Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Education Entertainment Games

GameStop Manager Suspended After "Games for Grades" 539

mikesd81 writes "A manager at a GameStop has been suspended for instituting a 'games for grades' policy. 'Brandon Scott says he started a unique new policy in his store to promote good grades in school but now his employer has sent him to detention for speaking out of turn. Scott says he's been suspended by GameStop in the wake of his unconventional "games for grades" policy at an Oak Cliff store.' Apparently, on his own, Scott decided to stop selling video games to any school-age customer unless an adult would vouch for the student's good grades."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GameStop Manager Suspended After "Games for Grades"

Comments Filter:
  • Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fierythrasher ( 777913 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @05:53PM (#20643691) Homepage
    I can understand giving kids a discount for good grades...had he done that and been suspended then that would have been wrong, but refusing to sell? That's just bad business.
  • idiot (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Turn-X Alphonse ( 789240 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @05:54PM (#20643703) Journal
    So some idiot decides to abuse his power (for better or worse does not matter) and loses the company money? How is this remotely surprising? He's a bean counter, if he decides anything but which colour beans to count this week he gets kicked out for someone else.
  • by garcia ( 6573 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @05:59PM (#20643763)
    They can just say that they fired him for lack of sales and be done with.

    There's a high probability that they don't have to give him any reason why they let him go. Honestly, while this might be great and all in theory, I don't see why GameStop wouldn't act the way they did, it would be different if this guy owned his own store and was instituting his own policy. When you work for corporate America you follow the proper channels or you end up like this poor bastard.
  • Great idea! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by bdjacobson ( 1094909 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @06:01PM (#20643787)
    Because, you know, it's not like good grades will earn you anything else in life.

    And then the parents wonder why their children aren't ready for the real world-- because they haven't been shown any of it!
  • Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by toddbu ( 748790 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @06:03PM (#20643829)
    Bad business, perhaps, but is it bad policy? I hear a lot of people complaining that corporate America is heartless and doesn't care, yet when one guy tries to do something that's right for the kids then he gets picked on. Why is it unreasonable for a company to say that they're unwilling to promote bad grades?
  • Re:Bad idea (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 17, 2007 @06:06PM (#20643867)
    Well - it would have been wrong had he been paying the discount himself. If he was just stealing from GameStop to make up the difference, he'd deserve to be fired too.

    In any case, it makes perfect sense that GameStop would want to fire him. He's basically turning away customers for his own moral reasons. I'll bet he got fired because some kid complained to GameStop.

    To be honest, I'm not sure I like the idea of refusing to sell games to kids with poor grades. That seems like something the parents should be doing. But then again, as a Libertarian, I think the manager has a right to decide to do it. (Offended shoppers can just shop elsewhere.) And, of course, GameStop has every right to fire him over it - it's their store, their policies. If he disagrees, he can go open his own store.
  • Lesson (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @06:10PM (#20643903)
    The lesson here is: don't try to be someone's Mom unless you are his Mom.

    I wish more people in our society would learn this lesson. I'm old enough to not need a Mom to tell me what to do or not to do. Kids, on the other hand, already have a Mom and don't really need 50 of them.
  • by Ace905 ( 163071 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @06:11PM (#20643911) Homepage
    No matter what 'system' he came up with, he should be fired for putting another step in the middle of the "Hi I want to buy this", "Here you go" process.

    If anybody thinks this guy is a good Samaritan or should be rewarded, you're living in your own little hippy infested lovey dovey moron world. He just made customers go another block to the 'other of a million' game stores and buy there for the same competitive price.

    He also took away a pretty basic freedom / right from all of his younger customers. So maybe he's the one that needs to learn a lesson. I wish I lived close enough to refuse to buy anything from this store ever again. If the government instituted the same policy for merchants - there would be riots in the streets.

  • No. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Enoxice ( 993945 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @06:12PM (#20643931) Journal
    He shouldn't have instituted this policy. The trick to business is to sell things to people that can buy said things, not to say "Sorry, kid, your money is no good here. We don't cater to no dumb people."

    It's completely insane to deny a sale to anyone for any criteria other than that which makes them eligible to own (i.e. you can't buy this m-rated game because you are 4 years old, or you only have $7). I mean, that's like saying "Sorry, you can't buy this car because you work at McDonalds. I don't care if you can pay in full in cash right now, have great credit, etc, etc."

    Having the opposite policy (as some seem to be suggesting) would have been equally as bad. A discount for good grades is just as discriminatory; "Sorry, Mr. Gates, we can't sell you this Toyota - you'll have to go to the Porche dealer down the street."
  • by Moryath ( 553296 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @06:12PM (#20643937)
    Look, fools, you can't have it both ways. Either there are going to be standards, or there aren't. There's already a standard that you don't sell M-rated games to underage kids, this isn't any different.

    If he's unwilling to sell games to kids who are flunking out of school? I TOTALLY LOVE THAT STAND. Seriously, think about it. We have major issues these days with schools being fucked up. If kids aren't making the grade, we may love games, but just letting them play the games is not going to teach them to take school (and work) seriously.

    Fuck Gamestop for suspending him. They should be putting him on a pedestal and making this a nationwide policy.
  • by cduffy ( 652 ) <charles+slashdot@dyfis.net> on Monday September 17, 2007 @06:16PM (#20644015)
    Sure, that's how many stores do operate, but why does a store have to operate that way? Read his account he turned down only about two dozen sales, and some of those kids came back and made purchases later after cleaning up their grades.

    If he gets parents' support through his policies, that has potential to result in a net increase of sales -- two dozen transactions isn't that may in the larger scheme of things.
  • by CrazyJim1 ( 809850 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @06:21PM (#20644091) Journal
    Example: Someone has a car and good grades, but doesn't like to cart his mom with him. Result: No games for you!

  • by Reason58 ( 775044 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @06:25PM (#20644137)
    Chuck E. Cheese used to have something very similar. You bring in your report card, and you would get free tokens for each good grade. When I read the title I thought this is what the manager was doing and thought it was a fantastic idea. After reading his negative-reinforcement approach, however, I agree fully with his dismissal.
  • by Jartan ( 219704 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @06:28PM (#20644189)

    If he's unwilling to sell games to kids who are flunking out of school? I TOTALLY LOVE THAT STAND. Seriously, think about it. We have major issues these days with schools being fucked up. If kids aren't making the grade, we may love games, but just letting them play the games is not going to teach them to take school (and work) seriously.


    What's the cutoff though? I agree if someone is flunking and in danger of being held back a year then they shouldn't be playing games. But what about people who are barely passing? Are you willing to go so far as to let society dictate to them a change in lifestyle? Do you even know if the school that person is going to is properly testing the student?

    When so many questions are being asked about the institutions supplying those grades (in the US) the idea seems dangerous. A lot of those kids who are barely passing are the smart ones because they aren't buying into the bullshit daycare system they've been shoved into.
  • by Rix ( 54095 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @06:32PM (#20644253)
    He hasn't the authority to be making those decisions. If the president of GameStop decided to do this it would be fine. When a peon goes behind the President's back and does it, it's a different story.
  • by rainman_bc ( 735332 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @06:34PM (#20644267)

    and since grades are set based on relative achievement
    No, grades are set based on achievement against a standard. Most schools don't grade on a curve. I used to have university profs say "everyone starts with an A, it's yours to lose".

    Props to the Gamestop guy for trying to bring some morality to this industry.
  • by fishybell ( 516991 ) <fishybell.hotmail@com> on Monday September 17, 2007 @06:43PM (#20644359) Homepage Journal

    They should be putting him on a pedestal and making this a nationwide policy.

    Because, after all, gamestop should be parenting rather than, oh, I don't know, the parents. If parents wants to let their kids play games all day instead of studying they're not exactly right, but more power to them. You can't force people to make the right desisions.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 17, 2007 @06:45PM (#20644389)
    My thoughs exactly, very poor implementation here. The intent was to reward kids for getting good grades. The execution was to have a parent come in with the kid and vouch for him, otherwise no sale. So a straight A grade 10 student could walk in with his report card in hand, and would be refused sale. Meanwhile little Billy, who's not so good in school, simply has to convince his mom to come into the store and lie for him, and he gets service. It's really not the brightest way to do things.

    What probably really happened though is he just wanted to kick certain cliental out of the store, so came up with this rule, then media picked it up and put a nice spin on it.
  • by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @06:49PM (#20644431)
    A manager is a person hired to oversee operations for someone else. He doesn't own the store, he doesn't make the policies, he just runs it. If it was his store, great, but pulling that at a place you don't own could even get you sued for lost revenue in addition to fired.

    Also it is stupid because it really isn't a store's job to play police over what people buy. If parents don't want their kids playing games, that is their responsibility. It isn't his responsibility to make that decision for them. Maybe a parent decides that Cs are good enough. Maybe their kid isn't all that bright and Cs are all they can do, and that's doing well for them and thus they are rewarded for it.

    As I said: If you want to open a store based on this, go right ahead. However don't be surprised if you find your business suffers for it. If you choose to work for someone else as their representative, your duty is to do what they tell you. If their policy is "Sell to anyone who has the money," it is your duty to do that. You were not hired to play morality police, you were hired to do a job. If they had a policy prohibiting all sales to minors, it would be your duty to do that as well, even if it was costing them money.

    I get real tired of people trying to play morality police with others. How about you decide how you and your family are going to live your lives, and I'll decide for me and mine?
  • Re:Bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ultranova ( 717540 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @06:52PM (#20644469)

    Bad business, perhaps, but is it bad policy? I hear a lot of people complaining that corporate America is heartless and doesn't care, yet when one guy tries to do something that's right for the kids then he gets picked on. Why is it unreasonable for a company to say that they're unwilling to promote bad grades?

    And when your local grocery store decides that they won't sell to you unless you can show a written confirmation from your local church that you have been there the last Sunday, is that still okay ? After all, being devote fundamentalist Christian, the grocer is convinced that you'll burn in Hell unless you convert, so he's simply being caring and trying to do right for you.

    There is a huge difference between caring about people and trying to force your will on them, no matter how benevolent you think you're being. And traditionally, resource starvation has been one of the most efficient ways of coercion, as any army laying siege can tell you. Such enforcement might seem like it's nothing now because it's directed against kids and an unimportant resource; but even kids are human beings and shouldn't be subjected to arbitrary use of power by anyone who cares to do so. Besides, it's best to nip these things in the bud.

    That, by the way, is also where the libertarian concept of "only physical force is coercion" falls flat on its face: I can kill you without ever lifting a finger against you if I control some vital resource.

  • Why is this news? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 17, 2007 @06:54PM (#20644497)
    If he were one of my employees, he would be fired. Not "suspended". (What is he, a school kid?)

    His idea of not selling games to kids with bad grades was a good idea in general, but not if it isn't his own business. His employer should have decided whether or not to implement something like that.

    If one of my employees decided, without my knowing, to refuse to work for "stupid clients" I'd have him canned immediately. So why is this front page news? The headline should read "Man refuses to do job, gets fired."
  • by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @07:18PM (#20644837) Homepage Journal
    Who's taking someone's money and just doing as they would? This story is about someone refusing to take kids money unless they were passing their classes.

    Yeah, it's against the corporatist attitude that you went way overboard trying to defend. But it was an admirable act. Which is why that corporatism sucks.

    Isn't it cool that the people defending corporatism aren't as smart as those who can see that humans are more important than money?
  • Not everyone graduates highschool,
    By the time you're 20, if you haven't graduated highschool or gotten a GED, you're as far outside the norm of "everyone" as someone who's parents were filthy stinking rich.

    and since grades are set based on relative achievement, a certain percentage of kids will always get bad grades
    Nope. Grades are based on absolute achievement -- otherwise they're meaningless. What backwards school did you go to?
  • Re:Bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by C0rinthian ( 770164 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @07:28PM (#20644947)
    Store != Parent. It's not their job to tell the kid "No, you need to study!"
  • Re:Bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by StikyPad ( 445176 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @07:40PM (#20645075) Homepage
    I was going to moderate, but I think you might actually believe what you're saying. So assuming you're not trolling:

    when your local grocery store decides that they won't sell to you unless you can show a written confirmation from your local church that you have been there the last Sunday, is that still okay ?

    No. Religion is explicitly prohibited as a reason for discrimination. What the manager did was not at all unconstitutional. If it was in violation of anything, it was corporate policy.

    There is a huge difference between caring about people and trying to force your will on them, no matter how benevolent you think you're being.

    There's also a huge difference between forcing your will on someone and refusing to do business with them. Namely, the former is generally illegal (with the exception of parent-child relationships) while the latter is perfectly reasonable, provided your business isn't a government protected monopoly like power or water.

    I can kill you without ever lifting a finger against you if I control some vital resource.

    True, which is why vital resources are protected by the government. Video games hardly fall into that category. Your argument of food is hypothetically valid, though in practice no single entity controls distribution, nor is the prospective buyer prohibited from growing/hunting his own, or going to a soup kitchen, etc. Aside from that, using your influence to deliberately cause or contribute to the death of someone else is clearly a criminal act, as is knowingly failing to prevent the death or egregious harm of another in the absence of danger to self or others. It's really a stretch to compare a sales policy on video games to willful disregard for life.
  • by JNighthawk ( 769575 ) <NihirNighthawk@nOSpAm.aol.com> on Monday September 17, 2007 @07:51PM (#20645231)
    I graduated high school with a 2.2 GPA. I *hated* class (but loved high school, since I got to hang out with my friends). Most of my classes were boring and slow, especially AP Comp. Sci. I played video games for *at least* 20-30 hours a week throughout high school.

    Where am I now? Volition, Inc. I'm a game programmer.

    Grades are bullshit, mostly. They're a measure of your desire to let the system mold you, your tolerance for menial busy-work, and your memorization skills. Not all classes are like that (very few at my college were, so I actually liked those classes and studied), but most public education is like that.

    It's none of Gamestop's business what grades kids get. Leave the parenting to the parents.
  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @07:52PM (#20645239)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Fian ( 136351 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @08:10PM (#20645433)
    You are bang on the mark here.

    Many students who would be failing the core curriculum - Maths, English, Science, Humanities would be the ones that excelled at Art, Music, Theatre, Manual arts (shop for those of you in the US).

    Which subjects count in the "test" for good grades?

    From my experience the entire education system places too much emphasis on test/exam results which are more a test of a students ability to memorize and regurgitate than on engagement in discussion, display of reasoning, assignments etc.

    Having said that I do like the idea of discounts for achievement. Motivating kids to work hard for a reward seems to be lacking at the moment.
  • by The Living Fractal ( 162153 ) <banantarr@hot m a i l.com> on Monday September 17, 2007 @08:55PM (#20645895) Homepage
    He wasn't forcing anyone to do anything. He was reserving his right to refuse business to anyone. He doesn't even need a reason.

    And his manager exercised the right to suspend him without pay.

    And the world spins on...
  • by RobertM1968 ( 951074 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @09:15PM (#20646079) Homepage Journal

    Really now, I think you are missing a very valid, important point this whole plan causes... PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT - the parents are forced to be involved in their kids' game-playing choices, as well as the fact their kids are getting good - or bad - grades is a reinforced memory. The fact that this store wont sell the kids games unless they are getting good grades should also thus (hopefully) prompt more parental involvement "Gee, that store manager was right... maybe I should look into other ways besides denying them the latest game to assist them in getting better grades"

    Of course, the reality is probably that more parents, overburdened enough already just trying to make ends meet, will get less involved (or it wont change their involvement at all) under the false sense of security in the fact that "Gee, the store manager has already dealt with that issue"

    Now, as for your change in lifestyle comment... I dont know about you, but if I was getting bad grades, and playing video games, I can guarantee you my parents would insist on a change in my lifestyle... (1) no games, (2) It would hurt sitting for at least a few days from the ass whooping I'd get. Am I condoning #2? No. (Though it was decent incentive for me to be an Honor Roll student)... but things that fit in the #1 category SHOULD be something considered by EVERY parent who wants to see their kids have a chance to succeed. Is school the be-all-end-all for having a successful life? NO... but it does help - in the very least, it opens up opportunities allowing the kid-turning-adult to choose when the time comes. Would you rather that, or a kid that wasnt motivated to do well in school who then complains the rest of his life that all he can be is a janitor? Being a janitor by choice is fine... not having a choice because when you were a kid, there was no incentive for good grades and behavior (and no punishment for bad) is pretty fucked up.

    Your DayCare comment makes no sense... I doubt this story is about the guy not selling to kids in daycare. As for non-daycare school, I had some tough times because I was bored (thus didnt do my work, and had to struggle at the last minute to stay on the honor roll)... but I found that with the right motivation, that changed... got into AP classes, got more mentally challenged (pun possibly intended), and did far better in those classes than in the standard level classes.

    Besides, it really shouldnt matter what SOCIETY does - it should really matter what is right - or wrong... not opinions, not faith, not "everyone does it".

    For this guy to take such a stand, takes guts... funnily, if you go back in time a bit, substitute games with anything else that shouldnt be sold to a certain age, such as... cigarettes... you find something really interesting... he probably would be in the exact same situation had he not sold 17 year olds cigarettes because he didnt think he should be selling something to a kid who may not yet understand the risks they were undertaking... nowadays, if he DID sell those cigarettes, he'd get fined or worse... too much of a stink for the corporations to try to validate such sales. So, know you have a corporation looking for nothing more than making more money - at whatever legal expense, with no moral implications because of a society that doesnt care. And you apparently support that. Nice.

  • by mobby_6kl ( 668092 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @09:31PM (#20646185)
    This guy is a fucking moron. I mean the guy from TFA, not the parent poster. I'll refrain from insults for now although I completely disagree on all counts. To get this out of the way, let's ditch the ratings too, they're bullshit. This way there shouldn't be any confusion about standards.

    First of all, declining to sell the games to customers on random basis (he defines what "good grades" are, doesn't he?) is not what he was supposed to do. If he thought this would be beneficial to the business, he should've talked to the actual owners. He didn't and he got in trouble.

    Secondly, the reason schools are all fucked up is NOT video games. I repeat, video games are not the reason schools suck. I'm rather big on procrastination, and I don't need any games to avoid working on the thesis. Neither do these kids. They'll find something else to do, which would be inevitably more interesting than doing homework. There are many options available, one could argue on slashdot, get drunk with their underage friends, watch paint dry, or, hell, even read a book.

    And finally, even if we ignore the above two points, his negative approach is still stupid. Positive reinforcement would've worked just as well if not much better, without attracting any of the criticism. Simply give kids discounts for good grades. I've seen this done in a local computer hardware store, and while the discount wasn't huge, it was a nice touch. Maybe make each subject graded above X points worth a 5pp discount, or something. The more good grades the kids have, the more games they can buy. Everybody wins.

    So in conclusion, fuck that guy. I'm glad they put a stop to this retarded policy before it could spread anywhere.
  • Almost ironic... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mr_josh ( 1001605 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @09:37PM (#20646225)
    "I don't like your grades, you can't have a game!" "I don't like your business practice, you can't have a job!" There's always somebody one rung up the ladder from you.
  • by tsm_sf ( 545316 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @09:40PM (#20646241) Journal
    Good for you, Mr. Exception. Mr. Rule is the guy filling your soft drink.
  • by LoverOfJoy ( 820058 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @10:19PM (#20646565) Homepage
    In my experience, people use the term "curve" in vastly different ways. I believe the "real" usage of a curve is when the distribution of scores are taken and only the top x% get As the next y% get Bs etc. all the way down to Fs so no matter how hard or easy a test is, someone is guaranteed to get an A and someone is guaranteed to get an F.

    As far as I know, this is only done when there are a lot of people (enough to get a good distribution) and even then typically only in very demanding disciplines (like medical school).

    But some teachers will talk about a curve when they really mean that if everyone gets question #17 wrong then everyone's score will go up by x%

    Another way I've heard people use it is when a teacher says he'll shift the top score in the class to 100% and whatever he has to add to the score will then also be added to every other student. For instance, the smartest kid in the class got a 92%. Then everyone in the class gets +8% added to their score.

    I've seen a lot of variants to these types of "curves" but I've never had a true curve like the one I first described in any of the three colleges I've attended. That's not to say that no teacher in any of the schools I attended ever used a curve...perhaps some did...but I never was in their class nor did I ever hear of a fellow student complaining about it (and I heard lots of students complaining about all kinds of things in their classes).

    I would be really surprised to hear of a high school or middle school that actually brought a kids score down because of a curve. Have you ever heard of a kid getting an 85 on a test but got an F because he happened to be on the low end of the curve (everyone else scored higher)? In my experience, if you did the work and followed the directions you were pretty much guaranteed a B- or higher. Every time I got lower or any of the people I knew got lower, it was because they didn't do an assignment, turned things in late on a regular basis, or something similar.

