by putting the offer to donate to charity into his work of "satire". If you post a public notice promising to donate $10,000 to charity if someone does thing X, are you in any way committing to this? Like, those public notices saying "$1000 reward for information leading to the capture of the kidnapper of Media Heartthrob". Are those public notices legally binding to the person who put them up? If so, I'd be very, very interested to see what happens if that group of GTA modders, or the people working on the sprite flash game [derekyu.com], actually complete something. Since both of those games entered production before Thompson issued his retraction, is there any chance they could go to court and try to claim Thompson's offer legally binding or his retraction legally invalid?
Parent
Negation of a negative (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, the irony!
Satire People (Score:5, Insightful)
Idiot (Score:5, Funny)
This man is a moron (Score:5, Interesting)
Thompson kept trying to weave out of the argument, and eventually ended up calling him names, telling him to grow up because he was just a pathetic child, and other crap unbecoming of an attorney. The kid completely won the argument by not only proving that gamers were not just idiotic 14-year-old kids, but also because Thompson resorted to mere name-calling when he couldn't win his argument.
What a fucking moron.
Re:On "taking the high road" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the difference between saying "I can't stand up to you in an argument, so therefore you are an idiot." and saying "You can't stand up to a 14-year-old kid in an argument without resorting to ad hominem attacks, so therefore you are a moron."
Parent
Re:This man is a moron (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:This man is a moron (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Here's the original forum (Score:5, Informative)
Enjoy it. I know I did.
Parent
STOP GIVING THIS GUY FREE PRESS. (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, why is it necessary to point this out?
Re:STOP GIVING THIS GUY FREE PRESS. (Score:5, Insightful)
Given:
- He is a lawyer.
- He is in a position of power.
This makes him a threat and/or newsworthy according to Slashdot and many other people.
It is necessary to point it out that he's simply a troll because people don't understand the fact that whatever he does is simply vapour (based on his "status"/loudness). If you want his detailed history of vapour, just check out his Wikipedia entry, including the sections where he lost an election since his platform was based on personal attacks.
Anybody who reads this message: Just don't make further postings in this thread unless you really have to. Given that you have to wait ~2 minutes between postings, you might as well have the time spent on a posting on something worthwhile.
Parent
Re:STOP GIVING THIS GUY FREE PRESS. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Jack Thompson Is A World-class Asshole (Score:4, Informative)
The guy spouts to be an expert in everything under the sun. But once you call him on it, you come to know he only has a superficial understanding of things. If you can imagine a slimy car salesman, that's Jack.
Re:Jack Thompson Is A World-class Asshole (Score:5, Funny)
Jack Thompson is a third-rate asshole, at best.
Parent
Backfire (Score:5, Funny)
Ah yes. (Score:5, Funny)
MAN 1: I am going to kill you and rape your family!
MAN 2:
MAN 1: What, don't you know satire when you hear it? You have no sense of humor at all. Idiot.
Typo (Score:5, Funny)
Jack is an interesting name... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, I don't think very young people should be playing violent videogames all day, every day but it is not Jack's problem. It is not the government's problem. It is a PARENTAL problem and should be dealt with as such. Parents should take fracking responsibility for raising their children and when their children become delusional, homicidal maniacs they should CONTINUE to take responsibility since it was THEIR parenting techniques that helped little Johnny become what he is today. It takes all of 5 to 15 minutes out of your hectic day to check in on what your child is playing, watching, or reading and if he/she is constantly going over to Billy's or Sandy's house then, as a parent, you had better damn well trust that Billy's Mom and Dad are raising their child like you are raising yours so that your philosophies match (ie. so that little Johhny doesn't run over to Billy's house to play GTA: San Andreas every day because Billy's parents don't give a shit what Billy plays).
Sorry for the rant but I'm past the point of believing the crap about it takes a village to raise a child. How about it takes a concerned parent (single or plural) to raise a child. If your job takes away too much of your parenting time then perhaps you should do without the new BMW and Lexus in the driveway and spend more time with your child, less with your paycheck -- eh?
It takes a village.... (Score:4, Insightful)
See, that responsibility is important and all, but the nuclear family is a relic of the past age. If the parents you mention fail to be concerned enough, we as the metaphorical village get stuck with the sociopathic loser for the next 30-60 years. Their responsibility becomes our responsibility.
Also keep in mind that nothing in American society comes close to the "it takes a village" philosophy. Our society is still nuclear-family at its core, and will not be changing any time soon.
Parent
Re:Jack is an interesting name... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this deserves a name -- let's call it the Slashdot Fallacy: The erroneous equation of one group of people with another group of people merely because the two groups happen to cohabitate on a certain website.
So it's the same people who are taking one position and then another? Do you have links to comments to back that up?
Parent
Depends on Performance (Score:5, Interesting)
First, if you complete the contract first and give sufficient notification of such, and it is prior to his unilateral revocation, you can argue that he breached the contract. As the first person across the line, you are typically entitled to the reward. Breach of that may entitle you to estop the contract. In other words, entitlement to fulfillment of his promise.
Second, if you say that you relied on his contract and had sufficient reason to believe that the contract would be fulfilled (i.e. there is precedent for this type of contract, e.g. auctions for services to be rendered; or it would be unreasonable economic policy to not enforce payment because your reliance on his statement was reasonable and it would be poor form to permit his type of statement when it incurs your type of economically inefficient reliance), you might be able to sue for your costs, your lost opportunity, or his benefit.
