Game is now $4000 AUD on eBay!

How is being a fool and wrecking property entertainment? Why would someone need to emulate the idiots in society inorder to "sell" a game title. Clearly the developer lacked the imagination to do anything original and so they decided to make a computer game of something that the majority of society would frown upon.

What is next? Stealing money from old or disadvantaged people? Maybe a game where you are supposed to cheat on exams and steal stuff from stores?

I think this is exactly what should happen - good on the Aussies for doing what is right and correct for the majority.

the game features a world where freedom of expression is suppressed by a tyrannical city government.

I've got an idea for a character in the next version of the game.

But seriously, most of the games out there promote violence, road rage, all kinds of stuff, and they can still be sold. What makes graffiti so important?

Oh, so we should allow anything inappropriate like drugs and guns to be freely allowed - like that works! Perhaps we should allow porn of all types to be available in public libraries, because clearly most parents do the "right thing" and educate their kids... what a joke, what world do you live in? Certainly not this world - many parents are fools and are poor role models - good thing the government steps in and trys to regulates things.

Whilst you might like to think this game is about "expression", clearly the real motive in the game is to break the law.

I'm sorry but I can't be supportive of any game that encourages breaking the law.

Now if the game was on a "magical" kingdom where you "colour" the walls, then I suppose I would be for that. If kids can't tell the difference between make-believe and "pretend" then their parents are not doing the right thing. But when we "try" to emulate the real world so that the breaking of the law is very close, as society, we need to step in a stop this. It sends the wrong message.

I've never understood the whole idea behind banning video games and trying to blame them for various social problems. That's giving games much more influential power than they, or any form of media, ever has had. Really, if someone decides to spray paint just because they've been playing this game, they have other problems unrelated to video games. Parents should be regulating the games that come into their home, because they are the only ones who know if THEIR child is mature enough to understand them. It's not up to the government... And plus, the people in power today see video games as "new" and "confusing." Maybe when people raised on Atari, Nintendo, etc gain political power, we won't see such a witch-hunt on games.

I lived in Melbourne for nearly five years, and I used to really enjoy looking at the graffiti whilst on boring train journeys. I'd MUCH rather look at the graffiti - some of which is absolutely amazing - than a plain, blank grey wall for an hour, but that's just me I suppose.

It would be a much better use of time if they could stop the trains on the Frankston line smelling like stale piss.

I'm on the Hurstbridge line and we get some great graffiti too (our trains also smell like piss). it's always such a shame when someone puts a giant tag over a nice piece of artwork. I see signs everywhere saying "Tagging is illegal" but I don't see anywhere "Graffiti is illegal". Interesting.

I actually like the fact that they spend time cleaning the walls that are covered in graffiti. I take the train every day and it gives me some fresh graffiti to look at. And clears of the ugly black tags.

Although Connex could certainly do with spending their money elsewhere.

I'm sorry but I can't be supportive of any game that encourages breaking the law.

So, do you think this [chathamhillgames.com] game should be banned? It encourages kids to take the roles of 19th century slaves illegally running away and depriving their masters of their lawfully-owned property!

And what about this [wikipedia.org] game, where players are encouraged to steal a continent from its indigenous people, and then to commit high treason against their monarch? Clearly it should be banned! Won't somebody think of the children?!

Sorry, but breaking the law is not always wrong. I would far rather our children were being taught to think for themselves and to actually consider the moral implications of various acts, than that they were being brainwashed into a black-and-white "Obey the laws because the State Knows Best" worldview.

If there is hope, it lies with the proles. Let's educate them.

The difference is that most kids know that killing is wrong, and won't kill someone because of that (as opposed to not killing someone solely because they might get caught). But a lot of kids put graffiti in the same category as underage smoking/drinking, smoking marijuana, shoplifting, and other nonviolent offenses. Nobody gets injured by graffiti and vandalism, so it seems more like a victimless crime, and so a kid's sense of morality is more likely to be swayed by peer pressure and media influence.

I'm not saying the game should be banned. Freedom of speech and all that. But I am saying that games like Getting Up and Tony Hawk's Underground 2 should be rated closer to the adult end of the scale by the ESRB and that retailers should take this rating into account when selling games directly to minors. I'm also saying that developers should think about the impact that their work has on society and make an informed decision about whether they're handling things responsibly, rather than just thinking, "Man, this is sweet!" and charging forward.

Zappa was especially good at pointing out the stupidity of our fine elected officials (and their wives more specifically), even without being actively involved himself. He once had an instrumental album get stickered by the PMRC for explicit lyrics.

"I wrote a song about dental floss but did anyone's teeth get cleaner?" --Frank Zappa

Interesting. Some notes on Colorado. (I'm not a lawyer, don't believe a word I say.)

Open carry is prohibited in many municipalities, but AFAIK Denver is the only county that prohibits it. (That said, all of Denver county is incorporated, so it depends on how you look at it.) The municipality I grew up in did not have such a prohibition in the mid '80s. There was some old-timer that carried openly in the mall!

A concealed carry permit does not confer any additional right to openly carry. You will probably be convicted of "brandishing" if you openly carry in a prohibited location, CCW or no.

Concealed carry is expressly allowed at schools (with the standard CCW). I think this is a very good thing. If a couple of teachers were carrying at Columbine it could have mitigated the effects of the intractable navel-gazing on the part of law enforcement. I also like the idea of guys considering becoming campus rapists having to take the possibility of armed women on campus into account.

On the other hand you may not carry in banks. (I think this is a federal law.) This is one of the most blazingly stupid things I've ever heard of. Criminals are drawn to banks like flies to honey. That's where the money is, after all. And the feds go way out of their way to make sure that every gun in the place is in the hands of a criminal (minus some 80 year old who's punching a clock).

Anyway, interesting stuff to me. I'm off topic. Mods, do your worst!

-Peter

Many outside of Australian would know of a major political issue surrounding an abortion drug. Our health minister overided our medication authority to ban the drug and a conscious vote (non party binding) was held over a minister's ability to override certain decisions. And now (although on an issue of lesser scale) another minister is overriding the decision of an authority, our ratings board. It seems utterly stupid that a single man or women's opinion can affect an entire nation's ability to choose. Games that involve murder have drug themes and other anti-social behaviour is allowed, yet a game involves an art, no matter how controversial, is disallowed. The very reason we live in a democracy is so we can choose, and a single person's opinion/belief/religion isn't forced onto us. By minister having the power to override authority's decisions, we lose our choice.