    I imagine parents would go ballistic if their kid got a C or less in a class simply because, while they did the work well, others did it better.

    You posted as an AC but if you do happen to read this, how were curves calculated and used in your undergraduate classes (and what was your major)?
  • by MetaPhyzx ( 212830 ) * on Monday September 17, 2007 @11:01PM (#20646873)
    You, are the exception to the rule (as was I). I saw this fella on CNN a few days ago, and his argument was that he was bothered by seeing kids come into his store who did not have basic reading skills, yet could tell you anything you wanted to know about the games. His policy was that he would not sell to a kid that was not passing in school, and if any kid got a slate of A's he would pay for a game out of his own pocket.

    While he did overstep he did so out of a legitimate concern. Normally we see something like this in a "moral" light, for instance a pharmacist who refuses to sell the morning after pill, which is completely wrong.

    This man's stance was a desire to see parents involved in what their children were doing, more so than any punishment.
  • by DavidShor ( 928926 ) * <supergeek717&gmail,com> on Monday September 17, 2007 @11:18PM (#20647005) Homepage
    "Anyone who supports the idea that SCHOOL COMES FIRST is alright in my book."

    The idea that school comes first is laughable. Good grades in school are the most effective path to economic prosperity and happiness, but it is not the only path. School is not the goal in and of itself, having a happy and fulfilling life is. For some, school is not the most effective means of reaching this goal.

    "Yes, not everyone graduates high school, but such people are generally LOSERS, destined to crappy jobs, and doomed to a life of ignorance and pushing French Fries."

    I dropped out when I was 14, now I'm a math major in my senior year of college. I realize that I am atypical, but we should not deprive rights based on probability, it is a rather slippery slope.

    "The idea that a certain percentage of kids will get bad grades, as part of the structure of the system, is bogus. If every kid gets 100% on every test, then they will get good grades. If a kid is not doing well on tests, they have far more important things to be doing than playing video games."

    If every kid gets a 100% on a test, the test is meaningless. The relevant authorities will then renormalize the standards so that more capable kids will receive higher scores. Academic ability is normally distributed, so in any system where students with higher academic ability get higher scores, a certain percentage of kids will have lower scores than the average.

    Sure they can renormalize it so that everyone receives a 90 %( and many schools do so), but this is irrelevant, employers and society will quickly adjust their expectation so that these higher grades will once again be considered "failing".

  • by n dot l ( 1099033 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @11:39PM (#20647199)

    Your DayCare comment makes no sense
    The comment makes perfect sense. It refers to the fact that public education in our society has almost nothing to do with education and everything to do with giving parents a place to park their kids while they go off to work.

    If it were really about education then AP courses would be available everywhere. Also, the regular courses would be harder and students would graduate high school knowing the things we teach in first year university. It's not impossible - in fact it's how it's been done for years in Europe (though I hear Europe's been dumbing down as well), and Japan.

    Instead we have a system (the majority of teachers, principals, school boards, regulatory agencies, etc) that doesn't give a shit what the students do so long as they sit still, play nice, and don't cause too much trouble. If that's not a day care I don't know what is.

    Overall I agree, society should stand up for right and wrong, but this isn't the way to do it at all. Not letting kids buy games because they're failing is like attacking gays because straight people are divorcing in record numbers - it's shooting way off target at an only vaguely related "problem".
  • by servognome ( 738846 ) on Monday September 17, 2007 @11:41PM (#20647217)

    Now, as for your change in lifestyle comment... I dont know about you, but if I was getting bad grades, and playing video games, I can guarantee you my parents would insist on a change in my lifestyle... (1) no games, (2) It would hurt sitting for at least a few days from the ass whooping I'd get.
    There are parents who don't care about grades. Why should the values of others (good grades are important) be imposed on them?

    Besides, it really shouldnt matter what SOCIETY does - it should really matter what is right - or wrong... not opinions, not faith, not "everyone does it".
    "Right & wrong" are opinions of individuals and society.

    For this guy to take such a stand, takes guts... funnily, if you go back in time a bit, substitute games with anything else that shouldnt be sold to a certain age, such as... cigarettes... you find something really interesting... he probably would be in the exact same situation had he not sold 17 year olds cigarettes because he didnt think he should be selling something to a kid who may not yet understand the risks they were undertaking.
    It also takes guts for pharmacists to refuse to dispense the "morning after pill." Doesn't mean that society as a whole, or a company should support their unilateral imposition of values.
  • Re:Bad idea (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ranton ( 36917 ) on Tuesday September 18, 2007 @02:55AM (#20648373)
    All that said, discriminating against selling to age-challenged flunkies is probably legal though against store policy.

    You could probably find someone in the NAACP that would argue that since inner city african american children are deprived of educational opportunities, they are more likely to get bad grades. So this policy is unfairly discriminating against African American kids.

    --
  • by Sigma 7 ( 266129 ) on Tuesday September 18, 2007 @03:44AM (#20648657)

    Now, as for your change in lifestyle comment... I dont know about you, but if I was getting bad grades, and playing video games, I can guarantee you my parents would insist on a change in my lifestyle... (1) no games,
    That will not resolve the issue at hand. If a student "learns" an incorrect way to do math (e.g. thinks 7 + 3 = 73, or comes up with a bizarre and incorrect method to calculate the dot product), you want a tutor or some other method of learning. Not providing this is no different than asking Sisyphus to roll a boulder up a steep hill.

    My marks suffered because I cannot write poetry (aside from cheating by writing prose, shaping the paragraph, and claiming it as a "modern poem".) To this date, no tactic I tried work - either I lack the innate ability to do so, or I was never taught any techniques in constructing poems. As a result, increasing the number of hours spent in attempting to write a real poem is increasing the number of hours that would otherwise be better spent working at McDonalds, or at least keeping up with what's going on in the world.

    Would you rather that, or a kid that wasnt motivated to do well in school who then complains the rest of his life that all he can be is a janitor?
    In the North American education system, students are mostly taught by age groups rather than by experience or skill. This results in students that have already mastered course content being required to study what they already know - creating a dilemma between learning and get a bad mark, and drudging and getting a good mark. The smarter students get punished because their bad mark does not resemble their ability in a subject.

    In most RPG games, you don't get level 99 characters by stomping on rats (or if you do, it will take an extra long time). Likewise, you don't progress in school if you constantly study things below your level.

    For this guy to take such a stand, takes guts
    Of course it takes guts. You don't need them on the Internet, since you don't have to worry about your real-life reputation being tarnished. In this case, the guy completely ignores reality and assumes that games are only for people who get a high number on a piece of paper.
  • by plurgid ( 943247 ) on Tuesday September 18, 2007 @09:01AM (#20650411)
    Day after day, this guy has to sell games to little bastards who can barely read the package, and can't tell how much change they're owed.

    How much money do you think a manager of a Game Stop makes?
    I don't really know, but I'd venture to guess, magnitudes less than most of the IT professionals commenting in this thread.

    What do you think the guy had to lose, really? Did he really think his corporate masters were going to stand for FEWER sales where they could have been MORE? Hell no!

    This guy knew full well WTF he was doing, and it was absolutely brilliant.
    He made his statement, and got his 15 minutes ... Game Stop will fire him, no doubt, but with any luck he'll land a sweet "gamer community correspondent" gig with CNN, or write a book or something.

    If you've got to burn out of your just-barely-more-than-minimum-wage job, I can't think of a better way to do it, and with flourish, no less.

    excellently played, sir. Bravo!
  • Screw Gamestop (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Brew Bird ( 59050 ) on Tuesday September 18, 2007 @10:08AM (#20651451)
    I'm not buying there anymore.

    Corporations claim to be all about profit. I can accept that. I WORK for a decent sized corp. But if you don't nurture and maintain the community your profiting from, before long there won't BE a community. This is an incredibly short sighted response. Most people understand you don't shat where you eat.

    Those of you who want to whine about how 'it's the parents responsibility', go ahead. I happen to think this store manager is right on the money. He actually CARES about his customers, which is something that is sadly lacking at most layers of business these days.

    That right there will get him more business and more REPEAT business than all the marketing dollars that trickle down to his store from corporate.

      I don't know where they learn it, but the lack of ethics, morality, or a sense of community consequences in the last 20 years or so of corporate history is just appalling. This is just one more example.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 18, 2007 @12:44PM (#20654725)
    I think the average experience is more on the day care center side than on the really learning side. Your perspective seems lucky or idealized, while the previous 'rings true'.

The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh

Working...