Re:Depends on Performance (Score:5, Funny)
In my line of work, an "e-stop" (Emergency Stop) usually means that a potentially dangerous machine just got shut down in a hurry to prevent damage. This frequently involves a bright red, mushroom shaped button, prominently placed on a console or control panel. It is really too bad that we can't E-Stop the average malfunctioning attorney the same way:
Citizen 1: "Whoa, Bob! That Jack dude is running wild again!"
Citizen 2: "Quick, hit the estop!"
Parent
Tycho (Score:5, Interesting)
"Of course, he's not serious. Machination is too glorified a word for what he's doing. Ruse would make it seem debonair. He's essentially holding money hostage from charity, and if someone did make it, even as a joke, he would say that it didn't conform to his "design." This sort of thing is usually called a shell-game."
http://www.penny-arcade.com/news.php?date=2005-10
Re:Tycho (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Jack's game scenario (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, it wasn't that at all? Well, you know if someone had fucking LINKED THE ORIGINAL THING THAT JACK WROTE then I would have known that. Goddamn.
I found this description of the original hoo-hah:
You're welcome.
jack thompson DID donate... (Score:4, Informative)
Media: what's good for me? (Score:5, Insightful)
I love playing Halo. It's exciting and fun, and the "violence" is pretty mild. I have played Unreal Tournament and GTA (older versions), but gave them up because to me, they were too sadistic. They didn't make me want to kill people, but they made me a little more inclined to be a jerk.
It's the same with TV. If I watch a show like "The Shield" or some pissy reality show where everybody hates each other, I get a little bit into that angry, "screw you" mentality.
Think about your personality and attitude. Me, I'm very laid back, because my dad is laid back. I like goofy jokes because my dad does, and my friends growing up did too. (I also watched Monty Python.) I can see how these influences shaped the way I am.
Most of us spend several hours a day using some kind of media - music, TV, internet, video games, etc. Just like the people we're around, these virtual friends DO shape our mentality, somewhat.
I will never be a homocidal maniac, regardless of what I watch or play. But I do know that seeing examples of people who laugh, who love and forgive each other - whether those are real people or on TV - makes it easier for me to do the same. Exposing myself to hours of anger and selfishness makes me likely to replay those thoughts and words. Just because I'm an adult doesn't mean that everything is equally good for me.
Does anybody else see that?
Agreed: Olympic training & Blink (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that in their rush to defend an anything-goes mentality, other posters in this thread overlook obvious connections:
1. Olympic and all world-class athletes use visualization as a part of their training. They imagine themselves doing their sport in as vivid a detail as they can. For example, a weight lifter imagines walking up to the weights, feeling the bar, gripping it, heaving it upwards, etc, etc. They imagine the perfect performance again and again, and it helps to shape their reactions to achieve it.
Your brain does not know the difference between real and imagined. That's why you can get angry "just thinking about that jerk that cut you off this morning". Obviously, higher-level functions allow us to reason and realize "it's just a memory/game" but our instincts and reflexes may not be so lucky.
2. Read Blink and see how what we view affects how we act. In particular, the experiment where people were primed (unknowingly) to be either rude or polite and how unbelievably strong the effect was. The experimenters expected noticable but minor differences and found HUGE differences in reaction that astonished them.
In light of that, someone who spends HOURS trying to grief others and demolish them (or get steamrolled themselves) in vicious ways will, as the parent comment says, definitely be more likely to be jerks. Or worse. And that's the difference, say between sports and video games: you cannot demolish 20 opposing basketball teams in a long night of playing. You can easily do this in video games, including some of my favorites.
Again, I'm not going to kill someone because I play violent games. But please don't ignore obvious and deep issues to say that video games (or porn, or whatever) have nothing to do with anything. (Read Blink's description of gender and racial biases that are very unconscious but can be accurately measured and can be affected by our experiences and then think about how games or porn present various different classes/professions/races/genders and imagine how being "primed" in this way would affect attitudes and interactions, even if they never were consciously accepted and acted upon in open ways.)
Parent
Very strange man... (Score:5, Interesting)
When all this fuss kicked off over the last few weeks, I read a bit of what he has to say. And to be honest, reading what he says to people in private correspondance (and to an extent in his public statements) you get the impression that he's a rabid loon. Then on Penny Arcade, I spotted a link to an audio interview [chatterboxgameshow.com] some guys did with him. I downloaded and had a listen. And to give the man some credit, he comes across much better in person. I'm much less surprised that he gets the attention he does, having listened to him - he comes across as a slightly opinionated but earnest and frank concerned guy, worried about the effect games have on kids and teenagers. At least, he does initially.
After a while though, when he's gone past the fairly logical point of discussing M-rated game sales to minors with someone who agrees with him, he starts getting a bit out there. EA in cahoots with the porn industry, deliberately aiming for them to make porno skins for The Sims? Please. Thing is, because he *seems* reasonable, people who don't know too much about games probably think he *is* reasonable. And in small doses, for short periods of time, he probably is. But disagree too much, scratch the surface of his arguments, and things suddenly get a lot stranger...
Re:What a prick. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Who is Jack Thompson? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent